i ocs#|H$tf I KL(Tvr^c^ ' ( CVU*^«. ^IHsH Cyprianus Ifotimus. O R, J. SV VINDICATION Of His Principles of "the Qifrianic tAge CONFUTED. In which, moreover, divers fignal Differences between the Cypianic and Hierarchic Bilhop are Affigned, fome new Pleas and Arguments of the Prelatifts Difcufled, and feveral things of confiderable Confequence and Ufe in the prefent Controverfie Advanced. By William J amefon. Sluod foflea fecundum Divina Magifteria obfervatur in A&is Apoftolorurn ; quando de Ordinando in locum Judae Ajsoftoh Petrus ad Plcbem loquitur ; Surrexit, inquit, Petrus in medi9 Difcentium ; fiat autem turbo, in Uno. Nee hoc in Epifcoporum tantum & Sacerdotum, fed in Diaconorum Ordinationibm objervajfe Apoftolos animadvzrtimiM . Cypr. Epift. 67. p. 172. \ EDINBURGH, Printed for the Author, by the Heirs and SuccefTors of Andrew Anderfon, Printer to the Queens moil Excellent Majefty, Anno DOM. 1705. C ) 10 IHI Serious and Intelli- gent Reader. THE Hierarchies ufe to feek allOc- cafions, even when they pretend to be Difputing from Scripture* to Slide down into Ecclefiaftic Anti- quity, and then look Big, as if they would bear all before 'em y fo that, even when they pretend to ufe Scripture Arguments, their Books are almofi fill" d with Allegations of and Reafonings, froni Humane Writings : This n but Ale an, Where 'tis demonftrated, t6ac Prelacy was impos'd by mere force and Sacriledge, and that the B.^dy of both Paftors and People weie then for Church Government by PaftorsaSing in Parity. 25, 27 § XIII. The Difhonefty o( the Bifliops, and Pufdlanimity o o her Member? of this Glafguan Synod. 2a § XIV, XV, XVI. The Canons of theyear itf^, cordially received and urged by the Hierarchies ; where their grand tlypocrifie is unfolded; and J S's audacious Challenges fatisfied* 32, 37138 § XVII. J. 57s timid and illiberal dealing. 3^ § XV1LL King James unjuftly alledged as a Jure-D;vin9 Hierarchic and yet a difclaimer of the Bifliops Sole Power, by ?. 5. whofe frauds are expofed. 4o §, XiX. King James liked well of the Sole Power of Bifhops, and why ? 43 §. XX, XXI. The Prelatifts pretend that the Superinten- dents had really the. Sole Power of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion : Hence diversofthe Authors he has adduc d are made intirely unfcrviceable to J. S. 45-, 46 § XXII. Peter Hay not againft, but really for the Sole Power of Bifliops; whole profound ofcitancy ( as4s alfo that of/. S.) is noted. 50 S. XXIII. Peter Hay charaaeriz'd. 53 S. XXIV7". Firbes really overthrows Diocefan Epifcopacy, who, notwithstanding, together with his complices, is clear enough for the Sole Power. His Self-repugnan- CV- . 54 §. XXV. The onfincere dealing of the Scmifb Bifliops in their Declinature. 5$ §. XXVI. K Charles I. moft cleaily and exprefly for the Bifliops Sole Power. %& §, xxvii, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxir, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. The reft of the Scottijb Authors adducM by J. S. as being againft the Sole Power ot Bifliops demonftrated to be Unfcrviceable to his defign. $9,60,61, 62 §. XXXVI. Whiugift for no certain Form of Church-Go-i vernment ( as i$ alfo Hwktr)% whs is yet a true Friend The CONTENTS. to Sole Power ; yea, as in many other places, fo in that very PafTage, which /. S. cited to prove, that he was for the contrary. Page 6j §, XXXVII. Sutlivius for no Form of Church Government, and yet moft clear and poficive for the Sole Power of Bi/hops. 68 §. XXXVIII. Downame disclaims Sole Power, who yet no lets clearly, in contradiction to himfeV^ pleads for Sole Power : He is a Lathuiinarian. 70 §. XXXIX. Bilfen is uodenyably for Sole Power, as is alfo J. S. himfelf : His moft unfair dealing by Caldtrwotd and the Author of the Parackfi. 7S §< XL. Vbrtm dcftroys Epifcopacy and contradi&s hinv» felf. 81 §. XLI. Field really gives Domination and Sole Power to the Bifhops. Ibid. §, XLII. Bifliop Andrews for Sole Power, And J. S's ridiculous Paralogifms expofed. 8$ §. XLHI, XLIV. Davenant clearly and fully for Sole Power. Where 'tis prov'd, that J* S. is of the fame mind, and his Diffimulation difcovered. 84, 86 §. XLV. J. S. proves not Ghillingworth to have beenagainflf Sole Power. ?S §. XLVI. Bifliop Ujher and Dr. Hildfworth witnefs that al) the Englijh Bilhops poffcfTd and exerc'd the Sole Power. Aid. § XLVII. Bifliop H*U moft clear and full for Sole Power. 90 §. XLVIIX, XLIX, L. J. S. deferted by a Cloud of his Authors. 96, P7> 9* §. LL A. r>e Deminis moft fully and palpably for Sole Power. Where Csldsrwod is vindicated from Ji S*s perverfions. iqo §. LII. Dr^ TayUr mud mtm&ft fur Sole Power ; as is alfo J. S. himfelf, who palpably bewrays his intended Fraud and Di ffi nutation. 106 §. LUI. Dr. Hammond undenyably clear for rhe Sole Power, where J. S's furprifing condition is opened. no §, LIV. Mr. BtdweU moft pofitive for the Bifhop's Sole P^wer and Abfolute Monarchy. 1 14, §, LV. Other Authors, befide thefe cited by ?. S. refer- red to. ng §. LVL J. s'$ account of the Engli[b Confutation fo far % H 2 from The CONTENTS. from helping him, that it, and the Church of EvglanJs Poftice quite overthrow his Caufe. pag« 119 § LVH. Bhndel perverted by f*S. iai § LViH. J $'s Ignorance or DiffinulatJon o^the grand H>rarchical Prnciple- which is manifefrJy Pop"fli. 124 § LIX. The B'ittnmic Hierarchicks give thr; Ki :g a Papil Power. *26 §. LX» ?• S's Brittnnic Bifhop differs from the Cyfrianic in an Eflenoal or Chara&cntVical note ; vit. The Power of Oidiwacion. His vain hope of relief from Mr, Rule. it § LXI. 7. 5. For the Bfhop's Sole Power of Jurifdiction, whle he pretnds the contrary : He clafhes with himfelf, and turns a Presbyterian. 130 ' §. LXU. ?• $• in attempting to propugn the Identity of the Cfprtanic and Bitannic B.fhop, is monftm^ufly abfurd, mate lefsly felf-repugnant| confounds a Negative Vote© wit i Sole Power, palpably gives to the Bifliop the Sole Power,and an uncontrolled and unconfin'd Licence, and finally deftroys Prelacy itfclf. 13$ §. LXIIL The Lnprovemtnt of 7. $'* Conceffions, and the Conclufon of the Chapter. 14? G H A P. II. That the Britannic Hierarchy is no lefs really Romifli, than the Italic, Suftatnd and Dewonftrated. §. I. np^He Title of J. s's ofh Chapter impertinent ani JL fallacious. Page ijo § II The Prelatifts with Papifts lay, in the chief Matters of Faith, too much ftrefs on Humane Writings. 7. S*s odd Defence of their PraQtxe. i$t § III. Some Argutations brought by J. S. to vindicate Epifcosacy from a Tendency to Popery difcuffed. 154 §, IV* f. S. in copying his Hierarc^' from th<; Jewift, and ft'icfcmg to Jewifti Terms joyns with Papifts, abufes the Fathers, and isRetuted by the moil leading DoSors of xlwEntlifb ChuiCh. *57 §. V . The CONTENTS. $. V. T. S while he makes his Diocefan Bifli-p the High Prieft, Head and Principle of Uaity to his Church, maintain* a Popifli Prir.c pie. He vainly attempts to purg? /iimfelf, and to datken t^e State of the Queftion. Ijaar Bsrrov his Acknowledgment that the Fathers had n* g ound for this Principle. Pige 161 J VI An Abftraft of the Hierarchies their Doftrine con- cerning the Biftiop*s being the Principk of Un;ty to the Church, from the Writings of Mr. DidwtU. i6$ §. VII. The fhange Conduft of the Prelatifts and odd Ar- guings from Jih. 4. 2 u for Diocefan Epifcopacy : They are confuted by the Church oiEnglind Divines- 171 § VIII. D9dwtU\ Doftrine Romifb. 177 § IX The Reafons and Grounds that fet the Diccef*n Bi- fh^p over o'her Paftors, are no lefs effc&ual to fet the pope over Dioeefansand other Bjfhops. 178 §, X, XI XII. Thar thefe fame Principles and Grounds that fet Diocefm Bi&ops over other Paftors, fet alfo Me- tropolitans over D' that the Do- Snn,- the Jtnfiuifl held in Oppofition to the Jefmts and Moltnifts is tri.lv an'd properly Popfn. 20c §. XIX. XX, XXI, XXII J. S. pretends and gives out, that the Doftrine of Def-nfive Arms, and the Arguments for it, are Popifli : Whivh monftruous Faifliood is large- ly a. »d in efrag rib y confuted. 208, 209, 210, 212 \ XXIII, ?f $t mo ft furprjztr gly intimates, that tKU Po- ll U 3 PA- The CONTENTS. pfth Dlftlnaion, viz., That Bifliops and Presbyters i* not make two different Orders, tat only two Degrees of the fame Order of the Priefthood, is notPr^iaticil, and im* pudendy affirms, chat 'tis adopted by the Presbyterians for tHeir better Defence of Presbytery. Blondel brought as a Voucher of this Falfhood, who yet propugns the very contrary! Page 21S §. XXIV* The Diftinaion proved to be falfeand fictitious by a Multitude of mod cogent Arguments. 221 §. XXV. J. 5's fraudulent Perverfions of Blonde! clearly de« tected.' 129 §. XXVI, J. s. amazingly retorts on us, as Pepifh Doctrine, our Rejecting of the Prelatical Pofition, That Bifkofs, at making a Peculiar Co'lege, an Order diftinft from the Order of Presbyters ; are the Suceeffors of the Apoftlesin the Supreme Power Eeclejiaflical : Which Doctrine of ours is vouched to be moft Artipopifh by the univerfal Confent of both Prote- ctants and Papifts, and even of Bellarmin himfelf, 532 §, XXVII. Who is moft fraudulently adduced to prove J. S's monftruous AfHrtion: 237 §. XXVI I J, XXIX. He is in the place by % S. alledged a famous Witnefs of the Truth, contradicting the main Pa« pal Principlesi and overthrowing the Papacy it felf, which is largely difcovered and proved out of the Jefuir himfelf and the moft approved Church of England Divines, who affirm and (hew, that every Particle adduced by 7* 6< hurts and deftroys Popery? 238, 241 §. XXX. Some trifling Attempts againft the fecond part of our Charge, viz That Prelacy paves the way to Popery repulfed, m& Bellarmin fallacjoufly and abfurdly by J. Si adduced. *SO §• XXXI. The reafonlefs Railing of the Sectaries againft the Subordination of leffer Ecclefufical Judicatories togreat^ er, fenfefcfly retorted. * S3 §. XXXIL As are the Debates between Protefters and Re- folutioners. **j §. XXXVIIL Danam amply juftifies our ufe of the Argu* tmnr. 273 § XXXIX. As does Chamier. 275 §. XL. And Stlmtfw, where ?. S's odd dealing is unfold- ed. 277 $. XLI. Tamtinin exprefs Terms ufes the Argument as we tfo againft the Epifcopals, 279 §. XLII. Wkitfiker moft clearly approves of our ufe of the Argument. 280 $. XLIIf. If Whitahr, Jewell, and other famous Doctors and Bifhops in Queen Elizabeth** time, were Presbyteri- ans. 282 §* XL1V. J.s. unfuccefifully attempts to defend Dr. B*rm net. 287 S% XLV. And vainly boafts of what he never perform* ed. 291 §. XL VI. The true Defciiption of a Popifh Da^iine af- fign'd and proved. 29a §. XL VII.- The Obje&ion Prelatifts bring from the Con* ftitution of the Bwkvmtwm QUuiih clearly and fulty fatis^ fied/ 296 5. XLVUI. 7. 5's amazing Defence of the Prelatical Pomp and Majefty. 399 §, XLIX. Divers Momentuous Things, wherein Prelatifts agree wirh Papifts, named i with an Admonitory Con- clufion to 3. S, 3*3 CHAP: 7he contents: GHAP. ill That tho Cyprian and his Contemporaries had behevd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, yet their Belief and lefitwonjf could not be enough to Prove it. §. I. T. S's Argument, taken from the Shortnefs of Time • J between the Apoftlcs and Cyprian, fully fatis- fi'd. Page 3oy~ S. H, III. IV. His Argument brought from fomePifTages of Kmx's Hiftory, to prove that our Reformers proceed- ed on the Principles of Imparity, and the Author of the Fundamental Charter his Argument taken from feme " Words of Buchanan, to prove that they embraced the img^ li(h Rites and Ceremonies,irreparably ruined. 307,309,315 $. V. If Avarice, Envy, Ambition, and fuch V ces had no place among the Clergy of the Third Century ; and if there were no Tentations unto them, largely dif- cuffed. 322 §. VI. 7. S's ftrange Reafoning. "534 S. VII, VIII, IX. Strange Failings in the gteateft Men, and much Alloy in the . Miracles and Manifeftations, whereby 7. 5. pretends, that the Fathers of the Third Age were fecuied from Errors in Do&rine or Pra- * £Hce. 132, 314 §. X, XI. The Fathers of the Thiri Century guilty of many and great Errurs, ihc greateft Men of the Church of Eng'and being Judges. 335, 338 5. XII. And in fpeeial, Cjfrian, whofe great Errors znd Lapfes, together with thefe of other Fathers, are plainly confefs'd and related by great Prelatifls. 339 5." XIII, XIV, XV. The preceeding Doarine of the Lap* fes and Stains of the Ancients vindicated from the falfe and abqfive Inferences gf P 0e;0ns 9r Drifts, Atrians and F*t'fa 34*> 34$» 35® CHAP, ^CONTENTS. CHAP. IV. That not Epifcopacy, but its contrary, Pref- byfcry, teas Believd by Cyprian and his Contemporaries to be of Divine Right. §. I. T. S\ grand Argument taken from Cyprian's words J to Rogatian turn'd upon its Author; and a clear * Demonftration brought from thence, that Cyprian and his Contemporaries bcliev'd the Divine Right of Parity among Paftors, or of Presbytery. Page 3 55 §. II. Cyprian and his Contemporaries thought they were allow'd to Divide the Office or Order of the Epifeepate, as alfo of the Dtaconate into various Degrees, contrary to that which they knew and acknowledged to have been Inftituted by Chrift. 3*6 §. III. Cyprian and his Collegues, in their Epiftle to the . Churches of L'gio and Emerita, moft clearly depofe, that Bijbop and Prieftlov Presbyter, are, by Chrift's Inftitution, . Reciprocally one and the fame. 360 §. .IV r That Cyprian believed nor the Divine Right of Epifcoparcy, but, e contra, that of Parity, is manifefted ] from hence, that he ufed none of the Scriptural T< pkks commonly alledged by Prelatifts. J. S.- overturns the gralad Argument of Prelatifts* 362 §. V. Cypridifs Scriptural Reafonin^s for Obedience to Bifliops, from which J. S concludes, that he believ'd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, diffidently evince, that he never believ'd any fuch thing. 365 §. VI. ?. S's principal Argument, to prove that Cyprian *as for <"he Divine Right of Epifcopacy, proves the very contrary. 369 $. VII Cyprian gives no more Power to Bifhops over Presbyter, then to Peter over the reft of the Apoftles; jnd affirms, that all the Apoi'tles were complearly equal in Power and Honour; and therefore irrefragsbly proves, that he believed not the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, but of its contrary, Parity* 371 1 ir if §. viii. The CONTENTS. §. VIII. Mr. DodwelW groundlefs and wild Fancy, tbat &ter was Equal with the reft of the Apoftles, and yet» in another Refpc£l> Bifhop over all of "em, explode cd. Page 375 §. IX. Divine Providence obfervable in this, that Cyprian and his Contemporaries Depofe for Parity among Paftors, in the very places, wherein, as the Hierarchies pretend, they are pofitivc againft it. 377 §. X. Other clear Teftimonies of Cyprian and his Contem- poraries for Parity among all Paftors of Chrift's Inftitu- tion, which are vindicated from jF.$'s Depravations. 37! §. XI. Why Cyprian and his Contemporaries ufed none of the prefenr Prelatical Arguments for Epifcopacy. 379 §. XII, XIII. The ftrange and deceitful way, whereby Diocefan Epifcopacy entered the Church. 381, 384 §. XIV, XV. Divers places of Cyprian vindicated from ?• S's Pervcrfions. 386, 39 r §. XVL /. S's Argument, to prove Aat Pontius, Cyprians Deacon was for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, de- feated. 3 9 j §- XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI. Origen vindicated from 7- S's Depravations, and proved to have believed the Identity of Scriptural Bifhop and Presbyter, or Parity among all Paftors of Chrift'slnftitution. 396. to 413 $. XXII, Firmilian believed, that all Paftors of Chrift's In- ftitution fucceeded the Apoftles Alone, and are Equal in Power and Honour: Where all J. S's falfe GlofTes and Detortions of Firmilian's Words arc difcovered and ex< plowed, 413 § XXIII 7. S. unfuccefsfully applyes to Rome for Sue c^urs. 420 § XXIV. J. S's main Argument, which is brought from tksCare Godf as they believed, took cfche Ancient Bi- fliops, aad the Revelations he gave them, routed and bafffd. t 411 §. XXV. Clemens AUxandrinm clearly Dichotomizes the Orgy, and Identifies Bifliop and Presbyter ; where B. Pe**fins Exception is defeated. 427 § XXV U TiTtailian clearly identifies Bifhop and Presby- t~re where D- S. P*rktr's Obje&ions are overthrown. 433 $ XXVII. The Author of the Apoftolic Conftitutions I- denrifu* Bifhop and Paftor. A (hort Account of the preceed- The CONTENTS. preceeding Difcourfes. /. S's topping Argument in> verred. P»gc 43* §, XXVIIL The Teftimony of BtfiUut Magnus for the Identity of Bifhop and Presbyter produced .• And alfo che Teftimony of the Fourth Council of Carthage, and the Mift 7. S. rais'd againft it, difpelkd, 44° CHAP. V. The vafl Difcrepancj/ between the Cyprianic and Hierarchic Bifloops unfolded* §. I. 'TT^HE typrianic Bifhop prefided over but one only 1 Presbytery; The Hierarchic Bi&op. has either many Presbyteries, or not any Presby- teries. Page 447 §. II, HI, IV. The Gyfrtanit Bifhop was a Conftant Preach- er, and had a peculiar Flock ; in both which he was quite another thing than is the Hierarchic. The Bifhops continued to be iuch fome fpace after the Cyfrianic Age. 452 45i §. V. The Idea of a Bifhop and Paftor was in the Third Age reciprocally one and the fame. 4 56 §. VI. Cyprians Ordinary Work was Teaching and Preach- ing; 457 §. VII, VIII, IX. And that of one fingle Fleck or Con- gregation ; which one Flock or Congregation alone, made up his whole Diocefs: 458, 460 §. X. The grand Objection taken out of Tertullian, anfwer. ed out of Tertullian. 464 §. XI» Dr. Maurice his Obje&ion taken from the great Sum of Money colle&ed by the Clergy and People of Cathag* owned by Mr. Dsdwtll to be of no Force. 467 §. XII, XIII. Ochers of his Reafonings overturned, where he clalhes with his Friendsi Pamehw and Dr. Fell, 468 §. XIV. His Argument taken from the Paacity of Bifhops met in Councils everted ; where he is again by the Ears with Dr. Fell. 47 ^ §. XV, That the meaneft of places had their proper Bifhops, and every Congregation had one, evidently proved. 476 n^ §. xvi, The CONTENTS. § XVI. Which is further evinced by the Conceflions of our Adverfaries. Page 477 §. XVIL Dr. Mauric's Objection, taken from the Inconve- niency of fpacious Meeting Places in the PrimitiveTimes, fully fatisfied out of Mr. Dodvtell, Lamfriditu, and Dr. Burnet. 479 §. XVIII. J. S\ Self-repugnancy and Difingenuity. 483 § XIX. ThHr Objeftion, to wit, That there might be but one Bifliop in a City, fufficiently refuted out of the Obfervations and Conceflions of Dr. Maurice. 484 §. XX, Thar a Bifliop and a Conscientious Minifter of the VVcrd and Sacraments, are reciprocally one and the fame* largely and clearly proved out cf the Apoftolick Conftirutions ; about which Book the Prelatifts are fal- len out among themfelves. 487 §. XXI, XXII. That there ought to be no fewer Bifhops, than there are Pariflaes or Congregations, is the Native Confequence of their Opinion, who hold the Lord's Sup- per to be a real and proper Sacrifice ; where Mr. D$d~ v>ilfs Exception is removed, and that anciently there were no fewer, is proved by the Apoftles Canons, and the Con* ceflions of Dr. Maurice and Mr. Dodwell. 491, 492 § XXIIL XXIV. Their Argument for the Amplitude of Ancient Bifhopncks taken from Rome, and fuch Cities, canvafs'd and difTolved. Their Objection taken cut ofoptatu* anfwered out of Lafebius, and by the Ac- knowledgments of our Adverfaries. 494, 495 § XXV. Congregational Epifcopacy not Hierarchic, tho* it paved the way thereto: The Author of Imparity Patro- nizes idle Biflv ps, and perverts Ign»tiiu and Polycarp. 499 §. XXVI. Divers very confiderable Differences between the Cypnanic and Hierarchic Bilhop briefly mention'd. 50a CHAP. the CONTENTS. CHAP. VI. The Peoples Power in Choofing their hifhop or P after Affirted and Vindicated. And the Divine Right of Ruling Eiders Sufttind. §. I. T.S.his State of the QuefHoncorre&ed. Page 50$ $.II,III,IV J Cyprian's clear Teftimonies for the Peoples Power in the Ele&ion of their Bifhop or Patior, piodu- ced, and fully vindicated ; where j. S. clafhes with Dr. FeS: And the Ground of the Difference between the Praftices of the African and Akxardrian Churches in Elefti- on of their Bifhops, is difcovcred. 507, 511, 515 §. V, VI. The Chriftian People had a Power of prefervmg their Liberties, and a Share in Management of Church Affairs, which they exercifed by themfelves, or rather by their Seniors or Rahng Elders. 514, 518 §. VII. Pontius his Teftimonies for the Peoples Power in the Ele£tion of their Bi(h°p adduced and vindicated. Ibid. § VUI, IX, X, XI. Another clear and full Teftimony of Cyprian, and of a whole Synod with him, for the Peoples Power, and Ele&ion of their Bifhop, adduced, and J. S. his Depravations and Tergiverfations, as alfo his forced, yet evident Confeflions of the Truth we plead for, lu« culently expofed. Sl9, $*6, 5**, S}° §. XII. His Argument for the Synods Belief of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, 'Enervated. 533 § XIII. His Abufe of Origen and Ltrnpridiu* discovered. $34 §« XIV. Our Doftrine provd by the Pra&ice of the L&i* dicean, Roman and other Churches, during the Gyprianic - *Se* SIS §. XV. This Pra&ice was in vigor both after and before the Cjpri ante sfge 537 § XVI J. S's DoSrine palpably Popifli. 538 §. XVII. J. S's fpecial Argument againft the Divine Right of Ruling Elders overthrown. Blonde fs Hypothefis fu- ftain'd, which is aflerted and proved by the moft Learn'd of the Church of England. $40 H H .11 3 §• XVIII. The CONTENTS. $. XVlll. The great Antiquity of Ruling Eldets made appear from truly ancient Authors; and all?. S's Excep- tions againft and Depravations of their Teftimonies re- pelled. 544 §, XIX, Bifhop WWugift yielded, That there were Ruling Seniors from the very Infancy of Chriftianity ; which is prov'd againft ?. S. 548 §. XX He is injurious to the Authors of Jus Divinum Re« gimtnti Ecdefiaftici, as is alfo Tborndike ; his falfe Imputati- on and Sclr repugnancy. 549 §, XXI. Famous Hierarchies diftiaguifh Eldets into Preach. ingt and Nov Preaching, or Ruling ones : Dod&efs Antichriftian Notion of a Presbyter 01 Paftor. Saravias Conceffion. 550 §. XXII. The Scotti[b Hierarchies unjuftly and felf-repug- - nantly impugn the Ufa of Ruling Elders. $ 53, §. XXIIL In which they joyn with the Papifts. Ibid. §. XXIV. The Sattifh Presbyterians abfolyed from 7. S. his Charge, viz. That they clafli with their Brethren beyond Sea, and endeavour to deceive the People. $56 $. XXV. The Uhjuftnefs of J. S's Suit evidenced; A ferious and wholefom Admonition given to him, or his Hyper- afpift, with which the Work if concluded. 558 ERRATA. P\g. 2. lin. 3. dele who. p. 14* 1, 19. read Oligarchy, p. if. 1. 2. r. Members, p. 27. 1. 23. r. Record, p. 57. Marg* r. 203. p. 68.1. 13. r. Service, p. 69 1. 1. in Marg. dele /W*f. p. 75. 1.9. fupple te\ p. 81. 1. *i. the Words in Parenthefi fhould be in Italick. p. 89 1, 10. r. Bifbof. p. 114. 1. 5. dele they* p. 128. 1. 7. r. pware r^ewi. p, 177. 1. 23. dele (,) after Popifh. p. 223. 1. penult, after Romans add than from the Jews* p. 230. 1. 13* for compleaP r. confi* derable. p. 256. 1. \>t» far from, p. 263* 1. 22. r. Hubert*. p« 295. 1. 14. add immediatly after Deacon* p. 299, L J. ri Zfte Hierarchies, p. 307. 1. 12. r. all theje Uatteru p. 350. Marg. n Part for P**g. p. 370, 1. 20. dele ever. p. 394. 1. ult. r. iajy. p. 399. 1* 29. dele who. p. 404. It 2. r. Confti* tutions. p. 41$. Marg. 1. 3. r.permanet. p. 433 1. 16. r. up. p. 518. 1. 3. after or rather the People, add had a convenient Share in Government and Difcipline. (x) Cyprianus Ifotimus. CHAP. I That the Hierarchic^/ give to their Diocefan Biftiop SO L E TO WE R of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, invincibly Demonstrated. [S Tyranny and Abfolute Do- mination is one of the moft hard Fates, and moft lamen- table Conditions that readily can light upon any Society ol Rationals; fo Spiritual Ty- ranny and Domination brings with it the moft deteftable kind of Slavery, and is by far more Criminal, than the heavieft Oppreffi- on of Mens Bodies and external Concerns, It is that whereby the Nobleft Part of the Nobleft Creature is bereaved of its nobleft Priviledge, and debased into the ftate of the bafeft things of the Creation ; Ic is a fin wherein none but the worft and moft noxious of creatures delight ,• It is, finally, the moft mifchievous and hateful quality of the Apo- calypcick great City, and that wherein fhe more efpecially relembles Egjft and Babylon. But of all kinds of Tyranny moft abominable and Diabolick is that which is occult and diffembled : The Whore becomes Riuch mojffi deteftable, when ftv« wiPes A" *fiJ i Cjfrianui Ifotimm. Chap. L her mouth, and faith, fhe has not finned. This is, fo to fpeak a crowning Impiety ,• as if a High- way- man ^ho, when he has wounded, bound, and johb'd the Traveller, ibould yet in the Captive's face impudently deny it & with prolix addiefs en- deavour to prove that he n^d never done any fuch thing ; and foadd rothe reft of his Miferies Scorn in the higheft degree. Wherefore Yhalaris% who, for oughc we know, never denied himfeif to be a Lawlets Tyrant, dealt much more fairly, orrather much lefs foully, than Tiberius, who fcornfully pretended that all was done by the Senate% when he and all men knew, that none of the Senators durlT but mutter againft any thing which gratified the paflions of the Tyrant. The former is com- monly imitated by the Roman and other Tranlmarine Prelates, the latter by thofe of our Ifland, who loudly claim to themfelves the SOLE and Whole TOWER of Ordination and JurifMfticnt and ftill, where they can,ufurp a boundiefs Power over both Paftors and People,- and yet no lefs boldly both fay, and Swear, if you will, that they never either c). in/d orpra&is'd any fuch thing, and challenge theirChallengers ofthe raoft impudent SIander,and injurious Calumny imaginable,* yea, alare Advocat of the party, whom I ihall defign by the letters J. S. not only reje&s, with others, the Charge, as a foul Slander, but is raoft prolix and laborious in their purgation: Him I lhall more particularly call to an account^ fully fcoure off all his paint, and de- monftrate, that all the Soap and Nitre he has brougr.t, or that he, or any man elfe (hall or can bring, is of no ufe at all, if it be not to fhew that the Stain is indelible, and by no means ever to be emaculated. And for the better undemanding of not Chap. I. Cyprianns Jfotimusl ^ not only this Quefiion, but the whole fubfequent Difcourfe. take itsOccafion and Rile as follows. j$\ II. A certain Author of a Book, called, An Apology for the Clergy of Scotland, had thus argued, Cyprian's Notion of Schifm is, when one feparateth from his own Bi(hop l this the Presbyterians do ; Ergo. To which Argument Mr. -Relate Principal of the College of Edinburgh, in the Defence of his VindU cation of the Church of Scotland, gave the follow- ing Anfwer : * A Bifhop in Cyprian s time, was \ not a Diocefan, with Sole Power of Jurifdi&ion 4 and Ordination. If he prove that, we fliall give c Cyprian and him leave to call us Schifmaticks. A € Bifhop then, was Paftor of a Flock, or the Mo- c derator of a Presbytery, &c* In oppofition to this Anfwer, J. S. pubiifhed aTreatife of about 12^ Sheets, called, The Principles of the Cyprianic Age, and therein ftiffly denys, that Sole Power of Ordi- nation and lurifdi&ion is either challenged by Bi(hops,or given them by their Adherents. € What ' could move him ( faith he ) to infinuate, that •weaffignthe SOLE POWER of Jurifdi&ion and • Ordination to our Diocefan BiJliops ? When did •our Bifhops claim that SOLE POWER} When « was it aicribed to them by the Cov(lituticn1 1 When did any of our Bifhops attempt to exercife 1 it t When did a Scotifb Bifhop ( He fhould have added, or an Englijh Bifhop ,• for of the latter the former are only Imitators, Apes and Shadows, who, if perhaps they forbear to be fo arrogant, thereby confulc only their own quiet, ) goffer, 1 e. g. to Ordain or Depofe a Presbyter, without 'the concurrence of other Presbyters/ When was cfuchaSOL£ POWER deemed neceffary for rai? * fing aBiflbopto all the due Elevations of Epifcopal A z € Autho- 4 Qpriaffus Ifolitnuu Chap. I « Authority ? How eafie is ic to diftinguifh between i a SOLE and a CHIEF Power ? Between a Power « Superiour to all other Powers, and a Power Ex- 'clufive of all other Powers,#r.(*) Mr. Rule in his Cyprianio Bijhop Examined^ &C. which he op- pofed to J. S« his Tratife, does, with no lefs affurance, averr, that our Hierarchic Bifhops claim to themfelves the SOLE POWER of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, and that, " If they Ihun to exer- 'cife it, atleaft openly, by not laying on of hands * without Presbyters ; it is becaufe they know that * pra&ice Cannot take, nor be born with in a Na- € tion where Parity hath been fo much known, * and generally liked: I always underftood (continues * he ) that the main thing debated between us and « the Prelatifts,was about the SOLE POWERof Ju- 4 rifdi&ion and Ordination, and I am not alone 'inthis, eK. And in brief, he afferts that one moft fignal and fubftantial difference between the Cyprianic and Hierarchic B'fhop confifts in this,that the former neither claimed nor exercM the SOLE POWER of O dmation and Jurifdidion ; but the latter claim and exerce the SOLE POWER of both. To this Tra&at J. S. oppofd a Book of nigh 72; Sheets, called, A Vindication of a Difconrfe ehtiinled% The Principles of the Cyprianic /rge, in the IV. Chapter whereof throughout, he, granting that the Cyprianic Bi(hop exerc'd not the SOLE POWER of Jurifdiffion, with great earneftnefs and prolixity, labours to prove, that none of their Biftiops did ever challenge to themlelves the SOLE POWER of either ; and that none of that Per- fwafion 'allow'd it unto them ,• yea, on the con- trary, that all oFem difclaim'd anddeny'dit, and {a) tW *i &GCUltS Chap* I- Cypriafius Ipumus. 5 accufes S/Lr.Rule of a grofsMif ftating of the Que- .ftion, that he might find a Subterfuge. and divers other Reafons ,• and cl us ftili labours to perfwade his Reader, that Mr. Rule, in his Cyprianic Bifoop, &c. contradicted whathehad laid elfewhere, deferted the irue ftateof the Que- ftion, viz. Parity or Imparity, and finally, gran- ted Imparity to be lawful, provided only thac SOLE POWER of Ordination and Jurifdiftion be not admitted. $. III. But feing there may be an Imparity which comes fo near to Parity, as that the difference is fcarcedifcernable, and which differs much more from SOLE POWER of Ordination and J«ri/#- Bion^ than a Dwarff from a Giant, or a Mole-hill from a Mountain* and therefore feing, tho' neither of them be Lawful, yet the one, if compared with the other, is very Tolerable, whereas the other is (')§•*< (0 5.102, compleatly 6 Cjpriams Ifotitttus. Chap. I# compleatly Tyrannical ,• And finally, feing, as Mr. Rule fuppofed, the Hierarchicks ftill- plead not on!v for Imparity, but chiefly and mainly for this SOLE POWER, and ftill, where they can or dare, really and ineffed: exercife it • Well, and without the leaft appearance of ipconfiftency with himfelf, might Mr. Rule fay, That the main thing debated between us and the Prelatifts was about the SOLE POWER 'of Jnrifdiftion and Ordination. I fay, well might he fay this without the leaft appearance of anv acknow- ledgment of the lawfulnefs of Imparity. The Pope's belt beloved Sons, and Rome's more genuine Chil- dren, defend his Incontroliable, Defpotick* and Autocratoric Power over all Churches and Paftors: Now a Proteftant,who yields to the Pope no Power at all over other Churches and Paftors, being to attack this his pretended Power, ftates the Queftion according to the mind of the Pope and the more true fort oi Papalines, and fo at this Autocratoric Power leveils his main Arguments, as being a main or chief thing in Queftion : A Papift, who yields only to the Pope a more moderated and re- gulated Power, ( for many fuch Papifts there are ) or whOj being more fagacious, knowing that if he maintain the Popes defpotick Powerjhe could make no great flourifii and appearance, except he ihould diffembie and mif-ftate the Queftion, en- counters the Proteftant, and thus accoafts him: Sir, You have mif-ftated the Queftion, and fo wrong'd the Gatholicks, and moreover, by this yourmif ftatingof k, have yielded really all they plead for ; a moderated and regulated Power to the Pope, which is all they leek ,• and fo you have, in effed, deferted your own Caule, and coetra- didled what you ellewhere ufe to affirm. By your favours, Chap. T. CyfrUnus Ifotimus. J favours. Sir, replyes the Proteftant, Matters are much otherwife ,• For, feing a moderated or regu- lated Power, if compared with the A,u?ocraioric Power fhould be very eafy and tolerable, I can never be juftly deem'd to have allowed the former as lawful, altho* I affirmed that the latter is the main, chief, or fpecial thing in Queftton ; And feing Rome, and all her more genuine IlTue claim to fhe Pope this Defpotick Power, and p ead tor it, tantjuam pr$ arts & focis9 I cannon be juftly reckoned to have mif ftated the QueftiOn ; As for you, Sir, if you ufe not mental Refervuions, but fpeak as you think, Rome will but, at beft, count you a Schifmatick, if not a Herecick, tho' ihe gi^e you fomeTolcration,that her multuude may be the greater* which is to her a Note of the true Church. Now it is undenyabie that this Proreftant is moft unjuftly challenged, and that the defence j fuppofe him to make, is moft fair and rational ; and yet the cafe between Mr, Rule and J. S. is to a h^ir the fame: For never was there vet a Hierarchic Author who did not roundly aleribe to their Diocefans the SOLE POWLR of Ordination and Juri/Jiai«n, except either fuch as were grofs Ignoramus'** of the Do&rine of the Hierarchies, yea and of the very Principles and Foundations of the Hiera;chy, or elle egregious Prevaricators, willfuil Shuffiers,moft difingenuous Diflemblers of their own chief and fundamental Doflrines and Principles, contradict- ing frequently their Brethren, yea themfejves as really as ever they contradicted the Presbyterians, or elfe,finally,fuch as, tho' they were either Biitops themfelves, or coraplyed with Epifcopacy, did yet really difown anddifclaim the very foundation and grand Principles of the Hierarchy. fflV. * CyffUnus Ifotimus. Chap, h $. IV. All which things I fliall make as clear as the Light by Proofs and Witneffes as evident, com- petent, and every way unexceptionable, as can in a matter of this Nature either be adduced or de« fir'd. And I (hall give the firft place to the Canons and Gonflitutims Eccle/iaftical for the Ghurch of Scotland, approved by the King, Anno 16;^ Mr. Rule ( d) affirms that the SOLE POWER of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion is there afcribed unto Bifliops. J. S. in his Anfwer ( e ) denys it, And as to the SOLE POWER of Ordination Mr. Rule producd Ch. 2. Can* 5. " No Pjerfon (hall hereafter be received 1 into holy Orders, without the Examination of his * Literature, by the Arch-Bifliop or Bifhop of the cDiocefs, or by their Chaplains appointed to that €Work, who (hall examine every feveral party, as c they find Caufe. From which Qanm Mr. Rule inferrs, that the Tower of Determining who (liall be ordain d% is laid on the Bifhop. J. S. thus retorts ; cc By the conftant practice of the Church of Scotland, 'everfince Epifcopacy was Eftabliflied, the Pref- f byters ot the refpe<5Hve Presbytries have been the f only Examinators of thefe who were to enter in- € to the Miniftry,at any Church within the Bounds €df thefe Presbytries,- Ergo, by the eonftant c practice of the Ghurch of Scotland, even under c Epifcopacy, Presbyters have had the SOLE * POWER of Ordination. Thus J. S. But fince this is afcribed to Birtiops only by the Canon, the fame Canon muft neceffarily fuppofe that any Li- berty of Examining Intrants then or afterward enjoy'd by Presbyters or Presbytries, was granted fhem out of the Bifhops meer Clemency, and not C 4 ) C;pr. Bifo, §. 6. (e) Chap. *, §. 13. other- Chap. h Cjprianuf Ifotim^s. 9 otherways belonging unto them, which Power he might, at pleafure, exercife without them, yea or even in opposition to all their joynt Votes : Which, were there no more, cornpleatly baffles J* S. his pretended Retortion. He knows more- over^that by this time, i/i&. 16; y. Presbytries were fo felled and cruftied, and Presbyters, as he calls them, fo overaw'd and difpiriced, that fcarce had Presbytries fo much as the fhew of any Power or Liberty, or Paftors the courage to oppofe their tyrannical Matters, or if they did, a High-Corn- tnijjim was at hand to overwhelm them. Patrons ( adds J% S.)/ir the moft part Laic%%hadthe Nomination of the Per/on who was to be Examined and Ordained j Ergo, Patrons, tho* for the mofl part Laics, had the SOLE POWER of Examination and Ordination. But feing this Patronage wasftill a heavy Grievance to the Church of Scotland, which Jhe ftill laboured to have abolifhed, and feing thefe Patrons were only concerned with the Benefice.noc ivich the Office of aMinifter ; this Retortion is of no more force than the former. By the Presbyterian Principles ( con- tinues J. S. ) the People have the Nomination and EUftion of the Candidate, Sec Ergo, by thefe principles the people have the SOLE POWER of both Examination and Ordinatisn. But feing thefe Canons, which are pretended to be a full Directory for Govern- ment and Difcipline, not only never infinuate either Ufe or Being of Presbytries, but frequently fuppofc the quite contrary ; and on the other hand, the People can Call none,tiil firft the Presbytry be latisfied with the Candidate • there is fcarce any fhadow of likenefs between the cafes. Moreovsr, the loathfome pride and deteftable arrogating to themfelves of an odious Licence of doing what they, lo Cypriamts Ijotitnus. Chap. ?. they lifted,is from hence rnoft rmnifeft^that by rhefe Canons they can commie the Examination of In- trants co rheir Slaves, their Chaplains, as a Work too vile for their Lordfhips, to the end themfelves might, with Epicurus his Gods, wallow in eafe and voluptuoufnefs, or, having got a permiffion from Superiour Powers, with AUih, contrive and work mifchief on Mankind. Yet for farther Light to the Controverfy, add but the ~jtb Canon of the fame 2 Cb. ain of Sufpenfion, fhall celebrate Marriage be- twixt any perfon^ whofe Baqnes are not pro- [ claimed Ghap. f. CypriattHs Jfotimns. 15 * claimed three feveral LORD's Days, -'— Nor c fhall he celebrate the fame in any private place, , but publickly in the Church, and that betwixt < 8 and 12 Hours in the Fore-noon, without Li- * cence of the Arch bifhop of the Province, or the 1 Ordinarie. Ch. 8. Can. 1. " That in every Dio- * cefs, Affemblies (hall be kept twice a year, in * fuch places, and at fuch times, as the Bifhop (hall c appoint. And if any Presbyter ablent himfel£ c without a lawful Excufe figr.ified at the time, he 1 (hall be (ufpended to the next Synod. Can. 2. " Bccaufe all Conventicles, and fecret Meet- ' ings of Church men,have ever been juftly accoun; '• ted hurtful to the peace of the Church wherein \ they live ; It is ordained, That no fuch Meetings < be kept by Presbyters, or any other perfons what* ' foever, forconfulting upon Matters Ecclefiaftical: € And, That all Matters of that kind be only ' handled in the Lawful Synods held by the Bi/hops, * and eftabliflhed by Authority. And if any fhall ' prefume to keep any fuch Conventicles, or fecret * Meetings for the expounding of Scripture, * adminiftring of Sacraments, or conlulting upon i Cau/es Ecclefiaftical, the Ecclefiaftical Perfon c /hall for the firft Fault be fufpended, &c. Here, doubtlefs, under thefe odious Terms, they under- ftand not only Chriftian Societies, and the Preach- ing of Minifters, who would not yield to their Domination,- but more efpecially Presby tries, Ch. ro. Can. I. " No Man (hall teach either in \ publick School, or private Houle, but fuch as * /hall be allowed by the Arch- bhhop of the Pro« * vince, or Bifhop of the Diocefs. Ch. 11. *c E- ' very Bifhop within his Diocefs, /hall take tryal of I the Qualitie of the Curates and Readers, and I permff I I 4 Cypriatms Ifolimus. Crtap. L € permit none to read, or conceive publick Prayers < in the Church, unlefs he be in Holy Orders, and c Lawfully Authorized by the Bifhop. Cb. 14. Can. x. '' None in Holy Orders (hall without the 'Licence and Dire&ion of his Ordinarie, appoint * or keep any folemii Fafts^ or be prefsnt thereat 'ofpurpofe, under the pain of Sufpenfion, orother 1 punifhmenc. which the Bifoop lhall think fit to Or, finally, can any fay, that by this A& any power at all, except that of Order, for grea- ter liberty of fpeaking and being heard, and di- ftin&er collecting of Votes, is given to the Mo- derator ? Judge therefore, with what Confcience or Brow, he adventured to compare the Power, afcribed in thefe Canons to the J5ifhop, with this given by the Aft, to the Moderator, jF. VI. He has, beiides, two dired Anfwers ; the latter whereof I (hall firft handle, becaufe this will confiderably contribute to the Difcufling of the other* It is a Prom'fe ( h J t* prove from theft fame Cdnons, that no SOLE TOWER is afcribed hy them to the Bifhtp. But feing I have now proved the direft contrary from them, tho'he could per- form it, he (hould have fmall ground to boaft of what he had gained. He endeavours indeed the performance thereof ( i ) : The fubftance of his Ar- gument is, " The Superintendents, according to ; the pleadings of Presbyterians themfelves, had ■ not Sole Power of Ordination and JurifdiBien : f and the Bifhops plead tor no more Power than the '. Superintendents had, ( But feing, as I (hall evince in due place, the Prelatifts alledge that the Super- (b) Ibid. 1$) f 93,*-/<* iatendeets 16 Cytrianus Ifotjrnus. Chap. h intendents had really the Whole and Sole Power of Ordination and JuriJdi8ion9 this his pretext is nought but a palpable fraud )— — "The only 4 true and genuine Conftitution of the Church of •Scotland^ which was ere&ed by the General Af- « fembly at Glafgow, Anno 1610. does not afcribe « the Sole Power of either Ordination or Jurif- « diction to our Bifhops- — - This Conftitution is • the Foot on which all Scots Bifhops ever fince • have flood ,• — It was in purfuance of the true < nature and ends of this Conftitution, that thefe • Canons were contrived. •*™aKaaraThis Conftitution • is the true Threed which leads us to the genuine • fenfe of them : They were founded on it, and « fram'd in purfuance of it, andfo we ought to con- clude them agreeable to, and explicable by it, fo' •long as there is no appearance of Inconfiftency, 'but on the contrary, a perfect concord between ahem, which J* S. affirms to be between thefe « Canons and that Conftitution,- The Bifhops ♦never fince Anno 1610. exercifed the Sole Power ♦of Ordination and Jurif4i&ion. Thus, in fub- ftance, J\ S. §. VII. I fliall therefore evince againft him, Firfl9 That there is no intire concord between their Centiitution and Canons. 2ly. That the true de- sign of the main Managers and holding of that Affembly at Gtefgow, was to eftablifft the SOLE POWER of Bilhops. Now, as to the former, let the following Contradi&ions be obferved betweeri the Affembly and ihe Canons. The Jjfembly de- termines, as J. S. himfelf ( k ) acknowledges, That the Bifhop has not the Sole tower cf the Exa- mination of Intrants ; and clearly provides, that be- Mi Chap. I. Cypriamis Ifotimns. \J fore any man can be Ordained, f&e Minifters of thtft hounds (#. e. the Presby eery), where he is to ferveyfoatf take -ryal of his Converfation pap, Ability and Quali* fications for the Function ; and give their Tefiificate thereof l And the Bifhop, until he get this the PresbytenesTeftificdte,cannot proceed to Ordinal tion. Now, in contradiction to this, thefe Ca- nons, chap. 2. Can. ;. which we have before gu ven you, clearly intimate that no Examination is neceifary, but that made by the Bilhop, or his Chaplain* Again, in the cafe of Def option and Depriva* tion, there is a round Contradiction ; for the Af* (tmblj decrees thus s " In Deposition of Minifters,1 € the Bilhop affociating to himfelf the Miniftry of c the bounds where theDelinquentferved,heis then c to take tryal of his Fault, and upon juft caufe * found, to deprive. That this Ad is plain againfi the Bishops Sole Hewer, is yielded by J. S. ( / ) hinW felf. On the other hand hear the Canons ( m^i € Sentence of Deprivation or Depofuion of a Pref- € by^er, lhall not be pronounced by any other but € the Arch-biihop, or Biflbop of the Diocefs, in € prefence of three or four grave Presbyters called € thereunto by the Bifhop. Which Canon mofi clearly intimate? and luppofes, that no Presby trie has any power of judging in this Matter ; that no Presby try was to be conveen'd for determining thereanent, but only that three or four, whom his Lord(hip pleated to call. In the third place, It is undenyable from the whole account of that Afftmbly, and yielded by J. S% himfelf, that Presbytries were then to con- tinue in both JSeeing and Power : And when the B Earl 18 Cyprianus Jfotinius. Chap. I. Earl of Dumbar threatned, by vertue of an Order from HisMajefty, to Difcharge them, the whole hfeirnbly jovntly and earneftly dealt with him to forbear : For the Uifliops and the chief Contrivers were obliged yet to Diffemble. But the Canons almoft every where, and to name no others, the id. Canonoi the 8. chap, already related, prefup- poles the Abolition of both Power and Beeing of Presbytries. Fourthly That Glafguan hj]embly fubje&s the Bifliop to the General Affembly. 4fc In *cafe ( fay tb«y ( n ) ) the Bifhop fhall be found to c have flayed the Pronouncing of the Sentence (viz,< € of Excommunication ) againft any perfon, that c hath Merited the fame, and againfi whom the c Procefs hath been lawfully deduced, the fame c being tryed, and he convi&ed in the General c Affembly thereof, that Advertifement /hall be * made to his Majefty* to the effed another may be c placed in his Room. And that the -Biftiops (hall c be fubjed in all things concerning their Life, € Converfation, Office, and benefice, to the Cen- c fure of the General Affembly, and being found f culpable, with his Majefties Advice and Confent, c be Deprived, Thus every Bifhop is evidently fubje#ed to the General Affembly, as his Judge. JBut in oppofition to this, thefe Canons all along fuppofe and iniinuate, that no Affemby was to judge or curb the Bifliop, that no Affembly was to have any Beeing; yea, they exprefly, as we have heard, pronounce ( o ), " That if any man € fhall- find himfelf injured by the Metropolis * tan, let him appeal to Delegates, or immediately c to the King; Where it is moft mamfeft, that this Bifliop is exim'd from all fubjeflion to the Ge- ( n ) Qolderw. Hifi>f*& 63 1 i ( Q ) tb*£s !»• Cflf, iju neral Chap. I- €)fridnus Ifotitnus. 1 9 neral Affembly ,• nor can he be brought before it for Try al, tho it fhould be found moft evidently that he had ftayed the Pronouncing the Sentence of Excommunication, againft any perlon that had Merited the fame, and againft whom the Proccfs had been lawfully deduced. As for the reft of the Bifliops it is clearly enough intimated in thefe Ca- nonsv that they are only fubjeA to the Archbi/hop or Metropolitan* as their Judge Ordinary, not at all to anv General AiTembly. §. VIII, I (hall now come to the fecond Head, and make manifeft, that the defign of all the Contrivances and Adions of thefe reftlefs Prelatical ^ticklers was, the procuring to the Bifliops the SOLE POWER, and Tyrannical Domination; but more efpecially, their laft End in Conveening and Holding of this Affembly : Which fince he fo much covets to be the true Confutation of their Church * and Foot or Standing of Prelacy ; I muft tell him, that there is no ground to envy them fuch aFoun* dation, whereof any man, tho but of common honefty, (hould be afhamed j as alfo of all the reft of their Afiemblies for a good many years before* The King, altho' petfwaded in Confcience, that our Ghurch was one of the beft Reformed in the World,' as he acknowledged in pretence of the Af- fembiy at Edinburgh, Anno 1 590 ; yet doting Oft Unlimited Power, to the Acquifition of which he knew that Prelacy would not a little conduce, and defirous to ingratiate himielf with the Englijh Church, that he might the more eafily come to the Englijh Throne, determined with himfelf, whatfoerer it fhouid coft him, to Overturn both the Government and Difcipline of our Church. Now this moft politick Prince, like Hannlhal, 6 2 who 20 Cypritnys Jjotimus. Chap, h who admoniibed Antiocbus, that Italy could not be fubdued but by Italy it felf, had his main Re- courfe to the Church her felf for Tools wherewith to work her Subverfion, and by athoufand Means and fubtile Devices, got fame {hadow of an Af- fembly to agree, that fame of their number ftould in name of the Church Voce in Parliament. Many even then perceived the Horns of the Bifhops Mitre, and with a Chriftian Magnanimity op- pofed the earlieft 2?ud of fo noxious a Weed , but by the indefatigable pains, and awful Authority of the King, the fiibulity of the alpiring Dio* trefhess in the Church, and the pufillanimity, fimplicity, and irrefle&ion of many others, the clear warnings thefe Heroes gave were negle&ed, and they alone left to the wrath of the Prince, who, above all things, coveted to have fuch Rubs out of the way, and to this effe<9:, and that he might deter others, never ceafed till he had brought fuch to utter Ruine. On the other hand, nothing but goodWords, fair fuggar'd Speeches,yea fignifications of greateft kindnefs, was given to the Miniftry and Church in general, to the end all might be lulfd afleep, and Tares with the grea- ter facility fawn, yea the faireft and ampleft promifes were made, that all the Liberties of the Church (hould be preferved ; it was averred by the Court,&thefeMinifters that led the reft on thelce, that in the Infticution of thefeVoters in Parliament nothing againft the compleat Parity and Equality of allPaftors was done or intended^and therefore as many Caveats as could be deviled to keep thefe Voters from corruption, which ye may fee in SpotjwQod himfelf, ( f ) were all yielded unto, and allowed Chtp. I. Cypriantts Ifotimus. 1 1 allowed by King, Court, snd chefe Mitiifters themlelves which were to Vote in Parliament ; among which Caveats a compleat Pari;y and Equa- lity of Paftors is comprehended, but with what fincerity this was done, the fame Sfotfwood snort evidently declares ( q) : cf It was neither ( fays he ) 4 the King's intention, nor the minds of the wifer 'fort, to have thefe cautions (land in force ( for € to fubjed the Decrees of Parliament to the Af- c fembly- as in the fecond Caution ; or toinrerdi# € Church- men, as in the fourth, and ferve Inhibi- € tions upon them, were things abfurd ) but to c have matters peaceably end^d3 and the Reformat c tion of the Policy made without any noifei the € King gave way to thefe conceits* knowing that € with time the utility of the Government, which € he purpofed to have eftablifhed, would appear, cand trufting that they whom he (hould Place in c theic Rooms would by their care for the Church* c and their wife and good Behaviour purchafs to c themfelvesthe Authority which appertained. He 'hadaifo matters of greater Importance in hand, c which mide him defire to be fetti'd in fome fort c with the Church, Where we are to adore Divine Providence, by which 'tis come to pais that the moft fignal and eminent of the Hierarchicks has given fo fignal * Confeffion of their moft black and criminal Hypocrifie, while they plotted the fubverfion of our Reformation and Apolloiical Simplicity of the Gofpel. $. IX. Thus fome arrogant Afpirers having got in to be. Voters in Parliament, and purpofmg there to Work the Churches Ruine, faw it their Intereft by all means to ftudy the overthrow of her Affem- B 3 bli?s; 22 Cjprianus IJotiwus, Chap. 10 biles; for to them, by the caveats, they were to have been fubjeft and accountable : Wherefore fometimes Affemblies were difmiffed without in- dication of a day for a new one, and again, when a day for that was by the King named and almoft come, the Church was prohibited to obferre that ; at other times the day appointed was anticipated, and fcarce any time for preparing of Matters al- lowed, and when they fat, all manner of Coufe- nage, Bribery, Tyranny, and fuch pra<5iices were uied ; fuch Minifters as flood up for the Li- berty of the Affemblies were dragg'd to Prifon, Condemn'd and Banifh'd, or call'd up to Court, and without all pretext of Juftice, never fuffered again to fee their native Countrey ,• great numbers without any Commiffion from the Church were fent to Vote in the Affemblies : As for example, at Linlithgow, Anno i6c8, cc There were above fourty f Noblemen and Gentlemen direftedby the King to c bcprefent. This put the Brethren in a great Fear, cthat fome pernicious Conclufion was to pafs by c plurality of Votes. Therefore fundry of the c Minifters put Mr. Patrick Galloway ( one of the € fpecial Court-Minifters ) in Remembrance that c only three Commiflioners were granted to his ' Majefty by the A&s of the Affembly. He anfwe- c red, That if they would caft off the Noblemen, c their Conclufions would want Execution, for we € muft Pray and Preach, faid he, but they muft € Fight ( r ). The fame courfe was kept in their fucceeding Affemblies : As for example, the Af- fembly at Perth, 1618, where a good number of Noblemen and Barons, only by virtue of Miffives from the King, but without any Commiffion from ( r ) Qaldtrw. Hift. Pag. 589, the Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 23 the Church,Sat and Voted ; which even Dv.LinJefay in his Narratfon of the Proceedings of that Affembiy C s) is compelled to acknowledge. Thus thefe Affemblies, which, under GOD, had b^a the Churches chief Bulwarks, for prefervacion of Orthodoxy and Liberty, became the fpecial In- ftruments of her Contamination and Bondage, the Chains to bind and expofe her to the Luft of the perfidious Prelats, her facrilegious Ravifliers, infa- mous Conventicles in which none fat without the hazard of either lofs of Confcience, or incurring a moft furious perfecution. §. X, But more corrupt and debauch'd than all the former was the Glajguan Club5 1610. ( thonot, I confefs, fo bad as was that of Perth 161 8, and other fucceeding Affemblies) the defign of the chief Managers whereof was the procuring to the Bifhops the Sole and Defpotick Power over the whole Church. So much to me is moft coiligible from Spotfwood himfelf ( *). " The King ( faith be ) by € his Letters was now dayly urging the Bifhops to c take upon them the Adminiftration of all Church- c Affairs, and they unwilling to make any change c without the knowledge and approbation of the € Minifters, an Affembly to this effect was appointed * to holdatGlafgow .Where you foe they were willing enough to grafp the SOLE POWER or Admini- ftration of all Church Affairs ; only they muftfirft have a mock Affembly, and (ome fham-confent of the Miniftry* They were now grown Great, Rich, and Temporal Lords, Lords of Parliament and Council, moft formidable to all, being armed with the fecular power,and had gotten moft of their chief oppofites exau&orated, imprifoned, baniftied, it) Namcm. I. Pag. 4«* (OHift. Pag. Jia, or 24 Cjprianus lfotimus. Chap. I, or fome way or other crufh'd and ruin'd. Yetfo much feared they the very Name of an Aflembly* that to make all fure, they refolve to take the Minifters as it were napping,and at unawares: For the Aflfembly was appointed to be held at St. Andrews in May, and then in February was prorogued with- out any appointment of a new* Dyet, and then after this fome very Cbort fpace before the time, 'tis appointed to be held at Glafeow in Juney when the Miniftry was expe&ing no fuch thing. But this was not enough ; they prepare for their pur- pofe a number of each Presbytry, and fend their Names to the King, who, by a particular Miffive to each Presbytry, tells them that it is his plea- fure that they fliould make choice of fuch perfons as he had named in his Letter to the Arch-bi&op of St. Andrews. Thus the jugular Vein of all Li- berty is cut ; for moft of the Miniftry being either already terrified and difpirited with what they faw had fallen on fuch as had oppofed thefe Tyrannical inundations, and others fhaken with the Tentation of Eafe, Wealth, and Honour, were far enough, you may be fure, from difobcying thefe Miffives which they might well interpret to be Commands, Another wedge was prepared if this had not done 5 Nobles and Barons enough with Miffives from the King to have Voted tho' they had no Commiflion from the Church. But things were fecure enough without thefe Auxiliaries, The Earl of T)umbar3 the King's Commiffioner, Was alfo prefect with bands of Souldiers to force, and Money toallure Men to a complyance, where- of, after the Affembly, he diftributed to them as they merited. And when Mr. John Balfour com- flamed [o tie Bifbop of Orkney that he had got nothing, Chap. I. Cjprlanus lfotimus. 25 bt anfwered, he had done no Service to bis Majefly : for he Voted, non liquet. Lauder. Minifler of Cock- burnfpath, tho he hadferved the King better >w at content to take ten founds, fourty pennies lefs ( u ). It was, as Mr. Archibald ' Simpfen relates ( x ), vulgarly called the Angelick /ifiembly, by reafon of the multitude of the Englifh Angels of Gold, which were diftributed amtng the bribed MiniHeU, and which, at this Ajjembly, were frequently to be feen at Glafgow. J$\ XL Spot/wood acknowledged!^ J, that there was Money given to Minifters, but pretends that it was only given to the MODERATORS who had ferved fince the year 1626. and alledges that this Money had been promised at their accept- ing of the Charge, lie Debt ( fsy* he ) was known t9 be juft% and no motion was made of that buflnefs before theforefaid Conclufions were enafled.But this indeed is a material Coafeflion of their crimes, Simony, and Tyranny. The King, by Miffives to the particular Presbytries had, in the 1606, nominated fome three of each Presbytry, and commanded the Presbytries to fend them to Linlithgow, that they might meet with certain Noblemen, and advife about Remedies of the Diliradiion of the Church, as he fpake ,• but no Induction, no not a Word of a General AlTsmbiy is in the King's Miffives. Thefe Minifters met with fome 27, ( Spot/wood has 3;) Noblemen, Barons, and Officers of State at ( u) Ctlderm. Hid. Pag* 62$. ( x) Anno fexcentefimo & decimo, Dumb wen fit Comes, cui hsec omnis res commifla a Regain S^/V/*» venit, magna auri vi coa&a, ut inter Miniftros condu:Hcios diftribueret, quos Ohfguam cogit intra decern dies, hoc eft die o&avo Junii. Hsec Synodus Jngelica vocatur ob AngUrum Augehrum muleitudinem diftribucam : nam foil Angeli Glafgine omnibus in minibus erant. Chron. Sc9t. MS. Ad Annum itfio. (;) Htft,rag. 513. Linlithgow 26 Cyprianui Ifotimm. Chap. L Linlithgow, where, after a thoufand Artifices, the Minifters were allured to admit conftant Modera- tors, In the mean while all look'd on this meeting only as a conference for Advice, and fome prepa- rative for a future General AiTembiy ; and fo they were much lefs cautious than, doubdefs, other- ways they had been : Such were chofen as the Bifhops and their fadion before had defign d, and had allowed each of them an hundred Pounds or two hundred Merks. This Conference once dif- folved, thefe Coufeners every where gave out that it was a General AiTembiy, and urged all the Presby tries to receive their Moderators, at which, even Spot futoo J himfe\f being Witnefs, both Synods and Presbytries took che Alarum. " The Synod € of ?erth ( fays he ( z, ) )y Conveening irf March c thereafter, did, in dired: oppofition of the Ad * concluded at hinlith^oWy inhibite all the Presby* € tries, wirhin their Bounds, to acknowledge the c Conclufion taken in that Meeting, and difcharged * Mr. Alexander Lindej ay, Parfon ofSimmed^fe$ who c was Nominated by the AiTembiy, Moderator of 1 Vertk, to exercife the faid Office under pain of f the Cenfure of the Church. The Synod being 'cited before the Council for this preemption, was c difcharged to meet thereafter, and the Presbytries * within the bounds commanded under the pain of ' Rebellion to accept their Moderators. In Fyfe the c refiftance was no lefs.- -The Presby tries of * Men were alio very troublefome, and the Council € fo vexed with complaints of that kind, as not a f day paffed without fome one or other, but all c this oppofition proved vain, and they at length * FORCED to obey- Where 'tis manifeft that the (z) HifU Pag. 503- ^ : Church Chap* I. Cyprianut Ifotimns. 27 Church never look'd on that Meeting as a General Affembly : And no wonder ,• for it was not fo much as pretended by the King himfelf, as his Majeilie's Miffive to the Presbytry of Dumfermling ( a )5 makes manifeft. Wherefore the Court and £iftiops their bribing o| fuch Mimfters, at this Pfeudo-Synod, as they thought fit inftruments for eftabliftring their Tyranny, was a bond of Iniquity, and Simoniacal Promife, and therefore no juft Debt, Yea fo far was it from being juft, that the Receivers deferved not heavy Purles, but heavy Cenfures. JJ\ XII. But this is not all ; for thefe Judas's, who at this Linlitbguan Conventicle fold CHRIST Myftical, had not the Reward of Iniquity in hope, but in hand. This is clearly related in the AnnaU of Sir James Balfour Lyon Herauld to KingCharles I. they were never Printed ; I ftiall therefore give the Paffage at full length. ei In December (jaitb ke) this year 1606, a General Affembly of the Church was holden at Linlithgow • wherein, among other buflinefs, his'Majefty, by his Letters to the laid Affembly ( which they ordained their Clerk to Read ) Recommended to the Affembly with taking ftri£fc order with Papifts, Jefuites and Seminary Priefts; without exception of Perfons: And that they fhould take heed that People fhould not choke the good Seed of the Evangel. Divers of the more precife amongft the Miniftry took this pious and religious Admo- nition of the King as Cream and Oyl to foften and fmooth his Myfterious Defigns, and dayly Advancing of che State of -Bifhops with new Pri- viledges, which daily encroached more and more to the fuppreffing of the free Liberties of this (a) Calderw, Hift. Pag. 550, [ Church, 2 8 Cyfridfius Ifotmus. €hap. I. ' Church, as was Signified to his Majefty the 16th € Day of this Moneth, by the Letters of his Vice- cRoy, Montr$fet Menmure, Blantyre, and Prefident 4 ?re(ion$ who affifted at this Affembly : For it * was notorioufly underftood and manifeftly known f to the Wifeft, that the Earl of Duwbar, £iis Ma je- c fties Thefaurcr in $c$tl&ndy diftributed among the f mod needy and clamorous of the Miniftry to * obtain their Voices and Suffrages ( or elfe move c them to be Neutrals ) fourcy Thoufand Merks of c Money t to facilitate the Bufinefs intended , and ' caufe matrers go the fmoothiier on : Which c Myftery of State came thereafter to Light by the ' view of the Lord Theafurer Dumbar his accounts ; c a grofs fault in him, which if revealed in his Life € time might have coft him his Head, for his (mall 'Piudence and little Circumfpeftien in leaving 1 fuch an Item on Record- to be looked on by Pofc c terity : Which compt was fhewn to King Charles € at the Treaty of the Birks, long thereafter, in * Anno 1639. Thus he. And now from what is addue'd and difcourf'd 'tis moft clean that SfotfwBcd his Exception or Palliation is not only moft imper- tinent, but alfo moft untrue j that the Prelatifts§ in order to corrupt and pollute our Church.pradlis'd moft horrid and lawlefs Cruelty, and moft foul, fraudulent andfacrilegious Arts ; that the Impo- fing of Prelacy on the Church of Scotland was never Her Ad and Deed, but a facrilegious and violent Rape upon her Liberties; that the Body of the Miniftry and People utterly abhorred it ,• and that they firmly believed Parity among Paftcrsto be CHRIST's Ordinance, and the only Government by him appointed. All this the King not only knew, but alfo acknowledged in his Asfwer to a Petition Ghap. I. CfprUn'us lfotmu*. 39 Petition of this Meeting. Take it in Spot (wood's own Words (b } "As touching the Conclufion taken for the Conjiant Moderators, his Majefty did Thank them for their Travels ; but whereas they were of Opinion that the k& fhould be univerfally Received, (for fo much the AiTembly had written) he faid, that he knew them too well to expert any fucli thing at their hands. Their confeienti* ous Zeal to maintain Parity, and a defire to keep all things in a continual conftant volubility, he faid was fuch as they would never agree to a fettled Form of Government. Befides, he knew that divers of thefe who were nominated to the places of Moderation, would refufe to accept the fame, left they fhould be thought to affed: Supe- riority above their Brethren : That therefore he would have the Council to look to that bufinefs. and dire Hamptoun and Mirrixoun% whom they had brought down for that purpofe. Taxed the Govern* ment of Synods and Vresbymes, and defended the Calling cf Bishops ({). The Biiliop of Orkney did the like j and all of them in the very time of this Decree, were exercifing a moft Defpotick and Lordly Pre- lacy. Hence it is evident, that they knew that the bulk of the Miniftry were for Parity, and that their Prelatick Arguments, if truly fifted, were nought, and could not abide the Light. From all which it is moft evident, that the Bifhops their main Defi|n was, to grafp the Whole and Sole Pow- er over the Church j but that, fearing a trouble- fome Oppofition, they thought'it more fit to work (0 Hift. p. j i j, (/) Ultow* Hift/ »< «** in 5 2 Cyprianus Ifotimus. Chap, t in the dark and by fteps, that fo they might more furely, tho# more flowly,come to their purpofe, and accordingly, tho' there be a palpable difcord be- tween this Synod's Decrees, and the Camns of the i6;f, yet the Latter may be truly faid to be framed in purfuance of the main Defign of the chief Leaders, and of the Calling and Holding of that Affembly: For, as is now made manifeft, lit- tle Care had the Managers of that Glafguan Club, their Fellows and SucceiTors cf Agreement, either with themfelves, or with the Truth, provided they, per fas aut nefas, might overturn our Reformation, ered a Papal Hierarchy, and found to themfelves an Empire on the Ruines of the Church. §. XIV- And thus, as I have difcuffed one of his Anfwers, fo Ihave really prevented the Other, viz,. " That thefe Canons never took effect. That * they were never infifted on by our Bifhops fince * the Reftitution of Epifcopacy anno i66z. That € they were enjoy ned only by Royal Authority, c not properly Ecclefiaftical. That even that Ex- * celleat King who enjoyned them, when he law c they did not well iuit the then Inclinations of € the Nation, Retraced all the Authority he had € once given them. A ftrange Anfwer, if true; The King was the Head of J. S.'s Church, The Glafguan Ccnflitution, between which and thefe Qan* mns there is a Firm Concord, her Foundational Foot; And fo, in refufing to admit them, flie deterted Head, Foot, and Foundation, ail at once. But de- fied not the Bifhops and their Faftion to have in- fifted on them? Speak, Sir, according to your Mind and Confcience It is well known, that they were, to the utmoft of their power, , urging the Executi- on of them, and never left it off till there came a Storm, Chap. I. Cyprranus Ifotimui. ^ %% Storm, which dismounted bath their Canons and themfelves No Man of Knowledge and Candor can dou btor deny, that thefe Canons were made by Laud's Faction, and kindly received by their Par- tifans in Scotland, and chat, by them, the Kiog'5 Name was procured to Authorize them; TneKingt as his prefix'dLetter bears, compyl'd them not, but only confider'd them, and gave them his AiTent. And when they came: down, with the Service Bcok% they were both with the like warmth hugg'd,with the like fiercenefs impot'd on the Church of Scot- land by the Prelats and their Papaturiant Adhe- rents. That this proved the very Occafion of the E/e&ion of Prelacy is nottour to the World, and confefs'd by their own deareft Friends ; as Dr. Burnet (#),•" They (Jaith be) the Bi(I>opsy viz. alfo ' exadted a new Oath of Intrants fbefides what was in the A& of Parliament, for Obedience to their OrdinarieJ in which they were obliged to obey the Articles of Perth, and fubmitt to the Liturgit and Canons.— --At this time a Liturgie was drawn for Scot/an J,or rather the Evglifh Re- printed with that Title,fave that it had fome Alterations which, rendered it more invidious and leisfatisfa&ory ; and after long confulting about it, and another Book of CANONS, they were at length agreed unto, that the One fhould be the Form of Scots Worflbip, and the Other the Model of their Government. R. Ceke (b) relates the fame. " In England {faith be ) this year i6;5\ there was great Contrivance between theArch-BifhopLW, and Bifhops of Scotland, how ce ere& an High* Gornmijjion-Ceurt in Scotland, by the King's Autho- (g) Memoirs of the Dukes of lUmihW) p. 30, (h) Detect/ &ct VqI, j, pag* 3*0. 54 Cffrianus Ifaimus. Chap 1. c rity, without content in Parliament, for proceed* c ing againft luch as would not fubmic to the 'Common prayer Book, and Canons injoyned by 'the King, and BISHOPS of Scotland. And ( i) <•* There had not been (Jaitb be ) one General c Affembly fmce that of Perth, 1618. when in € i-6; 7, the Common- pray er. Canons and High ? commijjionk were impofed by the King's and * Bifhops Authority. This is alfo evident from the Do&ors of Aberdeen, in their General Demands, &c. { k ) " If you mean that period of time, when the * Service-Book, and Book of Canons, were urged up- c on you j to wit, the laft year by-paft in Summer, c then you acknowledge, that all that time you ^enjoyed the Purity and Liberty of the Gofpel ; € and confequently, that you yet enjoy it ; for no 'new thing hath fince that time been publickly c received, and pra&ifed in this Church. Where they clearly intimate that the Canons were pub- lickly received> and pradifed by the Prelats and their Party, and that, together with the Service- Book* they were Urged and preffed on the whole Kingdom, no doubt* by that Church which re- ceived them, the Prelats and their Adherents. The fame matter is plainly related by the Earl of Clarendon ( I ) J *' It was towards the end of the 'Year i6;^> {faith he) when the King returned 1 c from Scotland, having left it to the Care of fome cofche Bifhops there to provide luch a Liturgy^ • c and fuch a Book of Canons, as might bed fuit the € Nature and Humour of the better fort of that € People i to which the reft would eafily fubmit: J and that, as faftas they made them ready, they (i ) P"g* 3«. ( k) t*g* »4« C O Hift. of the Rebellion and Civil Wars, &c% Ba§k a.f^c S3. 8*. Should Chap. L Cyprianus Ifotimus. 3$ c /hould tranfmit them to the Arch Bifliop of Can- ' ttrbury, to whofe Affiftance the King joy n~d the € Bifliop of London, and DocSor Wren, who, by that c time, was become Bifhop of Norwich. — — * It was now two years* or very near (o much, i before the Biihops in Scotland had prepared any * thing to offer to the King towards their intended \ Reformation ,• and then they inverted the proper € Method, and firft prelented a body of Canons to c precede the Liturgv, which was not yet ready, 'they choofing to finifh the fhorter Work firft, ' The King refer'd the confideration of the Canons, * as he had before refolv'd to do, to the Arch- s- Bifliop, and the other two Biftops formerly c named, the Bifliop of London, and the Biihop of 4 Norwich; who, after their perufal of them, and c fome Alterations made, with the confent of thofe € Bifliops who brought them from Scotland, re- c turn'd them to the King ; and his Majefty* im- c patient to fee the good Work entered upon, wich- 4 out any other Cermony ( after having given his c Royal Approbation ) iffued out His Proclamation c for the due Obfervation of them within His 4 Kingdom of Scotland* It was a fatal Inadver* 'tency that thefe Canons, neither before, nor 1 after they were lent to the King, had been ever 'feenbythe Aflcmbly, or any Convocation of the * Clergy,which wasfoftri&ly obliged to cheObler- ' vationof shem; nor fo much as Communicated € to the Lords of the Council of that Kingdom; e it being almoft impoflible that any new -Difci- i pline could be introduced into the Church, which c would not much concern the Government of the cStatevand even trench upon > or refer to the, I Municipal Laws of the Kingdom, And, in this Q 2 con- 36 Cfprianus Iffitimus. Chap. I. * confideration, the Arch-bifhop of Canterbury had < always declared to the Bifhops of Scotland, that € it was their part to be fure, that'nothing they c fiiould propoie to the King in the ^ufinefs of the * Church, (hould be contrary to the Laws of the * Land, which he could not be thought tounder- 1 ftand ; and that they (hould never put any thing cin Execution, without the confent and approba- * tion of the Privy. Council. But it was the un- € happy Craft of thofe Bifhops to get it believ'd by € the King, that the Work would be Grateful to the € moft confiderable of the Nobility, the Clergy, 'and the People (which they cculd hardly believe) 'in order to theobtainingHis Majefties Approba- € fion, and Authority fcr the Execution of that, \ which they did really believe would not find Op- * pcfition from the Nobility, Clergy, 'or People, * againft His Majefty's exprefs Power, and Will, ' which without doubt was then in great Venera- € tion in that Kingdom > and (o they did not* in ; c truths dare to fubmit thofe Canons ro any other c Examination, than what the King fhould * dire-eft c in England. And finally, hear the Bifhops themlelves, in their Declinature (w): "We proteft, that, feing thefe ' who for fcruple of Confcience did miflike the 1 Service* Book, Canons 9 and High Comrnifficn^ which € were apprehended or given forth to be thecaufe € of the Troubles of this tfhurch, have now re- € ceived fatisfa£tion, and His Majefty is gracioufly c pleafed to forget and forgive all Offences by-paft € in thefe Stirres. Where they fpeak after the fame manner, and with the fame affe&ion of all the three, ( Now all Brjtttm kgows bocb High Ctm- Chap. If Cj/priafius lfotimus. 57 tniffion-tourt , and Service-$o*k were well lik'd and prefs'd by the Prelats ) and clearly intimate, that there was no real ground of oppofing thefe Canons* or of any fcruple concerning themi and that the King was juftly offended at thefe who refused them. 'Tis true, the Prelats in their latter reign fuffer'd them to ly Dormant, becaufe they could never find time or leifure to impofe them : They had more than their hands-full ado, to Re-eftablifh Prelacy it felf, to extinguish the Preaching of the Gofpel, to make away the Preachers* ruineandlay wafte not the meaneft part of this Kingdom, who adhered to their lawful Paftors ,• This work took up their time, and the Canons could not be well urged till it was oven §. XV. For the fame reafon they forbore to prefs Kneeling, and others of the Terth- Article*, tho? they themfelves liked nothing better, end had got a pack'd'and Sham-Affembly to eftabli/h them. Which one Obfervationi were there no more, quite repells all his Challenges ( n ) ,• 1 do challenge G. R. ( faith he ) and his whole Fraternity to produce one infiance of a Presbyter ordained by any Scottisfh liifhop, [ince the year 1610, without the Concurrence of Vresbpers. The Scottish Bifhops Ordained no Pref- byters without the Concurrence of other Presby- ters, becaufe they were otherways bufied, and durft not adventure on fuch infolent Aftions. And, " Have not our Kirk-Seffions, our Pref- ? byteries, and our Synods? always been formal € and ftated Judicatories* even under Epiicopai * Government? Did not even thefe inferior Ju- c dicatories, Ktrk-Saffions. and Presbyteries per- c form many Ads of Jurifdi&ion without fo much • as confulting the Biilxop i But could there be (?) JT. 99. more g8 Cyprianus Ifotmns. Chap, I, more unfincere dealing bewray'd in fo few lines? Doth not almoft every PrelatifFs Book ? Does not J, S's own Book, Chop, 8. proclaim/ that they mortally hate and (corn all Ruling* Elder s y both Name and Thing, as an unwarranted, new, and vain Dream of fome Presbyterians? And confequeritly that when the Prelatifts kept therri in Scotland* they were egregioufly Hypocrifeing, for fear oi greater Oppofition from the Body of the people? That all their Kirk-Seffions (and conlequently, for ought he has faid, we may truly fay the like of their Synods and Presbyteries) were horrid and impudent Illufions, and Mocking of the World, which they themfelves believed to have no validity • but that the Bifliop, and he only/had the compleat and full power of all Church Affairs, which he, by himfelf, or his Sub- ftitutess might defpotically order and guide as he pleafed > J\ XVI Thus I havedemonftrated, that the Ca- nons really afcribe the SOLE POWER to the Dio- cefan Bifhop.That they well agree with the fpecial end and intent of the GlafguanA$embly> tho it's Pro- curers, the better to hide, and fo to effed their purpofe, allow'd feveral things there to be de- creed truly contradi&ory thereto s And thatthefe Canons were procur'd, hugg'd and urg'd by the Sc0ttij£Hierarchicsf as they were compiled* at leaft revifd and approv'd by the Englifh; And fo, that J. S is fufficiently fingular, being contrary to the true Sentiments of the genuine Hierarchies of both Kingdoms. And lo 1 might iuftly neglect all his particular Authorities, which he brings to vindi- cate bimfelf from the accufation of Singularity ; but I ftiall not do fo ; I (ball handle them parti- 1 . ■• • ( — cularly, S Chap; I. Cyprianus Jfotimus. 39 cularly, and render not only thefe, but alfo all others that either he, or any man elfe, ever (hall, ever can alledge, utterly and for ever unferviceable to hisCaufe. I fhall demonftrate, that the choiceft of the Hierarchic Authors, and in comparifon with whom, the reft are but Dwarfs and Punys,are truly and plainly for SOLE POWER, or otherways betray theCaufe of the Hierarchies; Demonftrate, that the choiceft of thefe he brings for himtelf are truly and palpably againft him, and that, part of thefe not only contradict their Fellows, but them- felves alfo, to the bargain ; Demorrftrate, finally, that J-. S. is either an egregious Prevaricator, or elfe wretchedly Ignorant of the very firft Principles and Foundations of the Hierarchy, yea and that he, in palpable contradi&ion to the pretended Scope of this whole chapter5 is as real, as thro* pae'd a SOLE-POWER- Mam as Bettarmine, Becan or any of fuch Romani/ls, who openly own and avow it for their Principle. §. XVII. But, Firfl, let me obferve how timidly and illiberally /. S. goes to work : for to Mr* Rule, faying, That Bifhops without SOLE POWER of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, mn\l be a Species of Bifhops that never man pleaded for but hitnfelf. And He would not find many, if any one of either fide, who handleth this (lontroverfle without refpeff to this Tower \ J. S. thus repones j He mujl not- think he ha* gamdfo much as one inch of ground^ unlefs 1 can not find any of my fide who has flated the Quefiion as I have done. As if this, at beft, could be ought but Argumentum ad hominem ; feing, tho'not one only, but ev^n many were for him, it can do him fmall fervice, if the ftream of their moft celebrated Authors, and G»- (iituthn and Pra&ice of # their Church be againft them 40 Cjpritnus lfotimus. Chap. I. them : Or as if the meaning of Mr, Rules Words were not, that the Bulk and Stream of the more genuine Hierarchicks while they declare their real Sentiments, are plain enough for the Bifliop fcis SOLE and Abfolute TOWER, Indeed he was but too well acquainted with them> not to know that many among them are either guilty of Igno- rance of their own Principles, or of Prevarication, and fomeumes alfo of Prodition of the Hierarchic cal Caufe. And thus there is no (badow of con* tradi&ion between Mr. Rule his Cyprianic Bijhcp Examined, and his Rational Defence of Nonconformity ; where he faith; that Uiher and others deny SOLE Ordination and aOLE ]urijdi£iicn to their Bishops, and make Epijcopacy little or no wore but a Vrejidency% For if they make Epifcopacy nc more, they really de-. fert and renounce the Principles of the Hierarchy: Nor do Mr. Rule's following * viz.others aUov Words * any better fervice to firJ^:BiTiZ 7- S- feinS ^e Hierarchies he tther Pajtors ef the J r » c t. . r.n chimb and txmpt there lpeaks ot allow the Biihops tkcm from fang lyabie a jurifdiBion, and on the other ntheCeniure* of 'their hand, exempt them from all l!^Sl»l Cenfure, tho they do whatever fy themselves* but they lift. Let them talk what v>iththiCQ?ifentofthe they will of a Council for Con* vhoZrfu'u^ ienu by which Confent the* CnucTi! both may; and ufually dounder- ftand naked and fimple Advice, they fufficiently declare, that they are taft Friends to the Biftiops SOLE POWER. ^. XVIII And now judge if Mr, Rulehas fairly furgd J. S. of Singularity. But what Presbyterians cann't do, Epifcopals, doubtlefs, can : They can fuinifh J, S. wuh means "Intirely to deprive G. R. Chap. f. Cjpridnus lfotitnus. 41 * G. R. and all his Brethren hereafter, of their € common fubterfuge, and to render them utterly € inexcufable if ever they ftiall betake themfelves c to the forry Plea of the SOLE POWER. For, (C The Moft and Mod Eminent of the Advocates c for Prelacy, both in Scotland and England^ profefs 'to plead not for the Biflhops SOLE but CHIEF € fcOWER in Ordination zn the Preface to his BAEIA. AHP. but after he was fettled in England, in the Conference at Hamptoun-Court, on January i^tb Annoi6o*-£* declared be Hnderflood not why the Bifhops, f$r the more Dignity to (o high and weighty a Cenfure as Excommuni- cation, {hould net take unto them, for their Jjfiftants, the Dean and Chapter, or *th?r Minifters and Chaplains cf gravity and account, and jo likewije in #ther GenfureS, find giving of Orders. Was this, ( faith J. S.) pleading fir the SOLE POWER of Bifhops ? Now if you believe J. S. you will anone conclude that King James in that Preface argues againft Parity, and afferts the Superiority of Diocefan Bifliops over other Paftors, but y et deny s them a SOLE POWER: But if you mind not to be deceived, believe him not,* for the truth is, nothing for the Diocelans their Superiority is either exprefs'd in, or colligible from that Preface, nothing of their having a Su- pereminent, but not a SOLE POWER over other Paftors throughout all that Difcourfe : I fay, not one Word or irilnuation of fuch thing is there ; Readx and Read it over again, Dive into it with moft acurate Scrutiny, and if you find any fuch thing let me bear the heavieft Cenfure that ev'n J. S. can pronounce. But I have more to fay from this Preface, that ev'n King James himlelf looked on Epifcopacy as an Arbitrarious and Indifferent thing, and fo can never be alledg'd as maintaining there the Diocefans their Right of Superiority in Power over other Paftors, for this J, S. muft ftill fuppofe him to maintain, elfe his bringing him in againft the SOLE POWER of Bifoops is fluff altogether impertinent and nonfenfical. Hear then his Majeftie's own Words, who, havingbeen, as he fays, alpers'd for tome bitter Speeches againft the j Chap. I. Cjprianus Ifotims. 43 the Puritans, and having explained himfclfthat he meand only fome that were of wild and Ana- baptiftical Principles, goes on thus in his Vindi- cation : " But on the other part { faith he. in his Preface, which is in his Works, Page 138, &c.) c I Proteft upon mine Honour, I mean it not 1 generally of all Preachers, or others that like c better of thefingle Form of PoiicyinourChnrch, c than of many Ceremonies in the Church of 'England; that are perfwaded, that their Bifhops € fmell of a Papal Supremacy, that the Surplice* € theCornere i Cap, and fuch like are theuuc -vard f badges of Popifh Errors. No, I am fo far from f being contentious in thefe things ( which for my c own part, I ever efteem'd as INDIFFERENT ) € as I do equally Love and Honour the Learned and c Grave Men of either of thefe Opinions, It can no f ways become me to pronounce fo lightly a fen- f tence in fo old a Controverfy. We all ( GOD € be PraiPd ) do agree in the grounds; and the c bitternefs of Men upon fuch Queitions doth but € trouble the Peace of the Churcfj, and gives advan- c tage and entry to the Papifts by our Divifion. Now judge if he can be really faid to have had £eal enough for Epifcofal Government, it he can be really called an Advocat for Prelacy^ or a Preiatical Author ; of which kind of Men only the Tefti- monies can ftand J. S. in ftead : And therefore judge with what Confcience and Countenance J: §• could not only adduce him, but ev'n place him in Front of thefe with whofe fuffrages he would vindicate himfeif from the charge of Singula- rity. b §. XIX. But did not, may you fay, King James like well of Diocefan Bishop*, and their Superior Power ? 44 Cyprianus lfotimus. Chap. I Power ? I Anfwer, He did fo, and of their Sole Vower too ; as is evident from Spot (wood's words al- ready cited, viz. That he urgd the Bi(hops to take upon them the adminiflration of all Church Jffairs ; Evident even from the King's own words, at the Hamptoun- Court* Conference, here alledg'd by J.S. himfelf, which fuppofe that the Bifhops, even in greateft Matters, eXerc'd a So/* Power, and that they might lawfully do it, tho'for the greater Solemnity, as ^Downame fpesks {q)% and Dignity, as the King is faid toipeak, of thefe great Anions, Excommuni- cation, Ordination, and the like, it were handfome and becoming ^hat the Bifcop Pnould joyn fome, not all his Fresbyters with himfelf, and hear their Advice, which he might embrace or reje#> as he pleafed. The King, in the fame Conference moft clearly allows the Bifhops the Sole Power of Excom- munication. 4< For the perfons (faith b e (r)) I € would be refolved, why Chancelloursanil Com- c miftaries, being Lay-men, fhould do it, and not € rather the Bifhops themfelves, or fome Minifters c of Gravity and Account, deputed by them for the c more Dignity to fo high and weighty a Cenfure. Laftiy, It is evident from the whole Chain of bis Actions, which if you ferioufly confider, you will readily judge that he fpent no fmall part of his Time, and of his earneft Thoughts, in contriving how 'to enlarge and render Abfolute the Power ot Bi&ops over both Minifters and People : Not be- caufe he thought this was their Right, or believed either a Sole or Superior Power of any Paftors over others was better grounded on Scripture than was Parity of Paftors, but becaufe he knew that this (?)Serm p,4©, (r) Fullers Church Hiftf Bookio, Cent. Chap. L Cyprianus Ifotitntts. 45 pleafed the Englifh Hicrarchicks, and that the Exal- tation of his own Clotures, asBi&op Glade flones expreffes if, who vet at his Majefties Nod were to Stand or Fall, to fbch a defpotick Domination, wonderfully contributed to procure himfelfaiaw- lefs and boundlefs Power, which above all Things elfe he ev^er coveted, and purfued : He knew^hac while he upheld Prelacy, he might do what* he would without Check or Reproof • and therefore abhorr'd the Presbyteriai DHcipline. Hence thefe his moft obfervable Words, at the fame Conference, to Dr. Reynolds] who defired that there might be Meetings ot the Clergy every three Weeks, If j*u aim (anfwers the Kjng) af^Scottifh Presbytery, it agreetb as well with Monarchy y as GOD and the Devil. Then Jack, and Tom, and W\\\, and Dick, shall mu% and Genfure me and my Council (J )♦ $\XX.Next to thfcK. comes B.C Anno 1610 J becaufe Ecclefiaftical Synods formerly in ufe were ftill retained ,• And the Cenfures of Ad- monition, Sufpenfion, Excommunication, the Ad- miffion, C i.e. theOrdination) of Pallors, and their Depofition, and whatever elfe pertains to the Matter of Difcipline^ were not removed, but re- ctified and roborated, inafmuch as the Power to moderate m * x^ciie thefe Cenfures was not left (/ ) mf% B<& Bwfc 10, psge \ik fres 4^ Cyprianus Ifotittousi Ch£p. I. * free to every one, but reftored to the Bifliop^ to 9 be ufed with the Advice of his Brethren, u e, the 'Presbyters. " And C faith J.S.) he (Ccwper) ' infifts pretty fully in (hewing that the Epifcopa- c cy then eft^bUlhed did not fubftantially differ c from the Superintendent fertled at the Refor- c mation. iCButwhen Hume obje<5b (faith J.S.) that c the Superintendents a<5ted by Advice : He an- c (wers thus, Good Reafon, iee the Law prefcrib- 4 ed to Bi(hops of Old hnm 1573. which is* That * no Biftiop admit any Minifter without Advice, € ( *: e. faith J. S. ) Afliftance, or Concurrence of c three well . qualified Minifters of the Bounds : € The fame (lands nowf and where the Law binds c theBiiliops to ufe the Advice of 3 Presbyters,they c ufe the Advice of 1 ; if they can get them 3 And € fee you any other conftant Form of Government f in our Church ? See you any other Bifhops now c than were in the days of John Knox ? But 1 /?. J._ S. muft prove that by Advice and Jfsiflance ,• Cowper mean'd Vecifive Votes. 7.ly. That, according to Cowper, the Bifhop gave not the Liberty of Advice. to thefe thirteen out of meer Kindnefs, but out of bound Duty, as a thing belonging to them, of which they could not be juftly deprived, jfyjThac it equally belonged to a!! the Presbyterie, i. e. all the Pi esbyters in the Bifhoprick: For if the Bifhop call feme, were there never fo many, and negled: other feme, what does he herein, but demon itrat and exercife-an abfolute Power ? . §. XXI. Spot [wood is adduced (t )y faying, in his Rtfutatio Libtlli) &c. .A'That neither he, nor •the reft of the Scottifh Bifhops do pretend to any * more Power rhan the Primitive Bifhop> had, or * than was enjoyed by the Superintendents in this (t) fa&M i Churcho' Chap. I. Cypriartus JfotimnS. 47 € Church. "To the fame purpofe ( faith J. S.) (u) 'it is pleaded byDr.Lindejay :For upon all occafions € he affirms our Superintendents to have been Bi- c (hops,- and he never pleads for more Power than c was exercifed by them. And O) he pretends u- pon the fame ground, that Maxw ell Bifhop of Rofs9 in his Epifcopacy not abjured in Scotland , another Book that I could never come by, was not for SOLE POWER. He has more than once affirmed, that the Superintendency efiablished at the Reformation, was the fame in Subflance with the Epifcopacy he plead- ed for. Where you fee that the Chief, if not the Sole Reafon he brings to prove that the Scottish Patrons of Prelacy plead not for the Sole Tower of Bi&ops, is, their faying, that they feek no more Power to them, than had the Superintendents : But this is an arch-fallacy; for they ufe all their Endeavours, Art, and Cunning, to perfwade all Men5 that the Superintendents had really, and in effect a Salt and Dejpotick Tower. See the Fundamental Charter cfTresbyteryy &c. from p age 121. to 139. And Spotf- wood's exprefs Words are (y) " We acknowledge c that there were then Synods, but fuch as the c Superintendents governed according to their c Abfolute Plcafures. We acknowledge alfo that € there were Parochial Seffions, ccnfifting of Lay- c Eders, Deacons, and Paroch Minifters, but c who were all obedient to the Superintendent, (u) §. 3 r. (*) §. 3 *. (y) Refutat. Libelli, &c. fag. 7. Sy- nodosfuifle fatemur, fcdquas Superintendences pro aibitrio regebam : Confiftoria itidem in Ungulis Parsciif, ex Laid*, Presbyteris, Diaconis, & Ecelefiarum Pafioribus, fed qui om« nes Superintendencis dicto audiences srant, fine cujus maa- sU;o nihil ulUtti mom§u>i a& iilgzzehm* I without c 48 Cyfrianus Ifotimut. Chap. I •without whofe Command nothing pfany Mo- c ment was by them done. And ( z* ), " The € Ordination and Confirmation of Minifters, € the Moderating of Aflemblies, the Excommuni* € cation of the Obftinate, the Sufpenfion and Depo- 'fitron ofMinifters, are parts of Eccleliaftical Ju- * rifdi&ion, which the buperintendents, without c the Concurrence of any other Paftors>withoiit all € doubt did exerce. And when'tis objeded that the Superintendents were accountable to the Aflemb'ieSj cc I deny it not ( anfwers he) ( a ) : But then we muft remember, that no Minifter might go to c the Synod.but fuch as the Superintendents them- c felves thought fittoReafon and Judge of Matters: c And fo the Superintendents were not accountable c to the common fore of the Miniftry, but to the ' Superintendents of the reft of the Diftrids, who c are of equal Power with themfelves? and to the 4 Chief of the Paftors, to whom the Superinten- dents themfelves gave Power to come tothefe * Synods. And ( b) cne of the Differences he affigns between the Superintendents and Cemmifsiomrs of the Kirk, is, That the A&s of thefe Commifsioners were not reckoned valid till fir (I the /ijjembly approved them. And we have learned^ moreover, from this fame (z) ?ag. 21. PaftoresOrdinare,Conventus Moderari,PrefractG$ facris arcere,a Miniftero ad tempus auc m perpetuum fummo- vere, partes funr Jurifdicrionis Eccleflafticar quasSuperinten- dentes, non adfeitis Miniftris exercuiflV, extra Controrerfiam eft. (*) P^.22,23.--Minimc inficiabor : Sed meminifle opor- ter, ad hanc Synodum nulli Midftro accefTum tunc permif- fum, nifi quem Superintendences ipfi, re&us ibi difceptanriis, & dijudicandisidoneumcenfuiflent : Atqueita rarionem redr didiffe, non vulgo Mi^iftrorum, fed Superintendentibus.rcli- quarum ditionum, paris poteftacis, Sc primoribus Paltorum, aups ipfi iftiufingdi costibu$ adhibebanc, {?) Ibid. S>pQtfwoij Chap. F. Cyprianus Jfotmus 49 SpotfwooJ, how willing he and his Companions were to grafp and monopolize the Adminiftration of all Church Affairs. Much more might I adduce to this purpofe f rom the fame Author, were it not fuperfluous* it being clear as the Light from what is adduced, that, if we believe Spotfwood, the Superintendent t had over the reft of the Paftors a SOLE, ABSOLUTE, and DESPOTICK Power in all CO) fiderabie Affairs of the Church : Hence 'tis no lefs clear, that when SpotJwoU and others their faying that they give no more to the Bilhops than was given to the Superintendents^ is adduced by J%S. to prove that thefe Authors give not a SOLE POWER to the Bifhop, he intends to put an arch Cheat upon u?, and to perfwade us of the Truth of that., which he himfelf knows well to be Falfe. Wherefore, tho' J. S. could bring from Sptfwted-, or his fellows, paffages undenyably clear againft the Sole Power of Bilhops, he fhould only thus evince that they are egregioufly felf repugnant, never that they really difallowed the SOLE POWER. Neither are they lefs flippery & equivocant when they talk of the Bifhops Obligation to ufe theCounfelcr Advice of his Presbyters : For^ except when they contradict themfelvesand their Principles?they only underftand fuch Counfel and Advice as the Bifhop indeed is obliged to hear and confider, but is noc bound to follow one jot of it further than in his own prudentials he (hall fee fit and proper. But befide all this3 Spot/wood ( c ) their Csryphscus^ is (O Refuc. Libell* pag. 37, 38.*" ■ ■ 'Quorufqiufque noa novit difciplinsm omnem rem effe mutatiom obnoxiam. - — - — Vclle tamen omaes cotius orbis Ecclefias, ad banc veliJlam Politic formam adftringere, hocvero eflk Confcien- tiis laqueum, & mifcrrimum frmtytis jugumirnponere, &c D exprefs 5© Cyprianus IJotimu^ Chap. 1# exprefsfor the Mutability of all Church-Difcipline, Government and Policy, committing it intirely to the Churches Guides, the Prelates, doubtlefs,to be altered in whole or in part, as they find caufe. And fo on this account alfo J. 5. is utterly de- prived of any fuccour from him : For I affert, and let it be a Vofiulatum, that whofoever is not for the Divine Right of Prelacy, but a Latitudinarian^ af- ferting the Mutability of Church-Government, tho' he be never fo exprefs againft SOLE POWER, is moft impertinently adduced by J. S. (eing all fuch Authors muft be acknowledged to be, in their Judgment, no more Prelatical than Presbyterian. But on the other hand, if thefe Latitudinarians be found, in Expreflions or Endeavours, to favour SOLE POWER, they are moft juftly brought as WitneiTes againft J. $. For tho' they be not Prelatical in their Judgment, they are yet ex- tremely Prelatical in their Affe&ions, em to the Captivating of both Judgment and Confcience • and therefore when hope of Gain or Honour appears, will not fail to do their uttermoft for the Eftablifhing and Defence of it: And this is the very Guilt we charge on J% S, and his Frater- nity. §. XXII. Veter Hay is another of his Anci-Sole- Power Prelatifts (J). " They ( the Bishops V faith " he (e), are to learn the Arts of their Government from GOD Himfelf, who, albeit he hath both abfolute and infinite Power,- that he could bring any thing to pafs in a moment in the Gene- ration of whatfoever his Creatures, yet for the maintainance of their Order and ^olicy^he doth adjoyn unto his Working the ordinary Concur; (<*) §♦ 29% (* ) Vifioiifof Btlaams Aft* p« 2*0, J rence Chap. I. Cypriamts Ifotmus. 51 € rence of fecond and inferiour Caufcs.' ■ -They 'are to follow the Example of Mofes \n t\\tjewi(h € Rule ofGGD's People » "They muft not only 1 imitate the Mofaical Rule, where it ferveth to 'Eftablifa their Power, but alfo in that which c St. Jerom doth Record of Mofes, who having in ^ his will to be only over the People, yet' he did c adjoyn unto him feventy to affift him. Now, is there here one word againft SOLE POWER ? If Jerom had faid no other thing but the Words *P. Hm ufes, could he ever have been thought to have fpoken againft it ? Did P. H. ever dream that GOD was bound t§ joyn unto bis working the Con* currence rf fecond Caufef, or to give his Creatures a Decifive Voice, and a Reciprocal Negative in his Counsels ? That Mofes had finn'd if he had con- tinu' d to be any longer only over the people > Or, finally, that a Man cann'c from thele Patterns argue that Princes, tho' as abfolute as the Czar or Grand Segnior, ought to confult with their fage Senats, and heedfully confider and weigh their Advices without a white dimini/hing of their Power V But, thus P. H. Argues ( faith J. S.) from both Tattcrns, from the greater to the lejjer ; as if he badfaid, If GOD ,1V ho has Abfolute Power ; and if Moyfes,u^p had once Sole Power, did jo and Jo, much more ought Bishops to do it. But how knows J% S. that P. H. argues from the greater to the leffer ? They make their Bifhops equal, ac leaft, to the chief of the Apoftles ,• why therefore might not P. H. judge them equal to Mofes himfelf? But giving that he fo argued, it will only follow that he thought that it was very decent and congruous for the Bishops to take others to affift them, but not at all that B z they; 52 ' Cyffianus Jfotimus. Chap. I. they finivd if they did otherways. That P. H. ( continues J. S. ) Reafons fo, is plain from what be adds, viz. That by the antient'Canotis, and the practice eft he Primitive Bishops, fuch as Ignatius, Cyprian, Ambrofe^ &c. iheVresbytersccncurrdwiththe Bijhep in the Adminijlration of the Government and Discipline* But, as is now manifeft, tfio* he Reafons fo, he affords but fmall gain to J. S. Moreover, that he does Reafon fo, J. &$ proof is far from evin- cing : The Canon cited by P. H. is || of thefe call'd Apoftolick ; The Bijliop in every Nation mu[i under- fiand> that he who in his own Jurifdiclon is Head over the reft, without whoje Authority they can do nothing, neither he shall proceed \ but by their Concurrence and Advice, by that, means Unanimity shall be kept, and GOD shall be Glorified. Wherein there is not one word of Presbyters, or the Power to be allowed them ; but only of the mutual Deportment of Piimats and other Biihops : Wherefore as P. H, has been eider moft ftupid or carelefs when he cited it, Jm S. has been no iefs droufie when he took this C#»0# for a pertinent proof of P. H's Conclu- fion. The Concurrence allowed by Ignatius, the Hierarchicks ufe to interpret of Advice only, and no Decisive Power. And thac this is P. tfs mind is clear from thefe his Words ( / ). tc For this fort c of Government doth much cafe them in their • Difcharge, and nothing derogace from their Au- € thority : For who will fay that a Temperate € Monarch who followeth his grave Counfel doth * thereby IelTen his Power, but he is the more c Adviied. Thefe, I fay, can by no means be tinderftood of a Parliament, which certainly abridges and makes iefs abfolute the Monarch's (/) Pag. aef. Power s Chap. I. CyfrUnus Ifotimut. 53 Power,- but of a Privy Council for Advice, which he may follow,- or not, according to his pleafure. And this is all the lemperate Rule which P, Hay fays Cyprian followed,- and Ambrofe Teaches. Yea the whole Scope and Tendency of his 9*6 and xoth Chapters, which he fpends for Eftablifhing of Epifcopacy, is, not only to preferr Monarchical Government to a!! others, but alio, to fhew, that the more abfoluce it be, it is fo much the betcer. From all which 'tis unconteftable thatP. Hay was far enough from declaiming or oppofing the SOLE POWER of Biihops. §. XXIII. Nor can better be expeded from one of his ftamp • He was a Papift, who, hoping to find a fatter Fifh inTbames than in Tiber 9 ad joyn'd himfelfto the Church of England, where he penn'd this his Afs, at the very time when King James. was ufmg all endeavours to get the Church of ScotlJnd'madQ conform to that of England, defigning, as he pretends, the Reformation of Scottish Papifts, but, in truth, the Deformation of the Church o£ ScotUnd: For much of the Book is fpent in Extol- ling of Abfoiute Monarchy of both Princes and Prelates, infuife Declamations in Praife of (he Hierarchy, Organs, Clerical Vcftments, and the like badges of the Beafl ; and, finally, in moft - virulent inve&ives* againft the Church of Scotland, and, by confcquence, againft the far greater and better part of die Reformed Churches, calling all Vilipenders of Prelates, Hetercclite, Anabapifilcal "Puritans 9 Impudent, Affronted, and Scbifmaticat Puri- tans. Why ? Becaufe they joyn noc with fi Our ' half Arch, the Church of England, whofe Refor- < mation of all Churches, hath been moft Upright, c Perfeft, and Agreeable to the Architype D 1 !of 54 Oypriatius Jfotimis, €hap. L c of Jerufalem, bieffed of GOD; And our oppofi- ' tiori thereto is not only to be againft GOD's * Glory by maintaining Diftradion within the € Ghurch, butit is apparently a Schifmatical aliena- ' tion from the State ( g ). A Man he appears to have been exa6Hy of a piece with the Bifliop of Spalato : But it is not likely that Veter Hay was fo much folicited to return to Rme as was the other. Add to thefe Tilenus and Saravia, and you will make a Quadriga of the moft paraficical Demos' s that rtadily ever breath'd at any one time. § XXIV. Dr. Forbes ( fays J. S. (b) ) rejttts the SOLE POWER. And I deny it not; but deny, withaL that Forbes his Rejecting of it exeems J. S. from Singularity • fince, as I elfewhere obferved, he really deftroys Epifapacy even then when he labours moft earneftly to vindicate it, confounding It with the Moderator (htp of a Synod, yea or of a Presbytery : And his Biihop he tyes to a particular Paroch, without any allowance to Preach by a Subftitute, and fubjects him to the Judgment and Cenfure of the Synod, yea or of the Presbytery ; for to every Presbytery he grants a Bifho'p (i J. In the mean while, he ufes fuch iiudi'd Ambiguities, Lubricity, and Slynefs, to eftabliili the Hierarchic Bishop, as proclaims him to have been highly Pre- lacic in his Affe&ions, tho' really contrary thereto in his Judgment. Nor can J. S. find any more help in the Do&ors of Aberdeen, feing that he owns they were of Forbes his mind ; and yet both he and they, not only never oppoPd the Camns% which really deftroy all Presbyteries, and other Church Judicatories, and ( $ ) See Chap, 7, &j> (h)$.32z ( 0 See Jm. Book 2. Chap, ua give Chap. !. Cypriattus lfotimts. 55, give the SOLE POWER to Bifliops ; but alfo did all they could to uphold che Empire of fuch Biftiops as are asoppofice to the Bifliops whom Forks fome- times allows, as is the Eaft to the Weft : I fay, fometimes allowes j for he flicks not to contradict himfeif, giving fometimes e. g. a Bilhop to every Presbytery or Colledge of Paftors (JO : And again, one Bifhop only to manyColledges,or Presbyteries, each of which is to have their own Moderator, a Deacon, Cborepifcopits, or VifitatoT (I). As to the Aberdeen Dolors their making Superintendents and Bishops all one, as to Vower, and ihtir faying that the Legiflative and Obligatory Vowel of the Shurch i$ only in Synods or Conventions of Bishops and Vrejbyters ; I will take no more nottice of it, nor of ought of that nature t hat ftiall after occur3S^/^Whimlelf having fufficientlyexplain'd their meaning. § . XXV, In che next place ( m ), The Bifhops are brought whole fale profeffing, in their Declina- ture of the Ajjembly at Glafgow, 1638. that they decline not the lawful try at of a Genet al A$tmbiy law- fully Constituted, And allow cf the Judicial Power of Presbyteries atiing by Rule^ and within their own Sphere. But feing, as is certain, they flill mortally hated all Church Judicatories, and chiefly General Af- fembiies, except fuch Pfeudonomous Affembiies as ferved to eftabliih their Tyranny, and fo (oor as that was done, made it their chief care that there fhould never be any more Affembiies at all ; feing Spotfmod, the real Mouch and Interpreter of the whole 141 has already given us Do&rine quite contrary to what's pretended to be in thisDeclinature; and feing the Bishops* in the fame Declinature, as we have heard, profefs thek good likeitfg ofthe [ Canons} 5 6 Cfprlanus lfotimus. Chap. I. Canons which gave them an ABSOLUTE and SOLE POWER 5 'tis fufficicntly manifeft, that there h^sbeen toolittle Truth, or Sincerity in either Declinators or Allegatcr. But hear the Bifhops fur- ther ( n ), We affirm that it is agAznft Order , Decency* a7id Scripture, that ive should bz judged by Presbyters^ cr by Laicks, without Authority and Gom- miflionfrom Soveraign Authority, A good indication that they thought they ought to Judge all, and be Judged of none, and fo claimed the SOLE POWER, over both Paftors and People. In the mean while they go quite crofs to Forbes, zsForkes does to himfelf : For the fpecial care of ail of them was how to wheedle and deceive. §. XXVI. f.S. (o) alledgesthatKingCW^L was not at all fir lodging the SOLE POWER of either Ordination cr Jurifdidtion/tf the Bishops Verjon. The V/ords he cites are in eik. BA2. Chap. 17. *' Not that 1 am againft the managing of this c Prefukncy and Authority in one Man, by the c joynt Counfel and Confent of many Presbyters; * I have offered to reftore that as a fit means to € avoid thele Errors, Corruptions, and Partialities, € which are incident to any one Man : Alfo, to c avoid Tyranny, which becomes no Chriftians, c leait of all Church-men- Befides it will be a € means to take away that Burden and Odium of * Affairs, which maybe too heavy oa one Man's c fhoulders ,• as, indeed, it did formerly on the *Bi(hops here. Now, to wave the Difputeifthe King was the Author of this Book, *tis clear, that C feing any Limitations he here yields to were never ..mentioned by him before, but only then granted out of compulfion, that he might come the (n ) Dtclin. Pag. aft { o) §. 36. more Cdap. I. Cypriams Ifotiwtts. 57 more eafily to an accord with the Parliament ) tho' he had (aid much more, it can be no Argument ac all chat he judged the SOLE POWER of Bifliops Unlawful. Again* 'cis here clear as the Sun, that the Bifliops had then ufurped and exerc'd a Tyran- nical SOLE POWER in the Church of England, which the King, for peace's fake, was willing fomewhat to rnoliify. And, Laftly, 'tis moft evident, that whatever he fpeaks of the joynt Counfel and Confent of Presbyters, which? as we lhall hear, they foglofs as nothing thereby to hurt the iOLE POWERi he places all the Prefidancy and Authority in One Manf the Birtiop. If the reft of the Quo- tations he brings from the King's Writings make againft SOLE POWER, all the advantage f. S. can reap will be the Involving his Majefty in a manifeft felf-Contradi&ion, provided that I, which is my only Task, prove that the King was incontrover- tibly for it ; which, befide that which is already adduc'd, thefe following paffiges evince. His Majefty, in his Anfwer to the Minifters in the ffle of V/ight, which I find in his Relicjuia facra €<*rolin*y Printed at the Hague, i6j 1, has thefe moft memo- rable Words ( p )t "Epifcopal Government in * thatfenfe being nothing elle but the Government c of the Churches within a certain precind: ■ ( commonly called a Diocefs ) comitted to one c fingle Perfon, with fufficient Authority over the ' Presbyters, and the people of thele Churches for "that end, lince the fubftance of the thing it felf ■in all the three forementioned particulars (Or- 'daining, giving Rules and Cenfures) is found * in the Scriptures, unlefs you will ftrive about < Names. ■■r- ,. ■ ■*» You muit alfo acknowledge (p) Parts/ Pag, 105. 'that ' 5 8 Cyprunns Ifotimuf. Chap. J, * that Epifcopal Government in the (enfe afore- f faid may be diffidently proved from Scripture. And f 5 ) " Bi&ops are Epifcopi Gregis & Vaporum * within their feveral precincts, in the A£b ccf external Government, fo that the common * work of both Fundions is the Miniftry of the cGofpek but that which is PECULIAR to the 'Fun&ion of Bifhops as diliinguiftied from Pref- *byters?is Church-Government. And (r) "Inthefe € two ordinary Offices ( Teaching and Governing ) * their {the Apo files) Succeffors are Presbyters and % Billiops; Presbyters qua Presbyters immediately Succeeding them in the Office of Teaching, and <6i(hops qua Bilhops immediately in the Office of c Governing. And ( f ) " His Majefty prefumeth *you could not be ignorant, that all, or moft of c the Teftimonies you recite of the ancient Fa* 'thers, Writers of middle Ages, School-men and cCanonifts, and ch* Book publiihed under King 'Henry the 8th, do but either import the promif- 'cuousand indifferent ufeofthe names ofBifhops cand Presbyters; whereof advantage ought not to * be made to take away the difference of the things, cor elfe they relate to a School point ( which in c refped of the thing it felf, is but a very nicety) •difputed Fro and Con by curious Queftioniits, € XJtrum Epifccpatus fit or do ) was common to both c alike ; but the other part ( that of Governing (?) lbiil.;j£eao4< (r)f*£f2otft (f)fifnu (Oft* ► Churches ) Chap. I. Cyf nanus Ifotinsns. 59 * Churches) to the Bifhop ALONE. Thus the King, with whom che bulk of the Epifcopals may be, with all Juftice and Reafon, prefumed to ?gree. And now I leave to my Reader to judge if J. S. dealt fairly when he gave out that King Charles I. was not at all for lodging the SOLE POWER of either Ordination or ]urifdi£}ion in the Bilhops Verfon. And in this J, S, his dealing by both Father and Son, we fee that ev'n the mod Sacred Perfons, Kings themfelves; can no more than other Men be guarded from being moft foully Mifreprefented* J$\ XXVII. But ( u)9 Andrew Lcling Solely, or to a Bishop exclude! ing the Counjel and Asjiftance of Presbyters. But for g further 60 Cypriaws Ijotltnus. Chap, T^ further Confirmation hereof, let Honeyman himfelf j fpeak : "The Apoftles (faith he, (y) ) had •SuccefTors tothemfelves in that Plenitude of Or* € dinary Church Power, for that was not to ceafe1 * until the end of the World. —The great cQueftion is.Who are theSuceefforsof the Apoftles c in this Ordinary Church Power? There be conly three probable Pretenders to that Succeffion, * fingle Presbyters in the modern Notion, Col- * ledges of thefe 'Presbyters in a full Equality of * Power, orfome fingle Perlons having Superiority *of power over Ordinary Presbyters, That the € Apoftles committed that fulnefs of Ordinary c Church* power to any fingle Presbyter, in the mo- *dern Notion, to be excrcifed by himfelf alone, ' Presbyterians themfelves will not fay,that no fingle c Presbyter hath^ in and by himfelf, Power of c adual Ordination o£ Minifters or Jnrifdifticn, will * beeafily agree'd to on all hands. If it bealledged cchat Colledges of fingle Presbyters had that Ple- nitude of Church- power committed to them by *the Apoftles.- We pofe them peremp- torily, where they can foew in all the Hiftory c of theApoftles,that fuch aColledge or Meeting of c Presbyters was by them Inftituted, or Impowered ' with this plenitude of Church-Power, &c And (O " That the Apoftles did commit the Pleni- * tudt of Ordinary Church-Power to fome fingle * Perfons in a Superiority above other Minifters, €may not only appear from the Afiatick Angels, &? Here the Plenitude of Power, or SOLE TOMER, is fairly Lodg'd in one Perfon, the Bifnop- againft which, without a Self-contradiction, his adding thefe words, IN SUPERIORITY^, can make Chap. I. Cypriamts Ifotimus. 61 make nothing, feing if thefe ether MiniBers have any part of the power, thefe fingle Perfons, the Eifhops; can be in no fenfe faid to have commit- ted to them the plenitude thereof. In a word, it is clear that in his mind? as the Apoftles had com- mitted unto them the plenitude oi^ower, or SOLE tOWERXoRxfao^ Alone are theirSucceffors therein. JT. XXX. His next Author (a J is Bifnop Lighton> whofe words in the fecond of thefe Ar- ticles he offered to the Dijjenting Brethren at ¥*fleft are, fhdt all Church Affairs Jhall be managed in ?re{- hy tries and Synods by the free Vote of^resbters or jhe major part of them. And now, at length? he has got one who indeed houghs SOLE POWER, but the Mifchief is, that when he does he overdoes; for he has cafhiefd alio the Negative Vote, and confer quentiy the very Effence of J. S. his Epifcopacy. In the mean while, all this was but only a meer Lure to catch the pres6yterians. ff. XXXL Nor has he better affiftance from Dr. Bumet feing in thefe very Conferences, as I elfewhere evinced ( b ), he mare ways than one totally ruines Diocefan Epifcopacy. §. XXXII. The Author of the Reformed Bi&op {continues J. S. (c) ) makes it his work in the 12th. Article, to fiew that Bishops ought to do nothing with-' cut the Concurrence of their Presbyters. He affirms / that by the common praBice of the primitive Church, Bishops did nothing without their presbyters ; and that cf old Presbyters, and many times, Deacons bad Decifivc Voices in provincial Councils. But all this-they can cafily fay, and yet, if we believe them, do no hurt to SOLE POWER : Nor can J. S. fay, that this Au- thor thought the Bilhops were obliged to yield ta C> ) §? **•., ( * ) M>*, $}gir. fsti* tsu *5$ 0 J $• 44, the 61 Cyprianus Ifotimus. Chap. I, the Deacons Decifive Voices ; and yet he fays no more of the Presbyters. And to prove that the an- cient Bi/hops made ufe of their Presbyters in Con- futing and Judgirg of Affairs, he, in the fame Article, cites that known Saying of Cyprian, That he had determined^ from his- fir H entry upon his $1* shoprick, net to adjudge any thing by his own private order \ without the Con lent of his Clergy. And yet if he be of the lame mind with J. S. he believed that all this was only Cyprians free and voluntary conde- fcehfion* and that it was a thing he was not bound to do by any Divine Vrefcript, or any Apofiolical tradition, or •any EccUJiafiial Ccfijiitution (d J% And fo all 3< S. has brought from this Author is far enough from proving him to 6e an Enemy to SOLE POWER. §. XXXIII. And now to go On. be it that the Author of the Differences of the limes allows presby- ters a Hand in the Government of the Church ; and A. C. M. A. allows them an Affiflance \ yet they, according to their wont, may unde^ftand it of a Power only Confultative, not Decifive. $. XXXI V. To the Author of the TV* Queftions, &c. whom I could never meet with, Reducing the Epifcopal power to a Negative Voice ; I Anfwer, that cither he was but half Prelatift, or he underftood not their principles, on which is mcf> of all pro- bable, diffembled them. $\ XXXV. A. m D. D. is the laft of his Scottijh Authors: who (faith J. S, ) {e ) in his €s Excellent Enquiry into the new Opinions, &c. mo ft plainly makes the Epifcopal Power to confefl in the bishops having a Negative Voice. But hear A. Mm (d) See the Frincipks $f the Cfptftnic Jge, Page 39. and VindiC. page 344* 34?. (O §« 48. Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotimns. 6% D. D. himfelf ( f ) " The Apoftolical Office, in € its Nature and EfTence, is perpetual in the churchy 1 And as this Ordinary and Perpetual Power was 'derived from CHRIST to his Apoftles, fo by c them it was conveyed to their Succeflhrs to all c fucceeding Generations, and then it rriuft be Jure * Divino in the moft rigorous Notion of the Word, *Nor is there any thing can formally diftinguifh c an Apoftle from other Minifters of the Evange- Mical Oeconomy, but their Supreme and Spiritual * power to Govern and Manage Eccleiiaftical Afii * fairs by their proper ( i. e. SOLE ) Authority^ * of which they are to give an account to our.Sa- € viour. And (g ) " When they ( the Apoftles ) * founded Churches in their Travels, they retained c the Government of them in their own Perlons 6 for a while; but when the neceffities of the € Church did oblige them to remove, they com- * mitted the . Epifcopal, or Apoftolical Infpedion c of thofe Churches to particular Perfons* who fuo- ' ceeded the Apoftles themfelves even in an Apo^ ' ftolical Authority • I mean, that Re&oral Power, * which was Permanent and Perpetual, and by * which the Apoftles were diftinguiflied, not only c from the Faithful, but from all other Subordinate € Ecclefiafticks, And (£) {fNow let us view c from the Epiftles to Timothy, what Power and € Authority was committed to him ; he is com- € manded not to rebuke an Eleder, but to entreat chim as a Father, i Tim* <;. i. and again, not to € receive an Accuiation againft an Elder, but before c two or three witneffeswrii^to rebuke fuch asSin € before alJ, that others alfomay fear, to lay Hands ' fuddenly on no Man, ver. 22. to Ordain fuch (/) t*t*99* io*c (&) t'i* i«3. ( * ) t*P *°7- *«*• ' Deacons ^4 Cyprianus Jfotimns. Chap. I, * Deacons as are firft proved and found blameiefs. €, — _-~ He is iikewife commanded iTim^ 5. c 9, to take fpecial care of the Widows, and care* c fully to dilHngu'fh fuch as were true Obje&s of * Charity; from fuch as might be juftly charged c wirh Levity and Wantonnefs : He is dire&ed in a € fpecial manner, 1 Tim% 2. 1. to order the publick c Worfhip and Liturgies of the Church, and j Tim% € f. 21, he is charged/ and ( N. B. ) He ALONE * in the Church of Ephefus, before God and the 'Lordjefus Chrifl; and the Ele the Cenluring of Elders, 'and his Authoritative preventing of Herefies. Did A. M. D. D. leave the Biftiop only a Nega* five Voice ? Did he no -where, no not fo much as once a/crihe the SOLE POWER of either ORDINAtlONor JURISDIC HON to Bijhofs > Judge then how J. S. came by this Stock of Confidence that fupported him in faying ( i), €€ So many Scottish Advocates 1 for Epifcopacy have I feen, and not {o much as cone of them pleading for the Bifhops SOLE c POWER of Ordination or ]urifdiffion. $. XXXVI. Altho' he has Colleded whatever he could find in Scotland, he has notwithftanding found it needful to go to 'England for Supply, where indeed Men of his Perfwafion ufe to have a kind Reception ; But as for him, fo hard is his Fate, fo unkind his Stars, that of all men he will be moft Unwelcome there. He would compel Whitgifte to lead the Van of his 'English Battalions, but he flatly refufes him his Afllftance. For can he, tho' he fhould write whole Volumes againft SOLE POWER, be ailedged as an Epifcopal Au- thor, who denyes that any one Form;of Church- Government hath any more Warrant fn Scripture than another ? " This ( faith he ) ( k ) is the c Controverfie, whether the Church be bound to the fame kind of external Government at all c times, that was ufed in the Apofties times. I 'have proved hitherto that it is not, And more (*) §• 49« {t) Dtftnce of the Anfyer, &c page 372. E I IS 66 Cypriauus tfolitnus. Ghap: I is to be faid of the fame afterwards. And(l) I am perfwaded, that the External Government of the Church under a CJiriftian Magiftrace, muft be according to the kind and Form of the Govern- ment ufed in the Common vvealc!i> elfe how can you mjke the Prince fupreme Governour of a!l States'and Caufes Ecclefiaftical ? And Cm) It is untrue, that the External Form o' Govern- ment in the Church ought to be One* and the felf fame throughout the World in all times and places, as it fhall hereafter more fully appear. And {n) *I have proved before, that the Ex- " ternal Form and kind of Government in the Church is not One and Uniform, f as you here affirm jbut Variable, according to place, Ptfrfoii/ and Time ( o). Alf kind.- of Government were one to him,- he would have been as ready for Presbytery as Prelacy ,had it not been,that5as their own ingenious and ingenuous Mr, Fuller obferves oftheBifhop cfSpalatc, He found the Roof of the fresbyterian Church tee low for his lofty thoughts, and their Presbyterian Government uncomplying for his Archiepi(copal Spirit ( p ). Ocherwife Power Equal, Super iour9 or Sole was all alike to him ; whom his Works all over proclaim to have been a true Mtl- chife and Herodia* of the hill Rank. Wherefore, J. S. his alledging of him, except it fprung from either Diffimulation or Ignorance, is not very ac- countable; but far lefs this following Paffage in Whitgifte {q)9 as being moft pat againft SOLE POWER* I did never jo give the Authority of Ex- communicating tQ the Bijhop Alone? that I think is may not have other Jffiflance joyned unto him for the Execu- (l) page iSp. (m) page 433. («) Pag, 761, (#)_ See alf© affifugfc ochet places to the fame puipofc, Pages 236. 304,30$, 307,418, 410,469, 642, 658,669. (p) Hilt. Book 10. page 94. (?) pagr673.cu<;dby J. S. §,51. **'•* Chap. f. Cyprlanns Ifotiwus. 6} ti m of it^ if the Order of the Church fo require. And now I appeal to the ingenuity of all Men, faveof j. S% if thefe words at ail militate againft the Allowablenefs of SOLE POWER; if they much rather make not for it • if thev really allow noc the Bifhop Alone the Power of Excommunica- tion? ivhick^ as j. S. acknowledges, is none of the most ignoble aSs of Juri/diclion^txccpt the Order of the Church had joyivdfometo affift him.and that only in the Execution thereof • which makes no real Abatement ot SOLE POWER, efpecially if we remember that by Church here? only the Prelates, and fuch as they fway, are mean'd. Ttt ( continues Whitgifte, anfwering his Adverfay Mr. Cart-wright') this preveth noty but that the Sifkcp may £xcommuni~ cate ALONE, if that Authority be given unto him by the Order of the Church. And ( r j %i By all thefe Ca- 'nons and auncient Councels it is evident, that 'from time to time even in the beft and pureft c fxate of the Church, Biflbops ALONE have had c Authority to Excommunicate. And leaft T. C c fhould here iiee to his ofde lliifce, and newly de- c vifed Diuinction, that this is attributed to the Bi- ' fhop,bycaufe he was the dhiefe of theAciion^and 1 did moderate it, and noc bycaule the Authority c and Power ct Excornmenicacyng remavned ia chim ( N '. B. ) ALONE- aithoughe themanyfeft € woordesof the Councctfs overthrowe it5and it is • not to be juitified by any learning or good Au- € thority, yet that tho Reader may the better un- 'derftande the vanity ot if. I wili recite?- ' wherefore ic is playne that she Bifhop ALONE c may Excommunicate (/). And that the Power of ail Exercifeof Difcipline is placed in the Engiifc liifhops only, and that Whitgifte likes wrell enough (r) Page f77. (f) See page* (568. 669, 674. thereof, 62 Cjpridmu lfctimus* Chap, I. thereof^ teems evident from thefe his following words ( t ), " The place in the eighteenth of - Saind Matthew* is underftanded of rhoie, to * whom the Difcipline of the Churche, is by the € Authority of the Churche committed, that is in c this Churche of England* the Bifnop% And there- c fore that place cannot prove that there is any in- c /ury done to thePaftor5or that he is fpoy led of his f lawfull Jurifdidlion. J. S. his great Hooker is exa&Iy of the fame Principles concerning Church-Government with Wiitgifte, as I eifewhere make evident ( u); and lo he can do him juft as much as a great Bubble. §. XXXVII. I lay the lame of Suttivius, who really* and in effect, allows no other Court but that which is Civil, no other Governing Power in the Church, but that which is lodg'd in, and derived from the Civil Magiftrate ( x Jx And therefore, were he never fo Dogmatic againft SOLE POWER, can be of no ufe to J. S. But this is not all ; for we (hall find him not a white Iefs in Love with SOLE POWER, than any other hitherto alledg d. " All Councels ( faith he) (y) give Preheminence to Bifhops over otherMinifters: And to the Councels, the Fathers fubferibe. By infinite Teftimonies whereof it may appear* that Excommunication, Ordination? and the Govern- ment of the Church next under the Prince, did belong to Bifliops.^-^^Saint Jerome hath a molt pregnant place for Excommunication, where he w?ondereth that no one Bifhop could be found to Excommunicate Vigilantius. And if ( N. B. ) ( { ) Page 673. ( u ) Naz. Quer. page 3. (x) See his An* fwert* a certain Lybsl, Chap. 2. and his Bo< k, De Trcsbytcri$, c*?> 4 5,6* 8> 14. (j) Anjwtr t@ *cert*inLybeltCb0p, i.page 2. all c Chap, h Cypriaws Ifotimus. 69 f AH the Government of the Church was commit- 1 ted to Bifliops ; no doubt but that they difpofed ! of thefe Matters alfo. And (z) Bi(bopsdid ONLT Ordain. And (a) Cyprian fometimes did, and 'might do things by his own Authority. And (b ) In the 9th. Epiftle of Cyprian's 4th Book, there are diver fe R^z- fons te foew the Government of the Church to have been alwife committed to the Bijhep-, and the Union cf the fame to be placed in confent of Bishops. And in his Book De Preshyterio the very Book J. S. cites againft SOLE POWER (c) [i£i\(vs jy rvrs^pf vta r Epifcopi appellor, id el^Concilianos &AiIcfIor- s, n on £r*fidentes. Ecfdem hortatur, uc Epifccpo pareanc, Dc- nique ut Confilio opus fuerit, cum miHse leges quoad ex:er- numOrdinem Ecclefia? efT-nt, quid nunc opus lilis dtr cum cerris CoTiftitutiofiibus fuumcuiq; officium defcriptnm eft? if ) Cap. is* Pag. 1*6. LuculennfTim* nobis depingit ( Ig* n*tu$) Epifcopojum jura t? y*f iwtffKCTc^ ( inquit illej dh\" ^*Vtf£ Vpj|Hf x} i%vet*s Winim m&rrw *f&7av-y hoc eft, quid tit Evifcopus, mil qui crnnis Deminn'onis, & poteitatis jus habet fuper on)ne> ? ( £ ) as Cap. tilt. ( h ) §•54 (?) defence, Book}, Chap, r, page 21. 22. "Biihops Chap. I. Cyprhntts Ifotiwui. 71 c Bifeops had the SOLE POWER of Ordination c and JurifdicSion ? Where do I deny, eirher that 'Bifhops did, or might ufe the affiftance of their c Presbyters, for either of both ; or that in defedfc € of Rifhops, both the one and the ether might be 'performed by Presbyters? In a word where do I c deny all Power or either Ordination orjurif- € di&ion to Presbyters ? And (k) " Where do I c fay, they C the B/ hops) muft have the SOLE 'POWER of Ordination, which you have (o oft 'objected, make you no confeience of publishing € of Untruths ? Cannot Bifhops beSuperiours to € other Minifters in the Power of Ordination and ' Jurifdi&ion, which is the thing I maintain, un- c lefs they have the SOLE POWER ? And ( / ) crI deny not the presbyters, which have charge of 1 Souls, to have Jurifdidion both feverally in their 'Parodies, and joyntly in Provincial Synods. And (777) "Whence cometh this SOLE, I pray f you, that hath fo oft been foifted in? I fear c greatly from an evil Confeience, rdolvedto op- 1 pugn and deface the Truth. Cannotthe B, be c Superior to Presbyters in the Power of Jurifdi&i- (or, unlefs thev have ( as none have) the SOLE c POWER of Ju ■ifdidion > And (w) " Gcd c amend that Soul, chat (oof; foifteth in that SOLE ' befides my meaning and my wo ds And. (0) " O c defiled Confeience. which ceafeft not to afcribe € fuch odious and abfurd Afiertions to me. By thefe Tragical Exclamations againft their owning of SOLE POWER, and their great pretended Deteflation thereof, 'tis moft evident, ev'n our Adverfaries tbemfelves being Judges, that the Co- ( k) Chap. 3. page 63. ( /) Chap. 5. page no, (m) Page 118, (w) Page 119.(0) Page 116. voting ^2 Cyyriatuts lfoimus. Chap. I. veting or Exercing of it is to be reckoned amongft the moft foul and enormous Crimes • and that; if I (ball prove Downame} the fame Downtime, to be as much for SOLE POWER as any Man is or can be, and evince, that all he allows to Presbyters is a Power of Confulting and Advifing only, which the iBifhop may chufe or refufe as he fees meet ; then I truft that all the endeavours J. S. and his Fel- lows, tho' never fo Laborious, fhall ufe for purga- tion of the Hierarchies^ fhalh for the future, have little fuccefs, or find little credit with all luch as love not to be deceived. But before I more fully detect D&wnames true femiments, I muft tell Js S. that tho' all he has brought, and a thoufancj Tuns to boot, had been fincerely faid by Dr. Downame, and moft clear ♦ againft SOLE POWER, and that without the leaft grain in all his Works of Self- repugnancy ; yet could he be of fmall fervice to J. S. feing, thro' the power of Truth, he is compeli'd to yield that Presbytery is well nigh as good as Epifcopacy, and is a L^titudinarian, afferting the Mutability of Church Government, and the Indifferency of its particular Forms : Presbytery is with him Lawful, tho' Epifcopacy be more eligible ( p ). And now take fome fwatches of Downames more genuine thoughtsconcerning SOLE POWER, And firftout of his SERMON (*~«—~B\ic € when the Apoftles were to difcontinue from ^thefe Churches, which they had planted, then cwere Bifhops iabftituted* And ( * ) "Before •c Titles were diftingui(hed,and Presbyters afligned c to their (everal Cures, they attended the whole cF;ock in common,- which after the Parifhes € were diftingui/hedt and they fevered to their 'feveral Cures, they did not: Only the Bifhop, € and the Presbyters which remained ftiil about- 'him, had the like care, which the Apoftles and c Presbyters had, at firft , The Biihop ufing the \ Advice of the Presbyters ( though not to be over- (O Pag. 49. (0P*g.<&. («)p.8S. (*) pages. *9-9°' ruled Chap. I. CjpriAnus Ifotim^s. y$ 1 ruled bv them ) until their Advice and Afliftance, c to themfelves feeming troublefome, and to the € Bifliop ( by reaion of the frequent Synods* and c Synodal Conftitur.ions ) needlefs. grew out of 4 ufe. Thus, like the Adulterous Woman, he eat- ech, and yet wipeth. his Mouth, andfdith, I have done no wickednefs. But fure, may you fay> in his Defence of this his Sermon he took care, and was more cautious than drop ought in favour of SOLE POWER, fince in the fame Defence, as we have heard, he foearneftiy Labours to pcrfwade Men that he rnoft paffionatly condemns it, and that he is moll injuricufly be- fpatter'd, when charged with maintaining of if- Nay, fay I, on the contrary, it was meet, in Divine Providence, that he, who fo impudently cry'd out on his Refutator, who had accuPd bim of that guilt whereof it was impo/Iibie for him not to be confeious, fnould again fall into a Net of his own making, that the fame Tongue, the fams Pen, the fame Book, fliould all a& both the part bt Witpefs, and Judge againft this Author,- and juft fok came to pafs : For have we not already heard him faying f j ) in the very firft place cited by J. S. to prove him an Enemy to SOLE POWER, Where do 1 deny either that Bifiops did, or might ufe the Affiance of their Presbyters for either of both, [ORDINATION and JURISDICTION] Where he really gives the Bifonp Power to call or not to call, as pleafes him, the Presbyters to his Affiltance, or for Confutation with him, and to embrace or rejs& their Counfel as he fees meet. ^ncd^ ZrlJ* h Was never Pra<3itedin the Church ;ot GOD, that any Presbyters or Paflors of (y ) Lib, 3. Cap. j, pag, 21 22. (z j Pag. 5, ! Pari/h j 6 Cyfrianus Ifotimus. Chap I. € Parifhes fhould be called to General Councils, to * have Right of Suffrage and Authority to Judge, ' and Determine thefe matters which were debated c in thefe Councils. And ( a ) Cyprian^ becaufe * his coming to the Bifaoprick was much refitted, 'and the time wherein he lived Troublefome J * Therefore though he might (as Jerom fpeaketh c of ail Bidiops ) Rule Alone as Mofes% yet as ' Mofes, he voluntarily ufed the Affiftance of others, * having, as himfelf faith, from the beginning of * his Biflioprick determined to do nothing by his c own private Sentence without the Counfel of the c Clergy and Confent of the People : Whereby cit appeareth, that his ufmg of the Clergy's Coun- * fel, and Confent of the People was not of 4 neceffity, but voluntary. And ( b J H Jmbrofe * and ochers thought it needful that a Presbytery * of grave and ancient Minifters, (hould with their ■c Counfel and Advice affift the Bifliops in cafes of c doubt ( as Dr. Biffin faich ), of danger and * importance, when as yet neither Synods could € Affemble^norChriftian Magiftrates could be found * to help and affift the Church. But this* as it c doth nothing further the caufe of Lay-Elders : * So doth it no more detrad: from the dignity of c Bifhops, to ule the Counfel of Wile and Learned * Men ; than it doth derogate from the Majefty of * Kings to ule the Advice of their Wife and Faith- * ful Counfellers. And now I leave to my Reader to Judge of the Sincerity of the Dodor, and of J. S. $. XXXIX, Bijhop Bilfon ( faith J. S. (c) as he doth no where plead for the BifhopS Incommunicable Right (a) Book, 4 Chap. I. pag< ;i. ( b ) Book. i. Chap. ?. to Chap. I. Cyprianus Jfotlmus. jj h the SOLE POWER of either Ordination or Jurifdi- <9:ion> fo9 on the contrary^ he is fatisfied, if a NEGA* TIVE VOICE be allow d to the Bishop. Where, in his very firft Expreffion, Incommunicable Right, &c. a Scalking Hole is defign'd : But there is ground e- nough to charge them with the Crime of allowing SOLE POWER, cho' they only plead for it as their Right and as lawful, without affirming, that the Bi- fhop fins, if he yield any Power to his Presbyters : And that this, to fay no more, is Bilfen's Mind, ev'n the Epiftle before his Perpetual Government of Chrift's Church proclaims,- Where, in the midft of defign'd Obfcurity, Impofing of Hands, and Guiding of the Keyes, the whole Power of Ordination and Jurif- diciion are really appropriated to the Bifhop. And in the Book it felf, ( d ) " This was ( faith Bilfon ) 'the Ancient and Unfverfal Rule of Chrift's Churca , for the Paftor or Biflaop to have the Power of the Reyes to admit and remove from the Sacraments fuch as deferved it; and for the Examination and Moderation of their Doings, neither People nor Lay-Presbyters were joyned with them, but a Synod of Biftiops in the fame Province every half year heard the Matter, when any found himfeif grieved with the Cenfure of his Bi/hop, and they, according to the Right of the Caufe, were to reverie or ratifie the former Judgment, &c. And ( e) " The Caufes of Ex- communication, and Times of Repentance were wholly referred unto the Judgment of fuch as had the chiefeft Charge of the Word and Sacraments. And (f) Can. 3. which you * cite, neither is there any number of Presbyters it ) Pag.«*. (b-i Pag;23?>*3i. (*•) Pag**4*. (k ) Pag. 2*8. (/.) Pag. 255* Chap. I. __ CyprUnus lftlmus. 72 prefixed, nor their prefence required ; only this is prescribed, if any be prefem, they (hall approve the Bilhops doings with laying their Hands next his. The Bifhop impofeth not Hands, either in their Names* or ac their perils, if anv thing be done againft the Can&ns^xxt as he ALONE bleffeth and confecrateth the perfon that is ordered to the Service of GOD, fo if ought be otherways than well,he ALONE isin Danger forit.And(;#)"They (the Bifh-Jps ) fucceed timothy in the Church; the Presbyteries do not. On the other fide, you claim this Authority from Bilhops to your Presbyteries ; but you cannot prove either their Succeflion from Timothy* or joynt CommifTion with limothy, by any Sentence or Syllable in the Scriptures. That they fhouid Feed and Watch the Flock, you urge, and we grant ; in Teaching and Exhorting, tbey were joyned with Timothy, by reafon the Labou-j rers muft of force be many, where the Harveft was fo g:eat,as in the Apoftles Times ; But in Ordaining and Governing theTeachers.as there was no need of manyXois there no Precept for many. And (n)"Thc Charge is precifely & exactly Timothys, not the Pres- fbyteriesjthePower therefore nauft be his»& not theirs. And now, if Mr. Melvin and Mr. Calderwoed have, as J. S. fays.juftly cited Downame and Biljon, as being both cg~i; at SOLE POWER, I truft, that all Thinking and Unbyals'd Men will, after perufal of this, be fatisfied, that I have no lefs juftly cited both, as being moft clearly and refoiv dly% for it. In the mean while, 'tis certain, that neither of thefe choife Servants of Chrift ever believed Downame and Bilfon to be real Haters of SOLE POWER : They cited cheir Words as Confeffions of Adverfaries, («.) P»g'3°4. (».)Pa&3*7» wht 80 CyprUnus Ifotimur. Chap. I. who are not rarely, by the Power of Trluh, com- pell'd to Subfcribe to it, either in termini^ or by good Confequence ,• fo in fome of thefe places, to which J. S. in the Margine of his pages 1^2, 1 jg. refers, did they ufe Downame's and Bilfoncs Teftimo- nies ; but in others of thefe places for an end quite contrary to that which J. S. alledges, even to prove, that Downtime and Bilfon were altogether for, and not againft the SOLE POWER : e. g. Mr. Mehin, or whoever was the Author of theParacle/is againft 2*7*», in his Chap. 9. Seff. 15-. one of the places J. S. cites, whereby to prove, that Mr. Melvln al- low'd Vowname to be no Sole-Power Mali, accufes him of being for SOLE POWER in the higheft pitch j he tells Downame, that the whole Que (lion is, If the Power of Ordination helong any way to Presbyters, cr to the Bishops onlyl And having affented to Dow- name\ Replicator, who brought thefe Words of the 40th. page oi Downamts Sermon, which I gave you in the former Se&ion, to prove that he afcribed the whole Power of Ordination to Bifhops only, adds, Is it not clear from thefe V/ord^ that Downame afcribes Ordination to the Bishops Alone* Do not the Bishops Alone i» England exerce it ? From which Inftance 'tis rnoft plaim that Mr. Melvin believed Downatne to be a high Sole-Power Man, and withal, a notable Preva* ricatorand Self-Contradi&or. From all which ns undenyabie, that thefe Au- thors were rnoft earneft and conftant Sole- Power Men, that, while they exprefs'd any thing, either in Appearance or Reality, repugnant to it, they were only ufing, as Dr. FeQ (o) would have us believe oi Cyprian, Popular Arts, the better to eyite the juft Hate, that fuch Arrogant and Tyrannical ( » ) Annot, ad Ctfr. Epift. 3. J \ Pre* Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotimus $f. Precenfions procure. Wherefore, feing thefe Au- ' rhors now adducd, were xhe firft Champions for Epifcopacy ; wrote moft Fully on thai; Subject, fo that moft of thefe that followed did little more than tranfcribe them ,• and feingtnothing they faid was difliked, but> on the contrary, all, without Excep- tion, was approved and applauded ,• xho' the reft of hisWitneifes^&ou'd all Depone moft clearly and indubitably againft SOLE POWER, and, on the ocherjiand, fay nothing- for it, yet what we have already brought is a moft juft and unfuperable Pre- judice againft them, and fhews, that 'cis highly probable, notwirhftandirig, that they are really no lefs for the BilLops SOLE POWER, than were their Leaders. $. XL But we (hall not leave the Matter fo3 and therefore to his next Author, Mortons Catbolick Appeal, I oppofe Mortons Catbolick Apology , in which, as I elfewhere proved (/>), he difdaims the Di- vine Right of Epifcopacy ; and fo, tho' he dearly loved it, and for its fake, ( ^ ) palpably contra*; dided himleif, is not capable of aftiding /. S. $\ XLI. After Morten, Dr. Field is brought into the Field, as being clear againft the SOLE POWER of Ordination and JurifdiSion (r), which I, at prefent, neither deny nor affirm ,• my only Pro- vince being to make good, that he was plainly and cordially for it. " Now ( jaitb be (f) ) becaufe 1 Churcheb of fo large Extent required many Mini- € iters of the Word and Sacraments, and yet ot one c Church, (ire. a great City, with the whole Coun- ' trey about it ) there mult be but onePaftor • the € Apoftles, in fettling the State of thele Churches, (?)^;Q^.page3, (*) Book i. Chap 33. W U.S. §• *£♦) (J ) Book 5, Chap. 27. pig. 498, 49^ 5Q3j$oi, 82 Cyyrianus Ifotimus. • Chap, h did fo conftitute in them many Presbyters with Power to Teach,Inftrucft,and Direft the People of GOD,that yet they appointedone only to be chief Paftor of the place,Ordaining,that the reft (hould be but his Afliftants, not prefuming to do any thing without him, fo that tho' they were all alike in che Power of Order, yet were the reft inferior unto him in the Government of that Church whereof he was Paftor, and they but his Afliftants only. As another of my Rank. cannot have that Jurifdiclion within my Church as I have, but if he will have any thing to do there* he muft be in- ferior in Degree unto me. — ■-— * Tertullian fheweth, that without the Bifhops Leave and Con- fent, no Presbyter may Baptize, Minifter any Sa- crament, or do any Minifterial A&. ——«**—* But the Ordaining of Men to fervc in the Work of the Miniftry, is more properly referved to them ( the Bijhops ) : For feing none are to be Or- dained at Randome, 6ut to ferve in fome Church, and none have Churches but Bifhops, all other be- ing but Afliftants to them in theirChurchcs, none may Ordain but they only, unlefs it be in Cafes of extreme Neceflity. — — — The Prohibiti- on of the Church, and Decree of the Apoftles, for the avciding of Confusion and Schifm, referv- ing the Honour of Ordaining to Biihops only, ( unlefs it were in Cafes of extreme Neceflity ) might make the Ordinations of all others to be Void. And (f) u None but Bifhops have Churches, wherein to employ Men ,• feing they only are Pa- * ftors of Churches, and all other are but their Afli- € ftants and Co-adjutors. Is all this, as J. S> pre-* tends, nothing but a PEERLESS POWER, and a (O Pag. 703. RE- Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotitnns. 83 RECIPROCAL NEG ATIVE?Is there ought clear- er, than that, in thefe places of Field which we have now adduc'd, whatever Field himfelf or others may fay, to darken orcontradid them, the Bifhops get a Mafterly Domination, and the SOLE Right ot dif- pofing all things in the Church, and that the Presby- ters are nothing but fo many Journey-men> not ha- ving one Grain of Power or Liberty, fave what their Lords and Hirers vouchfafe to let fall to them* §. XLIL " Biihop Andrews ( faith J. S. (u ) in ? his Anfwer to Peter iu Moulin s fecond Letter, ac- € knowledges, Churches that have only presbyters c to be true Churches. By fair, Confequence, he * mult own the Validity of Vresby*erial Ordinations, * and /iBs oijurifdiiiion. Thus he. But hear Spo'tf- wWfpeaking of the fame Andrews, A Quellion{[d\th he ( x ) wm moved hj Dr. Andrews Bijhop ef Ely, touching the Sonfecration df theScottUh Bifrops, who, as he [aid, mu(l fir [I be Ordained Presbyters, as having re- ceived no Ordination f-om a Bishop. Hence 'tis manifeft, that, according to Andrews, Presb)terial Ordination and Juri[diclion is of no Validity ; and fo J. S\ Con- fluence is ftark nought.Eut cho' it were 2W,yet the Second,which he would and muft infer from it, is as ¥ou],viz% That therfore Andrews believed Bifhops in England, or other fuch places where chey are admit* ted, have not the SOLE POWER of Ordination and Jurifdiclion, nor mayilawfully exercife ic. Juft as if one (hould thus argue,* Laics, yz&Midwives, may, in the Judgment of the Hierarchies, in cafe of Ne- ceffity, Baptize,- Ergo, Minifiers of r he Go! pel Alone, where they can be had, have not All the ?cwtr of Baptizing, to the Exclufion of, not only Midwivcs% but, all Laics. But this Inference they reject, as ( u) §<6o, (#) Hift. Page 5r4. F * being 84 Cyprianus IJotiMHt, Chap; I. being manifeftly falfe, aflerting, that where Yriefts or Deacons can be had, they only have Tower to Bap- tize. §. XLIIL Davenant ( {aich 'J. S. (y) gives the State of the main Conrroverfie in thefc vVords, "It c is enough if we can fhew, that thole who are pro- c perly called Bilhops have an higher Dignity, a c greater Power, and more eminent Offices annex- ed to them than other Presbyters. How far is this 1 from flaring it on the SOLE p'OW ER.^And I ac- knowledge, that if Davena?it jlad faid nothing con- tradictory to this, he might, perhaps, have been juftly thought to leave fomething to Presbyters : But to me'tis highly probable that J. S. faw, that Davenant contradicted himfelf,' and really left them nothing. Davenant ( faith J. S. ) did not mean, " That fuch Power belonged fo Incommunicably c to the Bifhop ; as that none but he could 4 exercife it, or be admitted to a Share of it. Tliat is, the Bifhop, if he think fit, may, and not fin in fo doing, Communicate fome part o! his Power to Presbyters. I affirm, that this is the true Meaning of J. S. his Words, and that this is all that, according to him, Davenant allows to Presby- ters • Nor, as we fhalljuft now fee, hashewrong'd Davenant therein But this is fo far from fhaking^ the Biftiops ^OLE POWER, that, on the ve- ry contrary, it rather confirms it to him as his proper Right. Marcm hntonfiu gave a Share of the Empire to hisCoufin, Lucius Verus; had he there- fore never been Sole Emperor? And might he not have ftiil retained that SoU Tower ? But this is an Art peculiar to J. S. and his Fellows, to avow that they give not the Bifhop the SOLE POWER, and yet thereby to mean only, that the Bi/hop may juft- Chap. f. Cyprianus Ifotmus. 85 'y, it he pleafe, give Tome Share of the Govern- ment to the Presbyters. Thefe two Propofitions, [/Davenant meant,n$ more, than that the Chief P }ower in Ordination and Excommunication belonged to the B'i- shop. ] And [ Davenant meant not a SOLE POWER in an Excluftve Senfe : He did not mean, that fuch Power belonged Co Incemmunicably to the Bishop ; as that none but he could exercife it, cr be admitted to a Share of it. ] .he flyly infmuats to be equipollent, and that theic is nothing. in "either but what is in rhe other of them; and in this-the Cheat is couched. To prove I know not whether of r he two, /.S. brings feyeral Reafons ; but, as (hall now appear, altoge- ther ineffe&ual, to prove Davenant an Enemv to SOLE POWER: The firft of thefe is, He live din JEngland, where, by the Conflitution^ Presbyters concur in both powers. E contrdy I fay, if it be undenv- ably proved, that Davenant put both Powers whoily in the Bifhops Reverence, then either thefe his Confiitutions never gave a real Share of 'em toPresby- ters, or Davenant contemn'd and cramped on all of them* But, Davenant peremptorily owns and ajjerts the Validity. of Presbyterian Ordinations, juft foas he afferes the Validity of Baptifm by Laics ; Ergo, &c. which Paralogifm is already expos'd. But, Davenant Commend, the Piety, of the Antient Bishops, who, in Affs of Government, did nothing without their Presbyters, But fays he that they were bound fo to do? Nay, neither he nor J* S. believe it, if we may believe them. And affirms ( continues J. S, ) that Bishops have not a Regal or De(p9tic Power, but only a Pafto- tal and^dternal one over their Clergy. But Bellarmine faid no lefs, while he affirms ( z, ), That Bishops, as (as) De Rflrn* Pont. Lib. 5. Cap. 10. Refpondeo Dominum hie fojurn inftituere meros Principcs Ecckfiafticos, ac docere, de« bereeos, ut rales funt preeffe fubdiris noa more Regum & Do- nuaorum, fed more Patrum & Paftorutn. Vide fij dt Clericit, Cap. i„ & d$ Lticis. Cap. 7- /*** 86 Cyprianus Ifotimus. €hap. I. fucb, ought to Rule the People, not after the wanner of Kings and Lords, but as Fathers and Pa/lors. Was Bellarmin an Enemy to SOLE POWER ? XLIV. And now let Vavenant fpeak for him- felf. " Let us come ( faith be (a) ) to the fecond c Priviledge that belongs to the Epifcopal Dignity, * to wk, the Right and Power of Ordination,- € which by the Ap'oftles themfelves was tranfmitted * ro the Bifhops, but denyed to the inferiour Pref- c byters. «■**■«■ ; Wherefore, before the arrival € of Timothy , could not the Presbyters of Ephefus € Ordain others? Why, before the coming of '. Titus, might not the Minifters of Crete do the € fame ? No fufficient Reafon of this can be given, 7, except that the Power of Ordination rcfts in thefe 'ONLY who enjoy the Epifcopal Office,-— *' There is a Queiiion, it, befide the Bifhop, who cby vertue of his Office, difpenfeth holy Orders, c an Inferiour to a Biflaop can in cafe of neceffity € difpenfe them. To which we Anlwer, feing it * is the Ad of the Epifcopal Office to confer Holy 'Orders, "by vertue of the Apoftolical Inftitution, 'if the Presbyters fhould do that in a well confti- c tute Church, this their A&ing would not only be c Unlawful, but needlefs, and tono purpofe* For c the faying of Hugo takes place here, That which c is don£ againft the Inftitution is held to be of c none effect.' But in a difturbed Church, where € all the Bilhops have fall n into Herefy and Ido- € latry, where they deny to Ordain Orthodox € Minifters, if Orthodox Presbyters * (left the Church fhould peri(h) are forced to * Ordain other Presbyters, I dare not pronounce . (*) Determ. Qusft. 42. Sed acccdat fecund um Infigne dignitatis Epifcopalw, Jus, fc. & Poteilas Ordinandi ; 6% 'thefe Chap. I. Cjpriamu lfotimus. 87 thefe Ordinations to be void, and in vain. For if it be lawful for any Laics to Baptize, when an Infant is in imminent danger,which according to the Inftitution, belongs only to Minifters, why may not an imminent danger on any particular Church be reafon enough to transfer the Office of Ordaining upon fimple Priefts* which, by ver- tue of the Inftitution, belongs to the Bifhops ALONE. •— — — Excommunication, which" is like a fpiritual Baton, is delivered to the Biftiop to Chaftife not only the impure and contuma- cious Laics, but alio Presbyters who deferve this Cenfure. This is moft evident from the Epiftles to Tim$thy and Titus, » By the appointment therefore of CHRIST Himfelf, the Authority of Chaftifiilg Heretics, and cafting them out of the Church, was in the power of the Bifbop. I do not fay that the Biftiop uied todo that without the Counfelof Presbyters,- for that which C^r/W fays of himlelf, that he determin'd from the beginning of his Epifcopate, to do nothing by his own private Sentence, without Advice, 'tis, very like* that that was obferv'd by other pious Bifhops. 'Tis notwichftanding evident, that the Cenfure did proceed ONLY from Epifcopai Authority, and did, as an A& of Epifcopal Juris- diction, affed the Delinquents tho' againft cheir will. For Excommunication is called the Epif- copai Sword : In the caufe of Excommunication there lies an Appeal to the Synod ( viz, of Bijhops only ) from the Judgment of theBifhop, and there the Cenfure of the Bifhoj) is confirmed, if it be rightly pronounced, but if otherways, refcinded. Not the people therefore, nor the Presbyters are I acknow- 83 Cyptiarws Jfotimus. Chap. lt e acknowledged Judges in the Ac5tofExcommunica- ' tioh, but ONLY the Bifhop. •*Jj\ XLV. The Words of Chilling-worth allowing the Bijhop Authority, not Ab[olutei but bounded with Laws, and moderated by joyning to him a convenient , number of rffjijtants, can move no Man, if in the lead acquainted wich the Writings of the Hierar- chies, to rhink that Chillingworth really intended to condemn SOLE POWER. X "XL VI. Arch-bi(bop Ufher's Scheme is well . inown ( faith J S (b I ) and he is cenfefed to be no f leader for SOLE POWER. And I deny it not ,• ( yet 1 tear, all his accounts being caft up, J. 5/s gain (hall not be worth the pains of Summoning this Witnefs ; For Bilhop XJfher^ having faid, that anciently the reft of the Presbyters as well as the Bifliop OtPrcf dent had a hand not only in the delivery of the TDo£lrine% and Sacraments, but aljo in the Adminiftration of the Difcipline of.Chrift, that they were Pref dents dnd bare Rule, joyned with th* Bishop in the common Government of the Church, and that the Bishop might hear no caufe without the frefence*ofthe Clergy 9 adds thefe mod notable Words ( c) <% True it is, thac c in our Church this kind of Presbyterial Govern- € ment hath been long diluted, yet feing it (till € profeffeth that every Pallor hath a Right to Rule € the Church (from whence the name of Rector 6 alfo was given at firft unto him ) and to admini- * fter the Difcipline of Chrifh as well as to difpenfe € the Dodrine and. Sacraments^ and the reflraint *of the exercife of that Right ptoceedeth only € from the cuftome now received in this Realm • € no Man can doubt, but by another Law of the * Land, this Hinderance may be well removed. Y*J § *3< (' ;Redua. &c. ?sg.6i 1 And Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotimns. 89 € And how eafily this ancient Form of Govern- c menc by the united Suffrages of the Clergy might 'be revived again, and with what lirtle ihew of * alteration the Synodical Conventions of the . cPaftors of every Paroch might be accorded with c the Prefidency of the Bilhops of each Dioccfs 'and Province, the indifferent Reader may * quickly perceive by the perufal of the eniuing c Propofuions; Hence it is indifputably clea^ tnac ■ in Bidiops Ushefs time, Presbyters in the Church of England had no hand in the Adminiitration of the Difcipline of Chrift, that they bire no Rule, joyn'd not with the Billiop in the common Go- vernment of the Church, that *here was no account made of the Prefence of the Clergy in the ..Hearing of Caufes> that there was no ufe made of Presbyteries for Governing- the Church, that no Paftor had the exercife of- any Ruling or Reftoral Power, and that, by a -received cuftome, they were intirely reft rained from it, and fo, if we believe him, as weH we may, and Mfo Dr. Holdfwwh^ who fubferibed to his Scheme^ the . Bilhops exere'd the SOLE POWER, not leaving the leaft grain thereof to Presbyteries orPresbyters, ( as is likewife witneffd by Iborndike (d) to name no others J and lb do {till : For the Scheme he propofed is flighted and neglected to this very Day. And thus while J% 5. hopes to bring two Wit- neiTes to Depone in his favour, he, on the con- trary, with one cry, raifes againft himfelf the whole Rout of the English Hierarchies. I only here further obferve,that Bifhop Usher acknowledges that their Church-Government is quite different from that of the ancient Church. (d) Primitive Government of Churches, Chap T4. $. XLYIL $o Cyprianus Ifotimusi Chap. L tf.XLVIl. Dr. Jefeph Hall ( faith J. S.(e) ) doth dif claim SOLE POWER in the plaine/l terms imaginable. And I, on the contrary, affirm that he hath not always difclaimed it, yea that he hath claim'd it in the plaineft terms imaginable. If our Bishops (faith he (/) ) challenge any ether Spiritual Tower than was by Apo/lolick Authority delegated, Unt$, and required of Timothy and Titus, and the Angels ofthejeven Afian Churches, let them be difclaimed as Ufurpers, Thus he, importing that they are not bound to challenge any lefs. BifhopHall publifh'd a Defence of this Remonftrance, but I could never come by it, and fo know only fomuch of it as I find in J. S. brought to prove, that the Bifhops claim not the SOLE POWER, in which there is nothing but palpable Tergiverfations, clouds of ambiguous Expreffions, and SOLE POWER flyly wrapp'd up in the Fog ; and what I meet with cited in the Vindication of SmeBymnuus, which is of the fame grain. This Vindication the Authors of SmeBymnuus oppofed to the Deftncey and therein §.y. 8. 9. they undertake the Juftification of their Charge of SOLE POWER, bring teftimonies and inftances for Vindication thereof, and accufe the Defender of notable (biffing and prevarication. Biihop Hall indeed Wrote,as he calls it, A Short An- fwerJDUt therein nothing is Replied to thefe SeffiMs; nor was it poiribie for him to have done it to any purpoie : For, who knows not that they affirm Ttmothy; Titus, and the Afian Angels, to have been eloathed with the SOLE PO WER olOrdination and Jurijdittion. And in his Eps/copaCy by Divine Right (g ) Cf Epif- € copacy is no other than an holy Order ot Church (<)§<*$. if) HumbkRtmnfirtnct^.M. fe)Part.a. $.1. P-^4. * Gover- Coap. I. Cypriams lfotitnus. 9 I c Governours, appointed for the Adminiftration 1 of the Church. Or, mcrre fully thus ; Epifco- f pacy is an eminent Order of Sacred Fun&ionf c appointed by the Holy Ghoft, in the Evangelical * Church, for the Governing and Overfceing c thereof ,• and for that purpofe, befides the Admi- c niftration of the Word and Sacraments, indued € with Power of Impofuion of Hands-, and perpe- c tuity of Jurisdiction. In which Definition Power of Ordaining and Governing is made the very Ipeciftcal Difference, and fo peculiar to a BJfhop, that, by Divine Right, not one grain thereof can belong to a Presbyter. And ( h j ° The Power ( to wit> Apoftolical or Epifcopai ; for with thefe Men they are reciprocally one and the fame) is clear, will you fee the Execution of it ? Look upon St. Paul) the Pofthumous, and Supernume- rary, but no lefs glorious Apoftle : See with whac Majeftyhebecomeshisnew ere&edThrt>ne: One while deeply Charging and Commanding, another while Controlling and Cenfuring : One while Giving Laws and Ordinances, another while Urging for their cbfervance : One while Ordaining Church -Governours, another while Adjuring them to do their Duties : One while Threatning punifKraent, another while Inflicting it : And if thefe be not Acts of Jurifdittion, what can be fuch ? which fince they were done by the ApodSe,* from the inftind of GOD's Spirit, wherewith he was infpired, and out of the warrant of his high Vocation, moll manifeft it is, that the Apofties of CHRIST had a Super- eminent Power in GOD's Church : And if any Perion whatfoever (though an Evangelift or {h) §, 3. Pag. 9*. fome- times he Argues, as if, by all this, he were only proving the Divine Right of Imparity : But while he makes Apcftolica/ to be all one with Epifcopal Government (i) and fays (k) that Apoftolicallhrones are by their Derivation, Epifcopal, and that *Bi(hops9 and they only, elfe his Difcourfe is altogether impercinent, (ucceeded the Apottls, and (I) that the Ordinary Power which the Apo files had, they traduced to their Succejjors : I fay, while he gives us thefe and many fuch Speeches* he nrioft evidently gives to all Bijhops and them Only, the whole Apoftolic Power, all this that Paul exercifed, and makes them no fewer ftages above the Prophets and Evangeiifts than were the Apoltles themielves. And \rn) ThuJ, as St. Jerom truly, Allmaine matters were done in the beginning by the common Counfel^ and Ccnfent of the Presbyters; their Confent • but (till the Power was in the Apoftlesx who in the nearer Churches ( ftnce they in Perfon ordered Ecclejtjfticat Affairs ) Ordained only Vresbyters. And C n ) Thefe Bishops were the Men whom they ( the ApofMes) furnished with their own ordinary Power as Ckurch- Governeurs. And ( o) I demand what it is that is flood upon, but thefe two particulars W he efpecial Power of Ordination, and Power of the Ruling and Cenfuring Presbyters. Now what he means by this Word Efpecial himfelf informs us, Part 2. §' if. the Title whereof is, Power of Ordination ONLY in Bishops. And ( p ) The fevsral ails ( viz. of Ordination, (O P*g. 98. (£)Pag-9*« (Opag. *°°' (») pag. loo. («) pag. 102. (t ) pag. io6» (p) Ibid.- ( Abfolution, Chap. I. Cyprianns lfotimus. 93 Abfolution, and Confirmation) that were appropri- ated to the Bithops ALONE, by the univer/al Confent of all limes, do more than Jafficientty evince their acknowledged Superiority. And (j ) He (Timothy) laid hands then f Yes, but not alone, fay our Opp Could they c have Ordained without him, what need was 1 there of this charge to be laid on Timothy 1 Be 1 there then what Elders foever, their hands with* € out a Timothy will not ferve, his without theirs c might : To his own, if, at any time, he joyned 'theirs; what elfe do all Bifliops of England ? And thus at length he has open'd to us what he meand by his ESPECIAL Power of Ordination* Now, pray, who ought to believe thefe Men, fay what they will, fince they carenot what they (ay, and in the very throng of their endeavours to de* ceive Mankind, fear not to vent and print the moft notorious, moil palpable, and moft (hameful Contradictions that have been either utter'd or thought. But I go on to demonftrate that he was no lefs for SOLE POWER in the matter of Jurifdidion. fie ( Timothy ) muji Command ; ( faith the Bifoop jf?)P»g« in. (0 pag< 113. 94 Cypriavvs Jfolimur. Chap. F. (/) ) If cur Lords Biflmps do fo much, ivbat do thty more. And ( t ) Ci The Elufion of fomfc ( not € mean Opponents ) have devifed, that thefe Ads c were injoyned to Titus, as by way of Society and c Partnerfhip with the Presbytery ,• fo as that he € ftiould joyn with them in thefe duties of Corre- 'cfcion, and Ordination, is fo palpable, and quite c againft the hair, that I cannot think the Authors g of it can believe themfelves. Had the Apoftle cfo meant, he could as eafily have expreffed it, f and have direded his Charge to more ; Titus c Alone is fmgled out ; now if it were in the € Power of every Presbyter to do thefe things, * without him. what needed this Weight to have € been laid on his fhouldcrs ALONE ? And if the c Charge were, that he muft urge and procure it € to be done ; By what Authority ? And if he 'had Authority either without, or above them, it € is that weftrive for. And ( u ) "This bieflfed € Saint {Ignatius) fiill fo beats upon this point, fas if c Religion depended upon it ) Reverence and c Obedience to their Bilhops.* ■■ » ■ -Whereas € other of the Fathers compare the Biftiops to the € Apoftles, Presbyters to the feventy Difciples j this 'Man (Ignatius) advanceth his pattern higher, c requiring Obedience to Biftiops, as to CHRIST, c to Presbyters as to the Apoftles : ( But CHRIST, I trufti had SOLE and lUimited Vowtr over the Apoftles. ) " And what proportion is there be- 4 twixt the refpedls we owe to GOD and to Man. ' And a while after yet higher. The Bifhop, faith ' he (Ignatius), bears the refemblance of GOD the € Father of all things^ The Priefts are as the bench 'c of his Apoftles, &c And left any Man ihould (f) Pag. 109, (t) pag. 115; (u) pag; 145. i4cyou have a clear, and conftant Superiority of c Bifhops, above Priefb, with no lels difference /than between a Prince and his Council- boord. ^Now is not this which the Prince has at the Coun- cil-boord, among thefe whom he chufedfor Advice only, a SOLE and Abfolute Fewer ? And if he have a Negative Voice, or any Authority above them, is ic all he can juftly ftrive for ? Were there ever more^palpable comradi&ions with greater boldnefs utter'd by any Mortal ? Was ever SOLE POWER, can ever SOLE POWER be more plainly afferted and arrogated? (x) " What do they {the Apojiolical ' Canons ) prefcri6e lefs than we challenge ? There is a Power over the Clergy ,* a Power of difpo- fing them to general Stations, a Power of depo* fing or fequeftring them ( upon juft demerits ) from thefe Charges ,• a power not to over-fee only, but to regulate their Clergy \ a Power to manage all Ecclefiaftical Affairs. And (y ) " It was ( anciently ) in the Biihops Power to raife the Clergy from one Degree to another, neicher might they refufe his Ddignations : They migkt (* )Pag. i5j. O J p>g. 16& 'not $6 Cypriatsus Ijotimus. Chap* L € not remove from one Diocefs to another, wiehr * out his Confent ( which isftill laudably continued •'in that the Teftimony of the Ordinary ftill is * required ) or if they did, the Biihop had power cto recall them. They might not fo much as 1 Travel from one Diocefs to another, without f his Rtverenda, much lefs might they fix there, c or if they did^ the Adi was reverfibleby the Dio- c cefan. All this Power, if we believe him, the ancient Bifhops exerced, and is the Right of all Bifliops : The Reader may judge if it be a Grain ftiort of SOLE POWER, and that with a Witnefs-, he may judge moreover, from what I have hitherto brought from thefe moft illuftrious Chiftans of the Hierarchies I have handled, if, tho' I /hould neglect his following Authors and proofs the Aniwer to his tfb Chapter could in Reafon be counted very Defedive, or they be likely to affift him more than the former. I (hall however briefly confider the beft of luch of his Authors as I can come at, and alfo all his Proofs which are not already difcufl'd or prevented. §. XLVIIL The Authors cited by J. S. §. 68. 69, 71, 74. I cann't find : As to Ihornd'tke cited ■§. 70. I fay that ev'n he ( z ) allows, that not the whole Presbytery of a Diocejs be called to a [hare in the fublick Government ; but only fome, I know not who, how many, or by whom> in Cathedrals for the Bifoops jijfiftance. Doubt not but fuch a Man could comply well enough with SOLE power; To prove Ifaac Barrow an Ami- Sole-Power Man, he gives us the following words out of his Ireatife (x> ) Primitivi Gwtrnmnt if Churches. Chap. 14, Chap. I. Cyprianus lfotimnt* 97 of tie Popes Supremacy : " At firft every Bifliop as *a rince, in his own Church, did Ad freelyi * according to his will and Difcretion, with the c Advice of his Ecclefiaftical Senate, and ( continues € Barrow ) with the Content of his People, the € which he did u(e to Confult. But let any acquain- ted with the Writings of Prelatifts, judge ifthefe words can prove it. As to Stillingfleet, J. S< muft prove, that he was for the Scriptural or Divine Right of Epifco- pacy. 5. Parker (a) cited $. 77. Affirms C b ), that the Epifcopal and Jpoflolical Office are the fame* Now, is it not a known Principle of the Prelatifta that where there were only meer Presbyters the Apoftles kept the WHOLE and SOLE POWER in their own hand ? $. XLIX% Dr. Pearfon, ( faith J. S. (c) ) m when f leads for the SOLE POWER of JBifops. But let the Reader who is acquainted with the Writings and Pra&ice of the Hierarchies judge, if he had no kindnefs for it; when he has dueljr weigh'd thefe his following Words : Timothy was fet over the Presbyters of Ephelus, that he might RuU that whole Church, and Govern all the Fresbyteri with Authority committed unto him, and ChafUje them when hi jaw it needful, and Ordain fuch §ther Presbyters as he himfelf \udgd necefiary and found worthy ( d ). ■ - - Timothy received from the Apoillei Admo- (a) Account 9f the Government cf 'the Church, Sec. (b) § '. W§-7^# (d) De fucceff prim. Rom. Epi£c, D.fl. r. Cap. 9. § 9. Timvtbeus Presbyteris Efhejinis, quocunq; nofliinecei.feancur, fuperimpofitus eft, ut earn Eccieiirm toram regcrer, & Pref- byteris ej^fdem omnibus cum amhoritare fibi cemandata prae- cflet> eofcpie ubi opus crac corriperer, aliofque Presbyccros infupcr, quos neseflarios putavic diguofq; reperir, ipfc ordi- 9$ Gyprianus Ijotitnus. Chap: I. • nit ions and Precepts in which all the parts of the Office are fufficiently explain d, and the Admini\iration thereof is committed to bim(elf (Alone., wt, otherwife this Whole Difcourfe is a Rope of Sand) And -which is to the prejent purple. Timothy received frw the Apcjiie An: beritj of e^ercifing Cenfurts in the whole Church fl/Ephefiis. Thtm that Jin Rebuke before all that the reft may fear\ ver. 20. 7he fame Authority was particularly extended over the Presbyters for keeping them in their duty. ■ ■ * 'the fame is likewise obfervable concerning the Power of Conferring holy Orders j whi b is the more confficuous, beCaufe'tis delivered with a Caveat 3 Lay thou hands (uddenly on no Man. — -«. -■-. — Jo Ticns he gives full jvrifdiEthn of promulgating true Dclrine ( cum futnma automate ) with Soveraign, or Uncontrollable Autho- rity. andoffilincingfaife'Do&ors,, and of Exr »mmuni~ cat'mg Hreticks ( e j. He fays indeed, that the Bijhops had a Super iour and Peer lefs Power, and before therr fettlement the Church was guided by Pre[by- ters under the Apofile Paul , But BelUrmin ( f ), a Lapide r g ) and other Papifts fay, at leaft, no lefs : A;e they therefore And Sole Power Men ? j$\L. He brings up a fquadron of no fewer than XXIV Authors ( h)x to which he only refers* but gives nons of their words : Such of them as I could readily have I have confulted, and ihall ltortly difcuG them. Jewel and Willet are for the Identky of the Scriptural Bifhop and Presbyter, and fo can do J.S.ao more fervice than the Man in the Mo%n. ( e ) Accepit etiam ab Apoftolo Admonitiones, &c. (f) DdCicr. cap. is. (g) In Phil. 1. & Tici* (b)?.S. 5- 27. Chap, f * Cyprlanns Tfolimus. 99 Dr. Fulk is now with J. S an Epifcopal Divine; He is, in his mind, eifewhere3 a Learned Prefbyte- ridnl For the T^tieof his III. Chapter is,Epi(copacy acknowledged by many Learned Presbyterians to have been in the Church, in St. Cyprian^ time; in the throng of which Presbyterians (i) comes Dr. Fulkt Could any Man have done J. S, better (er- vice than he,who, at his wiflb,is Metamorphos'd in- to any ftiape he pleafes? Bancroft t Tilenu*y the Author of the Gonfeffions of Protectant Divines, &CC. and Prideaux, have nothing againft SOLE POWER, but what abundance of Popifli Writers will grant. The London Synod and Blondel cited none of thefe Authors as being againft SOLE POWER, where BilKops may be had, but only againft their Abfolute Neceflity, which is a quite different thing, Calderwood, indeed,, as J. S. juftly alledges hinv cites Sir Francis Bacon largely disproving the Biflbops SOLE POWER i but to the everlafting Wrack of J: S. his Undertaking; for the fame Author, ®acon9 in the lame place, moft plainly Affirms and Witneffeth,that the Bifiiops without exception were guilty of this Crime. Take his words C k) \ The Bifhof ALONE conftm Criers, Be ALONE Excom- rntinicats, He ALONE judgeth. Thus be ; and then with great prolixity> warmth, and ftrength of Reafon> beats down this their abfurd and deteftable Practice. Now did not JM S. fig- nally verify the Proverb Q'n,ayjJdic$ rfo K&yw. * *) § 69* (£) Bacwuf apud Didoriav. Alt. Dam. pag. 2r°-3lI> 312- Duag iunt ^— ■■ ■'* — — Epifcopus, conferc Ordincs SOLUS,Excoaraunicat SOLUSJudicacSOLUS,6v. G % $.. LI. ioo Cyprianus JJotimus\ Chap, I. J$V LL There are yet four of his Authors re- maining, on whom he dwells longer, and fhefe I (hall aifo confider. The firfttis Anxmivs De Vminis, ftfhop ofSpalato, " Who, faith J. S. (I) c tho' perhaps he may fomewhere affirm, that all c Power was originally in the Bifhopsj yet elfe* c where he moft exprefiy allows of a Reciprocal c Negative Voice, that is, that as the Presbyters can 1 do nothing without the Bifhop, fo neither ought € the Bifhop to do any thing in Matters of Weight * and Confequence without his Presbyters. Nay* c he fairly makes this of Divine Appointment; € you have his words in the Margent ; words fo * plain, that even Calderwotd- himfeif, in his Alt arc c Damajctnum, takes notice of them, and transcribes € them, and fays, that Spalatcnjis was no Enemy cto the Power of Presbyters. And again, he cites * more from him to the fame purpofe. The * Reader who is curious for further fatisfa&ion, € may turn to Sfalattnfis, de Ref. Eccl. Lib. j. € C*p. 3. where he may have enough of it. Thus J. S. And now take Spalatcnfis his Words that J. S. gave in his Margent ; Viz. " And as the * Presbyters can do nothing without the Bifaop in c the Government of the Church, fo neither.on the € other hand, is it decent, that theBifhops, with- * out their Presbyters, Govern their Churches, c efpecially in matters of greater Weight. For tho' c the Bifhop have, by Divine Right, a Prelation 1 above the Presbyters, they notwithstanding are € by the fame Divine Right, in Effential Miniftries, € Companions and Collegues of the Bifhop ( m ). Where he only judges it fit, that the Bilhops hear ( 0 §- 79. (»OLib. 1. Cap. 9- Num. 4. Ac quemadmo- dum Presby ceri nihil poflimt fine Epitope, &*• the Chap; I. Cyprianus Jfotmus. 101 the Advice of their Presbyters, which they may chuftf or refufe3at pleafure, and fpoils them not of a Grain of their SOLE POWER; as the whole Sen- tence clearly imports, but chiefly the latter part thereof,- where the Presbyters are made Gollegues of the Bifliops in EJJential Miniftries, but not fo in Accidental* : For if we enquire the meaning of this Diftin&ion, he informs us, that by its former Member ( Efontial Ministries ) he imderftands the Power of Difpeafing the Word and Sacraments,* and, by the latter {Accidental Mini/lries), the Power of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion ,• which latter he makes fo peculiar to Bifhops, as that .therein they EfTentially differ from Presbyters (n ). And, as he never defign'd to give a grain lefs than the WHOLE & SOLE POWER to EiOiops,fo never did Calderwood alledge, that Spalat en/is defign'd to give them any lefs. C alderwoed alledges indeed, that in giving of SOLE POWER to the Bifliops, Spa- latenfis acted not congruoufly to his own Principles,- but is fo far from affirming, that he gave not the SOLE POWER to the Bifliops, that, ev'n in that very place, he fuppofes him to have done it, and accordingly thus reafons, ( o ) in the very page cited by JA S> But unU wbom(u\ cmediat Minifters of Chrift. From which Words 'tis moil evident* that Spalatenfo means only a Power in Fcro Interno, as they call it, of difpenfing the Word and Sacraments, and nothing at all of the Power of Ordination and the External Govern- ment of the Diocefs. Calderwoed ( /. c. ) from this place of Spalatenfis obferves further, that tho' he feem to condemn other Hierarchies, who make the Presbyters only meer Servants to the Bi- iliops5 yet he really joyns with them: Like fome Papifts, who, altho' in words they call the Bifhops Abfolute Princes, and the immediat Servants of Chrift,yet really make them nothing but meer Ser- vants to the Pope, So far wzsCalderwcod from ever believing, or fo much as once imagining, thatSpa- latenfis defign'dly allowed ev*n the leaft Share of the, Power of Ordination or Jurifdi&ion to Presbyters j I fay, defign'dly allowed; fer otherwife^V Dominis has abundanee of Pofitions and Affertions5 from which ev'n the Equality, or Identity of Biifeops and Presbyters, may be juftly inferr'd,* and according- ly Calderwood iometimes ufes them to this or the likepurpolet But J. S. cann't be ignorant, that this can be of no Advantage to him at all. And now I turn to the place, whether I am re; ferr'd for further Sadsfadien* and affirm, that there are in that Chapter Principles laid down, from which Chap. I. Qjprhnu! Ifotimuu 105 which it may, by the jufteft Rules of Logick, be inferred, not only, that the Bjjliop has not the SOLE POWER, but moreover, that a Bifhop and a Pres- byter are intirely one and the fame : But, withal I affirm, that in all that Chapter,there is not the leaft real ground to believe, that Spalatevfis defign'dly gave any part or Share of the Power of Ordination or Jurifdid:ion to Presbyters, or that he allowed not the SOLE POWER of both to Bifhops. And, Laftly, I affirm, that he, in this very fame Chapter, pofitively and plainly enough allows all Power of Ordination and Jurifdi&ion to Bifhops Alone. Take his Words : co wipe off. 2>£ (continues J S. ) he no where pleads, that this SOLE POWER should continue to b« always exereifed hy the Bishops. On the contrary, thtfe are his very words, in his Epifcopacy Afferted, that ^Bishops are not tyed to exerci/e yurijdtciion jolely in their own Verjons. Is not this the very Guilt where- of we accufe them ? A moft faifuous and proud Infinuadon, that the Bifhops have the WHOLE and the SOLE POWER, and can, like Abfohite MonarchSj commit it, or rather the Execution of ic to their Underlings, the Presbyters, in greater or leffer Meafures, according to their uncontroul- able Arbitriment. " In fhort (centinues J: h.) he * founds the Order of Presbyters in the Seventy c Two Difciples, and tells Mf, that thtfe Seventy c Twothe Apoftles did admit inpartem foticHudinis, ' and by new Ordination or Delegation Apoffolical, c did give them Power of Admir.iftring Sacraments, * of Abfolving Sinners, of Governing the Church c in Conjunction with, and subordination to the € Apoftles, of which they had a capacity by Chrift's c Calling them, atfirft, in fort em Mini ft erii^ but the c exercife and a&uating of this Capacity, they had v from the Apoftles: So that, not by Divine Or- c dination, or immediat Commiflion from Chrift, * but by derivation from the Apoftles (andthere- f fore in Minority and Subordination to them ) * the Presbyter did exercife A<5te of Order and Ju- 6 rifdiftion, in the Abfence ot the Apoftles, or Bi- * fhops, or in conjunction Conciliary, and by way ' of Advice, (but nothing of Deciliye Power is here given 108 CjprianHs If o limns. Chap. I. given them, and fo the Bifliops SOLE POWER is Itill preferred) ki before the Confecration of a Bi- c fhop to a particular Church> and all this he doubts # not was done by the dire&ionof the Holy Ghoft. By the Diredion of the Holy Ghoft ! And yet your Presbyters are not of Divine Inftitution ? When will ye learn either to fpeak Truth or Senfe? €C It were eafie to cite much more to this Purpofe c from that Book, and his other Writings. But that c which I have adduced is enough ; For it makes it € as clear as Light, that he pleaded not for the c Incommunicability of the Power of either Ordi# € nation or Jurifdi&ipn ("And therefore nolefs clear that both he and you are really as much for SOLE POWER, as ye pretend to be againft k); "That ' he ask'd no more3 thanthat Presbyters fhould ex- c ercife tnofe Powers in Conjundion with, and ' Subordination to their Bishop. With your Son- pwflicn and Subtrdinaticn ye may deceive fuch as know you not. But before I leave Dr. TayUr, take yet a few Paflages as they ly in that fame Book, Epifccpacy Jjjtrted : ** We have clear ' Evidence (j*itb he ) of the Divine Inftitution of c the perpetual Order of Apoftle&ip, mary for the € Presby cerate I have not fo much either Reafon or * Confidence for it3 as now it is in the Church ; € but for the Apoftolate, it is beyond exception. | And to this Bifhops do fucceed (t). w The Biftop ( in Hiercmc's time^ Governed the Church Alone. («). u The Apofties were Superiour to all the c Presby cers in Jerujalem, and alfo had Power Alone * to Govern the Church. I fay they had Power to f Govern Alone, for they had the Government of * the Church Alone before they ordain'd the firft 0) Page 59! (») ?*& *°5. _ Chap I. Cyf nanus Ifolimus. 1 09 c Presbyters, That is;before there were any ofCa- € pacity to joyn with them, they rrmftdo itthem- € felves, and then alfo they muft retain the fame 1 Power, for they could not lcofe it by giving Or- c ders. Now if chey had a Power of SOLEJurif- € diction, then the Presbyters being in fome pub- c lick A&s in Conjun&ion with the Apoftles, can- * nor challenge a Right of Governing AS AFFIX- < ED TO THEIR ORDER, they only affifting c in Subordination, and by Dependency C * )• €i Becaufe it is certain, and proved, and confcfs'd, € that the Apoftles had Power to Govern the c Church Alone, this their taking meer Presbyters c into fome part of the Government, was a volun- c tary A&. — If the Apoftles might Rule the * Church Alone, then that the Presbyters were ta- € ken into the Number was a voluntary Ad of the c Apoftles, and although fitting to be retain'd * where the fame Reafons do remain, and Circum- * ftances concur, yet not neceflary becaufe not c AFFIXED TO THEIR ORDER; not Domi- * nic* Di/pe/itionis Vtritate^ and not Laudable when * thofe Reafons ceafe, and there is an Emergency * of contrary Caufes (y). " That no Jurifdi&ion € was in the Efhefim Presbyters, except a Delegate, * and Subordinate, appears beyond all Exception, * by Saint Paul's firft Epiftle to Tim$thy> eftablilhing c in the perlon of Ttmothy Power of Coercitive Ju- c rifdi&bn over Presbyters, and Ordination in him € Alone, without the Conjunction of any in Com- c miflion with him, for ought appears either there ' or elfewhere (z). " The Apoftles ( who, accord- ing to the Hierarchies, are, in refpe£ of Power and Authority, altogether one and the fame with ( *) Pag, 109. ( f) Pag- ti*> (t) Pig, if 6. she Iio Cjprianus lfotimus. Ghap, J# the Bi/hops) u kept the Jurifdidiion in their Hands * where thev had founded a Church, and placed no c Bifhop- For in this Cafe of the Corinthian Inceft c the Apoftle did make himfelf the SOLE Judge (a ), wc Presbyters had no Jurifdi&ion in Caufes c Criminal, and pertaining to the publick Regiment * of the Church, by vertue of their Order, or with- * out particular Subfticution, and Delegation. For * there is not in all Scripture any Commiffion gi- ' ven by Chrift comeer Presbyters/ no Divine In- c ftitution of any Power of Regiment in the Presby- ' eery ,• no Conftitution Apoftolical, that meer * Presbyters flibuld either alone, or in Conjundion c with the Bifhop', Govern the Church, &c ( b \ §. LI1L J. S. comes next ( c ) to Dr. Ham- mond, the Third of his Four : And of him he (ays, He doubts not to call the Order of Fresbyters of Apofloli- cal Inftitution ; and tells us, that, according to Ham- mond^ that which the frelatifts pretend to, and plead for s is, a Subordination of Officers and Governours.Now letG9 R* (Tub joins J S.)when he has leifure^ tell us . how there can be a Subordination cfGvvernours, where the -OLE TOWJLR of G&vemment is Incommunicably lodgd in One Per/on. As if G. R. or any Man eife, fave only J. S.and his Brethren were bound to loofe the Knots, and reconcile the Contradi&ietts in which the Hie- rarchies involve themfeives: Or, as if, in the Judg- ment of Presbyterians^ no Preiatift had ever affirm* ed or infmuated the SOLE POWER to be fo in the Bifliop, as that he could Communicate no part of it to another. And, This great Doctor ( faith J% S. ) ftill ftates the Grand Controi/erjie. not upon the Solitude of ?ower, as G. R. would have it, but ( as indeed it ought to be (lated) upin Parity and Imparity, Their (*)Pageii7. (6) Page 119. ( € ) §• 8*. &f*Z- ufu- Chap. L Cyprianus Ifotimuu jn ufual Equivocation, under which they ffiroud themlelves. &nd now I come palpably to dcted; J. S.\ dealing, and that from thefe very Repre- sentations and Citations only of Hammond, which he himfelf has given us. Dr. Hammond's Hypothefis ( faith he ) is indeed fo far the fame with Taylor's, that he ajjerts Biflwpt only and Deacons to be of f rime Inftitmim. And H* ( Hammond ) cannot find clear evidence that fuch Officers as ive notv call Frcshyters, were ordained in the Times of the ApzflUs^ unlefs it was the Apofde St. John- Nor is Hammond dogmatical that ev'n John the longeft liver of the Apoftles did ever Inftitute or Ordain any Presbvters. How then, fay you, can he cali the Order of Apojlolic ln{imtion ? Becaufe forfooth C€ The 4 Power given by the Apoftles to thefirft Bifhops, c being a plenary Power* fo fan that they might ' Communicate to others what was committed to c them, eicher in whole or in pare ; and thofe € Bifhops, accordingly, in the force thereof Con* * ftituting Presbyters in partem Officii, the Authority, € ftill, by which they were Inftituted will be Apo- ' ftolical. Where all Scripture Warrant, and, by confequence, all that can be called Divine or Apoftoiical Inftitution is really deny'd to Presby- ters, and, accordingly, the WHOLE and SOLE POWER is given to the Biftiops, and therewith the Ltbertv of Committing, Delegatingj or Com- municating fuch parts of it ro others, as they think fit, which is lo far from diminishing their SOLE POWER, that, on the contrary, it ftrongly con- firms it, and purs them in full poffeffion of it : If they cut or carve it, or Communicate any part ofit, is intirely in their own Abiolute and Uncon- croulable Arbitriment. Ifhall II % Cyprianus lfotimusi Chap. L I fhali yet give one other place out of Dr. H. a place, to my Amazement, ev'n cited by J. S. himfelf, as being a ftrong proof that Dr. H. was an Enemy to SOLE POWER. The fenfe of it, as near as I can Tranflate it, is: ki What if we * freely yield that the Biflaops were made the Suc- * ceffors of the Apoftles, and compleat Heirs of all € the ordinary Power, which they received from •CHRIST, CHRIST from the Father, that they c ( the Bi(b*ps ) Communicated this Power to others c in whole or in part as they thought fit • and fo c the multitude ©f the Faithful growing very great, * at length everv where many things were concre- € dited to the fecondary or partaking Presbyters, * by the Bifoops, which they in their proper Per- 'fons were not ableco perform, s having refcrved c peculiarly to themfelves a few things only, where- *by the Dignity of their Original Supereminency, € and the Height of their Peerleis Power might be * preferved fafe and whole. And indeed that the c matter is really fo, the moft ancient Hiftories c perfwade us ,• for they affirm that during the c Infancy of Chriftianitv, all Power of Baptizing^ * Difpenfing the LORD's Supper, and Celebrating c of Marriage, of Receiving Alms and Difpenfing * them, and, finally, of doing every thing that € belongs to Church Affairs, was in the Bifhops, c which things were, in fucceeding Times, with c their own Diminutions and Limitations, con- c credited to the Presbyters, yea ev'n to the c Deacons and Subdeacons ,• yet notwithftanding * we will not grant, that ever our Hierarchies c judg'd or dream' d that fuch Law was made by c the Holy Ghoft, as made it unlawful for Pref- f byters to do tkjtntcntia Efifccfh at the command i(h* A clear Intimation that their Presbyters have not fo much as ev'n the Liberty of giving Con- futation or Advice. And ( f ) c% il you would 1 confider further how untrue it is„ that the c Difpenfation of Difcipline, even as it is praefci- c fed, is managed by the Biihcp Alone, who has c his inferiour Officers for preparing things for € his Cognizance, befides the Dire&ion of leaiv cned Lawyers for his Afiiftance in point of * Counftl, ( which is the main Reafon that may c 6s pretended, for proving the Government of € many better than that which is Monarchical; ) * and for Counfel in this kind the Clergy thern- c felves are not Qualified as Clergy-men, but as c Lawyers, but wou;d have much more of this * Affiitance, according to my Book, where I (d) §.88. (0 Pag. *op, (f)pag.i37. H z 'have i\6 Cyprknuf IfotimuJ. Chap. I. € have profeffed my felf defirous that the Biftiops € would more Communicate the great Affairs of 'Government with their Clergy, which I con- 1 fefs I think more agreeable to the Primitive € Form. If* 1 fay, you I ad confidered thefe c things, you would find Difcipline much more € practicable under a Diocefan, than a Secular c Monarchy. Where he plainly grants that the Presbyters have no Decifive Power at all, that any Liberty of Confuting the Bifhop gives them, they get it not as Presbyters, but as being skill'd in Secular Laws, and finally, that the Bifhop is an Abfolute Monarch in the Diocefs : All this, I fay, he grants and defends, (g) ss If you c mean fuch Government as you count true, in ■ refpe<% of their ( the Treslyters ) Parifhioners4 € this you know is not deny'd them ; they have c a Power of Executing their Ordinaries Com- 'maads among them, and to difcharge their c own Office, tho* with dependance on the € Bi&op, which is as much as is confident with < an Ecclefiaftical Monarchick Government, and € is an afliftance fufficient to enable an Ecclefia- cfiical as well as a Secular Monarch to preferve c Difcipline. This, and much more of the fame kind, is brought by J. S. out of thefe Letters, to prove that M. V, was an Adverfary to SOLE POWER. Judge therefore if he be not poffeiFd with a Spirit ol (lumberings Take yet another place of the fame Book of pi. D. not indeed cited by J. S< tho', all things being confiderU 'tis ftrange to think how he miis'd it. It is, Lett, 2,$< 6c.p. 310. "Youfay, U) Pag. 326. 'that Chap. I. Cyprians Ifotimus. 117 that none of thefe but the 46 Presbyters had any power in the Difcipline. If you mean a Decretory Power in the fenfe I have explained it, then I chink I have proved that the 4? Presbyters themlelves had it not* hut tbeBifhop ( Cornelius B, of Reme ) ALONE. But vou can thence no more conclude tne pauci:y of Believers in one of the DioceiTes of thofc times, than in any one of ours now, when iris plain that the Biiliop himfelf has Monopolized ir, as your felf complain. But if you mean an Exe- cutive, or ev'n a Confultory Power of giving Content or Advice in Affairs of Difcipline^ to be Decreed by the Bifhop ; that was fe far from being confined to the Presbyters, as that it was Communicated to the Deacons, nay to the common People chemfdves. Thus bespeaking of the Bifhops of Cyprians time h and, if we believe them, the Hierarchic Bifhops ought to have no lefs Power than th?fe did Exerce (b). And in his qtb DiJJertation ( i ), he earneftlv labours to eftablifh the Bilhops SOLE POWER : Where, fpeaking oS Cyprian he faith : u Altho' ' he determined to do nothing in either Church Government, or Adminiftration of the Sacra- ments, without the Advice of the Presbytery, yet when need was, he fuftain'd for good and valid the things 'which himfelf had done, with- out ever asking their Counfel : Which is evi* dent from thefe Ordinations he perform'd in his Retirement, froai whence 'usmanifeft that he acknowledged that the Power of doing ( * ) Seealfo, atnongft other places, Uu* 2. §. 17* 18' pages 158, i$o, (/; tfum. I3, l4i i5> H 2 ' othewils U 8 Cjpriunus Ifottmus. Chap. I. c otherwife, to wit, than he ufed to do when * he confulted his Presbyters, was in himfelf * ALONE : Now as to what belongs to the c Sacrament, and Excommunication, he was * altogether without a Rival. He ALONE 4 Decreed concerning the Excommunication of \ thefe Presbyters, who without confulting of c him had given peace to the Lapfed. He alfo c ALONE Decreed concerning theExcommuni- c cation of Felhijfimus, with his five Partifan?, f who were alfo Presbyters. Wherefore ev'n he 'himfelf ALONE had Power ev'n over the 'Presbyters themfelves. All this, if we believe M. D. €y?rian did, and yet never tranfgrefPd the bounds of his lawful Power and Authority : And if here, or any where elfe, all he pleads for be a Negative Voice, let J. S. fee to it ; my only province being to make appear, that he is fuffici- entjy clear for SOLE POWER; and therefore, that if J. S. were really againft it, he fhould need to contradid him : But as matters are, I confefs he needs not ,• fince he is as much for it as either Jylr. Do dwell or any Manelfe is, or can be §. LV. And now I well know, that as all my judicious and Candid Readers will yield^hat %t had been a fufficientjuilification of cur Charge, to have adducd other competent Prelatic Au- thors^ fuch Authors as on th$t account were never Challenge d orChaftifd by their Brethren ,- fo now, when they clearly fee that it is fo indifputably made out from thefe Authors, yea many times from thefe very fame Teftimonies> and Paffages J. S. brought to null and diffipate it j they fhall admire the Power of Truth, and. on Chap* I. Cyprianus Ifotinws. 119 on the other hand, ftand amaz'd at the power of Prejudice that could bear a Man through in fo d^fpeiate an Undertaking, Were I acquainted with all the Hierarchic Aurhois, tho' I could bring none of greater Credk than thefe I have adduc d> yet, doubtlefs, bdidcs them, i (houid be able to produce a whole Legion: Acprefenc, there occurs only a fyatemio, Dr. Heylyn ( k ), Dr. FeU ( /), Dr. Sc$t («r), and Mr. Hill (n), all plainly for SOLE POWER, and may be confulted by Men of leifure j co wh'>m I think I may add a fifth, the Author of Imparity among Paflors ( 0). §. LVI. His remanent Argument, to prove, that the Bifhops neither exeice nor claim a SOLE PCMER, but only a RECIPROCAL NEGATIVE, is taken from the Constitution of his Englijh Church (f). But were this Argu- ment as iolid as he pretends, all he could reap thereby, would be only a palpable Demonstra- tion, that the Prelatifts defpife and trample thefe very Laws which they themfelves pretend mod highly to venerate and keep inviolable. But is the Argument folid ? Hear it : As to Ordination (faith he ) befe&es what we ma) learn from divers of the moji learned of the Church 0/England, juch us Hooker, Hall, Hammond, &c ( But ail thefe have been difcuffd in their proper place ) ( k) Hifv. of E?ifc$pacv, Pages 28, S3, 87, I 2 a, 151, 172, 375, f7*> *77* n8> *79> l8r> 202, 210. and Part. 2. pag. 25, 33> i64> 3<$7- ( l) Anaoc. ad. 3. Epifl. Cypr. et alibi. ( m ) Cbr'lftisn Life, Vol 2. pag. 433, &c: (n) De BwbyWatu Differt. 4. (•) Pages 3.4- (p) $* What 120 Cyprianus Ifotimus. €hap. I. What can he plainer than the very RubFick in her term ef Ordering of Priefis, 'which requires, That the Bifhop, with the Priefts prefent, frail lay their bands federally on the bead of every ene that receivtth Orders, viz. the Orders of a Priefi or Presbyter ; for in the Ordering of a Deacon, ihe Bi/hrp alone impofes. And by the Zift Canon, made Anno 1603. it is cxprefy required, that Ordinations be performed by the Rifhtp^ with the Ajji/lance of f>ur Presbyters , at fewefi : And by Canon ? ah. that the Bijhopjhall diligently try him who is to be Ordained, in the pre- fence of thefe Minijlers who are to affift him in the Impofition of bands.*** *» - « As for Jurifdi&ion 5 haw cajie were it to shew, how many ways Presbyters have an Inter -tft in it ? But I shall only name two at prefenr ; By the Canons of both Churches ( England and Ireland ), the Bishop to the Depofition ef a Minifkr, muft have, the Affifiance of three Presbyters at lea ft* But his Rubrick and Canons are lc far from proving what he pleads for, viz*. That his Church of England allows a Reciprocal Negative to all Presbyters as well as to the Biftiop, that they are really fo many clear Confeflions of the quite contrary, and plainly inform us, that there is not fo much as ev'n a Gonveeningofthe whole Presbytery i. e. all the Presbyters in the Bifhoprick, required or pra&Hed, and confe- quently, that their Votes are never once ask'd ; And how then can there be a Reciprocal Negative berween the Bifhop and his Pres-byteiie, or all his Presbyters ? Why are all of them excluded, fave three or four, whom he pleafes to call as Affiftants, or rather Onlookers, whiles he Exa- mines, Ordainsj or Dspofes any of thefe his Creatures, Chap. I. Cjpriantts lfotimus. 121 Creatures, who really, as is ev'n proclaim^ by thefe very Canons, ftand or fall by the Biihop's Sole Breath * What if the reft of the Presby- ters bs, and that on fufficient grounds, diffatif- fied with either Ordination or Depofnion ? Have they any Power to impede either the one or the other ? Can he then fay, that they have a Negative Vote ? He pretends alio that they have a fearein )urijdiHion in the Convocation 1 " All c things ( jaitbbe ) relating to DifcipUne,Do As may be colle&ed from the fame G. M. whether the parliament be fitting or not, it is all one,* this Convocation can never meet, except the King, by Advice of his Privy Council, call it. idly, As is aHo clear from this Author, none may come, but juft fuch a numberi as are, by the Arch-bi- fhop of Canterbury, in that Province, and hisDean Provincial! the Biihop of London, allowed, viz,. two out of every Diocefs. ^tbly9 They have near three times as many Sinecures provided, to (?) In his New Stupe $f England, Part' 3. Chip. 9. the 122 Cyprianus Ifotimusl Chap. I. the end, that no Liberty may be left to thefe that have the particular Cures of Paroohes (r)% " The c Lower Houfe confifts of all the Deans, Arch** € Deaeons^nePro&or for every Chapter, and two € Pro&ors for all the Clergy of the Diocefs. * Which make in all 166 Perfons, w&. 22 Deans, € ^Prebendaries, 5*4 Arch-Deacons, and 44 Clerks c reprefenting the Diocefan Clergy. Now few, fave thefe 44 Clerks, have any immediat or conftant Charge of Souls, but are only Sinecures, Beneficed Men, who owe their ftanding to either the Prelates, or fuch «s will be loazh to difobiige them $tbty9 (/) their very prolocutor, or Mo- derator, mujt be prefemed to the Upper Houfe, which confiiis wholly of Bifhops • and confequently, if he pleafe them not, then he is caft, and another chofen5 and he again rtjeded, if the Biihops like him not, and fo on, until they pleafe the Choice. 6tkfy9 ( t ) The Matters debated are only fuch as the King by Commijfion does expnfly allow, ^thly. They mu\\ be firft propofed in the Upper, and then communicated to the Lawn Houfe* $thlyy Who knows not that the Bifhop, feeing all the Clerks or Curates of the Diocefs are the meer Exe- cutes of his Command*, came in by his Collati- on, and muft go out, when he, having called other fuch three or four Slaves to be Witneffes to the AAion, depofc s them, can eafily procure, that fuch two be fent, as fhall only fay theLeffon he teaches them, fay all that he injoyns, and no- thing but what he injoyns. §. LVII. Bhndel ( u ) indeed, as J% S. al- ledges (*) allows, that »(?Englife Bifhop arrogat* (r)Ibid. (f)lbi&. COIbid. (u)Jpolo£frQStntMierQnfcg *$2, 163. (*) jj\ 101, iA Chap. I. Cyprianus Jfotimus. 125 ed to himfelf alone the Power of Ordination ; and fays> that neither the ConftJJion of the Englifh Church, nor her Apology, nor her Catechifm, nor her Liturgy^ nor her Form of Ordinations, requires from any Man, any manner of way, that be jhould believe, that Bifovps have the §ole Vouser of Ordinations , or any other Eccle- fiaflical Functions. But 'tis as true, that, in Blon* del'sMind, not only theie Authors, but the whole Church of England, judg'd, wit i Jereme^ that Epifcopacy was not of Divine Right, that flie gave no Negative Vote, fcarce any ^ower at all to Bifhops over Presbyters. And if hlondel fpeak Truth herein, J. S\ Caufe is utterly loft : Nor can he be juftly accufed of Falfhood ; ic being certain, that the firft Reformers, and chief Lead- ers of that Church, from whofe Writings blondel made this Judgment, never bclkv'd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy • The Words of the V^ubruk, ciced both by Blondel and J. S. * are really ambiguous ,• and ' * ©** theBijhop, MW*/ingenuoufly took them f^t^T^ in the belt benle, and judgd, Har.ds fc) tells us, That the Church Government is committed tn the Magifhates. And ( a} The Arch bifhfifs (faith he) acknowledge them/elves to be Subjects U their Prince. And all reafon they /hould; 'tis certain that if they could do otherwife, we ■flioukl not hear of that Acknowledgment. But hear what follows ,• And to have fiat Authority and Jurifdiilion from her (the Queen) which they pra- Bije over and above that that ether Bifhops do. And ( b ) We give to the Civil Magistrate Au- thority in Ecclefiaftical Caufes ; and we acknowledge all}urifdiftion3 that any Court in England hath, or ( y ) Videfis BelUrm de Rm. Vontlf. Lib. i. Cap. 9. Lib. 4* Op. r$. de Cow/7. Lib. 1. Cap. 15.de Cler. Cap. 13. de Sacrum. .Confirm .Lib 2. Cap. 12. (z) Pag. 236. (a) Pag. 309. I b) Pag. €8o#- doth Chap. I. CyftUnuslfotiMHs. 127 doth exefci[e, he it Civil or TLccleJiaftical, to he exe- cuted in her Majtjiies Name, and Rights and to come from her as Supreme GovernouT. And in the firft Scottish Parliament of Charles II. SejS. 2. AM x. It is aflerted, that u The € Ordering andDifpofmg of the External Govern^ 1 ment and Policy of the Church doth properly c belong unto his Majefty, as an Inherent Right c of the Crown, by vertue of his Royal Preroga- c tive and Supremacy in Caufrs Ecclenaftical. And (c) 'tis declared, that c< Whatever fhall c be determined by his Majcfty, by Advice of * the Arch-bifliops and Biihops, and fuch of the c Clergy as fhall be nominated by his Majefty, in cthe External Government and Policy of the * Church ( the fame conflfting with the /landing |lLaws of the Kingdom) fhalt be valid and ' effectual. •Now I cannot believe, that any Man of Ho- neftr, efpecialiy confidering that the King's Sole Breath either Creatsor Annihilats the Bi&bps,wiH deny or doubt, that, in this A&, the Whole and SOLE POWER in Ecckfiafticks is intirely given unto the King; And accordingly their Ad- vocate, Sir Ge<>rg* Mackenzie, fays ( d ), that Since the Reformatio?!, 'the Kirig is come hy cur Law in place of the Pope. Where he mod untruly in(inu- ats, that the King had this Papal rower ever fince the Reform? : ' & as untruly alledges for it K James VI. his i>\ "Pari. Act 2y where indeed insre is no fuch thing: But had he cited the fore named Act of K, Charles IL and left outjthefe ATords [ Since thu 'ktfirm'dtisn ], he had ( ( ) I5id. ( d) 1 1 his InfHtutions, P*&. 33. fpokeii ia8 Cypriams IJotimus. Chap. T# fpoken Truth, and fufficientty vouched what he faid. In the meanwhile, to do them alljuftice, I nothing doubt, but that, with all their heart, they wifh this SOLE POWER wrung out of the King's Handsimoeheir own, andmoreover,nolefs ardently defire to be Secular Monarchs,than their Parafites labour to procure the Title of Ecclefia- ftick ones ; but, for the moft part, they are wif- er, than to hope ever to (land on their own Legs; they know that none, that loves the Liberty of fiis Countrey or Churchy loves them, that none defires therm fave Illimited-Monarchy-Men, for Introdu&lon and Defence of Defpotic Power, which, and none other* was the true End of their Creation: But, in the Judgment ofSenfual and Arrogant Men, Affluence and Domination can- not be purchas'd at too dear a Rate* §. LX. But to return directly to J. S. and his Books: The Seeds of all this ftrange Crop, that appears in his Vindication, were Sow'n in his Prin- ciples of the Cyprianic Age j for there ( e ), he affirm'd, that the Cyprianic Bifhops had the SOLE POWER of Ordination, and that of what foe ver Cler- gy Men within their Diflriffs. And that all this was their Right, he never calls in Queftion, and yet, to the Scottish and Engli[h Prelates, whom he makes the Rightful Heirs of all that belonged to the Cyprianic Bifhops, he wiil by no means allow it. This his Repugnancy Mr. Rule obferv'd, and made the following Inference C f )y " If c he do not afcribe this SOLE POWER to his c Scottish Bifhops, then ( ex tuo ore ) they are not c the Bifhops that Chrift inftituted ; nor thefe ( * ) Pag. 3*. (f) Cyfr. Bfjhif Extmimd, §« 6% 'of Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 129 c of the Cypriank Age, nor theie for whom c the Learned Men that he fpeaketh ok bach ? pleaded ; neither can I gueis, what kind of € Animals he will make them ; they mutt be a ' Species of Bifhops, that never Man pleaded for € but himfeli. But J. S in his Vindication^ ( g ) alledges, that Mr- Rule himfelf has helped him out of thefe Streights, becaufe he faid, C h ) " That € Church Government was not in all its Modes ' and Circumftances in the Third Century, ( in f which Cyprian lived ) the fame with waat it is ? now amongft Scottijh Presbyterians: The Sub- € ftance of Government may remain, and yet ? confiderable Alterations be made in the Modes I of Managing it, in the Succeffion of Years ; ' much more of Ages; »■ ■« ■■■.■■■■■■■i There hath ' been no Age of Old, or in Later Times, in ? which there have not been fome lefferDifferen- ? ces in Management, even among Churches 1 which ufed che fame Species of Church Go- * vernment, for Subftance: As at this Day, in * Scotland, Low Countries t Geneva, among the c Switzers, &c. iome Churches ^re more, and c fome lets pure* and near to the Pattern : And * yet ail Governed by Presbyters AAing in Pari- c ty ; And ameng the Prelatifts, Prelacic Power c is higher in one Church than in another. Buc if thefe Mr. Rule's Words be applicable to J. S's purpofe, then I enquire, Whether the Cyprianic or Scottijh Bifhops come nearer to the Patterned be the purer? And, whether, when the Cypria- nic Bifhops claimed and exercis'd the SOLE (t)Ch.4. §. Hi (b) Cyp.B. §.9. I POWER 130 CjprUtiHJ Ifotimus. Chap. I. POWER of Ordination, they had GOD's War- rant for fo doing? Or* whether this was an Ufurpatioq ? If the former ,• How dare the S^m'i&Bifhops give it away? If the latter ; Why- are Presbyterians fo fiercely accus'd, for not a* greeing in every particular with the Church of the cjprianic Age ? Again, he cann't be igno- rant, that the Power of Ordination is io far from being a Mpit or Circurx/tance, that 'tis univerfally look'd on as the Special, Chara&eriftical Note, and Elienrial Attribute of a Bifhop, and, confe- quently, feing the Scottish Biihops differ in this from the Cypriamc, they muft be,as Mr. Ruh well obfcrv d, quite another Species, and nor at all the Succeffors to the Cyprianic Biihops i And fo J . S. flicks inextricably in the Briars, without the leaft Relief from Mr. Rule. * §. LXI. In the fame Book, 1 he principles of the Cyprianic Age, he mod plainly, and frequently (i) afcribes the SOLE POWER of Jurifdiaion to the Cyprianic Bifhops s and yet again, in his Vin- dication (k'9 deny cs, that he did any fuch thing: Burn my Book ( faith he ) if that is in it: And vet he is not unprovided of a SanQuary ,• for he adds, at leaft, in that Amplitude we are now confi&ering. But the preceeding Difcourfe has demonftrated, that this SOLE POWER which he denies, is a palpable Deceit, a Mock and Chimerical Fidi- on, tnac owes no leis to the Brains of J. 8. and his Tribe, than the Antichrift of the Tribe of Dan owes to the papalines, or their Harbingers. But have 1 not [aid, ( proceeds he ) that the Bi» ( I ) Pages 27, *8, 29, 32, 36, 38, 39, 40, 411 4^ 47» 4S>> 59, <5o>*7i6S>i 7475, 8* ( *) Ul. 4. £. I©, Jheps Chap I. Cyfrittnus Ifolimus. \%\ shops PovJer is Monarchical Yes. 1 cum that I have [aid that i And what then ? Has twrj M narch the SOLE POWER of Jurifdi&im within his Dominions} But, b? it that every Monarch has it not ; yet your Ecclefiaftic Mo ,*arch has it, as tnuft now be acknowledged by every one brooking ev'n the leaft remainder of either Shame or Confcience,, and yet f^ail be further raanifefted from your own Words immediady following: Had Julius Caefar ( after he turu'd Monarch of the Roman E«f- fire ) and all [ucceeding Emferw s j*ch SOLE FOtVER? Was there never another Magifirate in all that va(£ Erxfire that had any Power of Juri [diction, no not fo much as a Subordinate One > Very good then ,• the SOLS POWER cfac Preheats difciaim is that which never was. never (ball be, never can be, or exifr, fince it was impoflibie, that either the Romany or any other Emperors could fubfift, wich- out others under ;hem, deputed to execute their Commands; and more, during the Reign of Ju- lim Cafar, who was the perpetual Dtifotor, and even of his Succeffors, no Magiftrate enjoy 'd, of whatsoever Denomination, no not the Senate it feif Julius and his SuceeiTors were fo Abfoluce, that, if thevgave any thing of Power to the Senate, they gave rather an empty Name and Shadow, than the Thing, dealing with them as Men do, when they would pleafe Children or Fcois j which, whatever it was, they took again, when they pleafed: The moll Sacred Offices were wholly at their Dilpofal, and the greateft Offi- cers, if they once difpieafed thenv they, wieh- our all regard ,cf Law, thruft cut, tho' never fo little of the time, by Law allowed thsm in the I z Office, 132 Cyprhnus Jfotlmusl Ghap. If Office, had been elapfed. In a word, all Gover- nours and Officers were their meer Creatures and abfolute Dependants, and had no Power of Ju- risdiction, but only fo much, and fo long as their Abfolute Matters were pleas'd to give them : The Sole Will of thefe Princes was all the Law in force, except when the Souldiery crofs'd them, and, as fell out in Nero's time, helped the Senate to change their Mafter. This is fo evident, that no Man,that has any Knowledge and Refped to Truth, and his own Credit, will dare to deny it. Yea J. S. himfelf owns, that it was fuperlatively Abfolute and Defpotic. He (Cyprian) feems to have known no Term fitter, C faith J, S. (I) ) or more Emphatic than the term Licentia for exprejpng the ^Paramount, the Peerlefsy the Uncontrolled and Un- confined Power of the Roman Emperors. And yet this Example fuits well enough to illuftrate the Power J. S< and his Fellows give to every Bic foop wichin his Diocefs. But I doubt, if the fol- lowing be fo pppofite : Is not the King of Scot- land a Monarch ? And deep his being that deprive *li inferior }*Jge/ or Governours of all Ptwer Jurifdi- Elional ? Had Julim c^far and bis Succeflors the Sole Power no more than has the King of Scot* land, who, as your lelf grants ( m) cannot make $ne Jingle Law^ without the Confentof h*s Parliament ? And yet, if the one had it, ard the other have it nor,you either know not what you are doing.or elfeyou contemn all Men, and n:ind to cheat your Reader ; But let us ftrike the Iron while it is- hot and du&ile ; The Bifhop was juft now \\ktjuliut£*(ar, the one had ?hv bOLE POWER (I) Chap. 5. §.40. {m) Chap. 4. §. i*5' „ n JUlt Chip. !• Cyprianus IfotmniC 133 juft as much as the other, if the Bifliop wants it * the Emperor fliall never finger it : Immed uJ our Author ftoops and condefcends to make rhe Bifhop only the Companion of a King, and il" luftrates the Power of the former bv that of the latter ( n) above his Parliament^- andfo his Lord" ftip is only aTernperate Monarch* wih a Negative* and that Reciprocal, And this he would frequent' ly have us beiieve to be the received Sentiment of himfelf and his Party. But this is not all his Bounty i give him but any thing which czn be call'd dt\ Imparity , or a Majority 3 or a Superiority of Tower ( 0 ), and neither be nor his will plead for more: But fure, all this is far below a Negative Vote 1 Yea ( p\ he brings in Light on yielding, that all Chutch Affair i shall be mtna^d in Presbyteries dnd Synods by the free Vote of Presbyters y or the major fart of 'em ,• andfo fairly declaiming a Negative Vote, yea really granting a Parity among Paftors. And again, he gives the following Words of the fame Lighton : If the Difienting Brethren shall (ey% they are not againft a fixed Prefident or Bishop, hut that the Queflion is about their Power ; then we beg it may he fo : Let ibat be all the Qutftion betwixt us, dnd then we hope the Contravene will be quickly ended^ fer we truft we shall be fund not at all defirous to ufurp or affei} an undue Power, hut ranker to abate ef that Power which is reasonable and conformeven t* Primitive Epifcopacy, than that a Schijm should continue upm that Score. Now I am miftaken, or J. S would have us to believe, that Lighton was in earned and candid in both thefe PaiTages, and that he himfelf approves of ?em : Well then* let us re- (n) Ibid, (•) J.na. (!>)§>4i. I % member 1 §4 Cyfrianus tfotimm. Chap. I. member, that all the Prelatifts plead for is only fo much, be it never fo Uftle, as can juftly be called Imparity-, Majority^ and Superiority of Vower ; but ev'n oi that Power Ligbton grants to abate; that is, he'll become a compleat Parity- Man, or Pres* bvterian, and fo ought J. S. to do like wife, on Suppofitton that he take thele Paffages for whoifome Doctrine : For the Power is fo little J. 5. ha< left the Bifhops, that it is like an A- tome, and admits of no Phyfieal Divifion ,• On- ly Li%hton would have rhe Prefident fix'<\ that is, a Door kept open by which the Prelates may have a Re-entry to their Lodging. Thus, that they may the more eafily delude the Wo ldjchey, Proteus*\ike> turn themfelves into a thoufand Shapes, Omnia tramformant feje in miraCula rerum* Tho* with not a hair better Succefs than that which the Poet gives to his Monftruous Sooth- f&yer. In fhort, never was there a Set of Men more Laborious and Induftrious, than are the Prelatifts, to difguife, hide, and dilfemble their genuine Principles, and befl beloved Do§•*•• M§. "• time Chap, I. GjprUnus IfotitnHs. \%f time to prove, that Cyprian could, with the Approbation of all the World, have done what he lifted, whatever number of his Presbyters had •ppofd him j he goes on thus (z,J: 4fTo conclude * this Branch of the Epifcopd Soveraignty, his € Legiflative Power, the who e Account amounts c to this : A Bilhop in the Cyprianic Age> by 'the Received Piinciples of that Age, hadluch € a Power, as that, by himfelfc when he thought ' it Expedient, he couid have given Laws to all € his Clergy, Presbyters as well as others,- and ' that he did it not always, was the Refult of € Prudence, not any Defed: of Power* In a ' word, I cannot exprefs it better than Sz.Jerom s has done before me : When he did things in c the ordinary current Courfe of Government, cbv the Advice of his Clergy, he followed the x Example of Mofes, who tho' he had it in his * Power to be the Sole Governourof Ifrael, yec c choofed out Seventy to Affift him in Judging c the People. Thus he ♦ And I need, not remind my Reader, that he gave moft exprefly the SOLE POWER of Ordination to the Bifliop already. And now judge, if all this be no more but juft fo much only as may deferve the name of Superiority of Power; (for he allow'd Bifhops no more, the Arguments of 9relati(ts conclude no more to he due to them ) if it be not the WHOLE and SOLE POWER in as great and fupsrlative Am- plitude as ever was claim'd by the moft Abiolute and Exclufive Monarch, yea as readily can be conceived,- and therefore if there be no valuable difference between the Cyprianic and Britannic (*) S, u. * Bifcopsi 138 Cyf nanus lfotimus. Chap. f. Biftiops ; the proving whereof is the main bcopc of both his Books, Thus in the Net which he hid is his own Foot taken, and he is Snared in the Work ot his own Hands : And fo much, if he may be underftood, he himfeU feems to perceive, and alfo to en- deavour his efcape in that which follows {a ) : (i Only one Inference let me here make:It is that, c if the Bifhops of the Cypriamc Age had fuch an c Abfolute Power as I have accounted for, and if c they, notwithftanding this their Abfolute \ Power, did yet judge it Prudent, in moft Cafes, 2 to Ad by the Advice of their Reipedive Prei- c byteries,then itmuft needs follow that they did e net judge themleives bound to Ad aiways c Abfolutly j ( Ridiculous Gibberies; as if Men ufually needed ftrong bands to oblige them to do that which is their own Abfolute Will and and Pleafure, Or, as^ ifthefe foregoing words were not fo far from detracting the leaft Hair from SOLE POvVER, that they eftablifo and prefuppofe it in the ftrideftfenfe ) " but that c it was very Lawful, as well as Prudential 4 for them, to Reftrid themfelves in the Ordinary c Adminiftratioh of their Government fo far, c as to Ad with Counfel and Advice. Which words prefuppofe and infmuate that Absolute Yewcr was the Bifnops Right, that it was juft and Lawful for him to exercife it, and that whatever he yielded of it he might, and did take again when he faw meet ; and fo, whether by Advice you underftand the- Liberty of Gcnful- tation only, or IXeciJictj, the Bifhop loffes not a (*) Chap. 7. §- «** white Gbap. I. Cjprhnns Ifotimus. 139 white of his Sole and Abfolute Tower. Now cither J. S's $cotti(h Bifhops have this Power , and byConfequence, .W? and Abfohte Power in the higheftfenfe ; which J. S. m -iintains chat they never had, and fpends about feventy Pages to prove that they always difbwnd and difclaim'd it, and never exercil'd it . Or they have it not; and fo are quite another kind of Bifhops than were thefe whom he contends to have been in Cpprian's Age. rt From this U follows, (continues € he) That ev'n the Bifhops of the Cyvrianic Age c themfelves being Judges, there is no Errour in c our Scottifi} Conftitution, whereby Bifhops are c limited to Ad with the Advice and Confent c of their Presbyters in making Canons, and in c performing Ordinations, and ail weighty and c momentuous Ads of jurifdidion. True ; it fol- lows well enough, if we fuppofe, that the Scottish Biihops were not bound to fubjed themfeives to thefe Limitations, but only if, and fo far as they pleated, and were bound only to keep them fo long as they pteafed, and at Liberty to break them in parr, or in whole fo fcon as they judg'd it expedienr, and to make Canons, perform Ordinations, and do ail other weighty Affairs as they lifted, not only "without-, but ev'n againft the Advice and Mind of (heir Presbyters ? other- wife , if J. $. may be heard1: £^e tyfrianic Bifhops would have judg'd the Conititution of J:S\ Scom/fc Church monftruoufiy Erroneous,and the Scottiflj Biftiops, none of rheir SucceiTors, but Tray tors to the Epifcopal Majefty, and Betrayers of their Truft, and that Abfolure and Unac- countable Power which Chrifi left to all Biihops. And 140 Cypriatiuf Ifotimuf. Chap. I. And certainly ( proceeds he ) their Epifcopal Scve- raignty is failed by their having a Negative over their Presbyters ; by having fuch a Power , as that their Presbyters can do nothing without thema or in appofitkn to them. But certainly , feing, according to J% S. it is Reciprocal; the Preshy renal 5«w- aignty, or the Soveraignty of Presbyteries is no lets falved by their having a Negative Reciprocally over their Biflbops, by having fuch a Power, as that their Bifliops can do nothing without there, or in Oppofition to them. Nay, moreover, feing he gives the Cyprianic Biftops the S$te and Abfoluve Power, and makes his Scottifh Bilhops their Plenary SucceiTors in that Power, and - affirms, withal, that their Severaignty is falved, that is, their Power not diminifh'u or wrong'd if they get a Negative Voice j he manifeftly confounds a Negative Voice with the Sole ?ower9 and fo falls into the very abfurdity of which he C b ) accuf d Mr. Fonefler* But if this be fo (continues he ) then it if very plain that G. R. made but a very weak and ineffectual Attack in the $tb Page of his £ookf when he pretended that 1 did net make my Scottifh Bishops (as be calls them) jucb Bishops as I bad made theje of the Cyprianic Age. Nay, lamentably weak has your beft Fortrefs been : For he by that Attack has ftorm'd, and irreparably raz'd it. For now ( proceeds J. S, ) be may fee I made our Scottifh Bishops the (ame very thing that the Bishops of the Cyprianic Age made themfelves in the Ordinary <&eurfe of their Govern- ment. Good ,• But did you make them the fame very thing which, if we believe you, the (b) Chap. 4. §# 19. CypTtMic Chap. I. Cyprianus lfottfuus* 1 41 Cyprianic Biflhops had, by CHRIST'S Legacy, a Power to make themfelves, and when they thought fit, a&uilly made themfelves? Did you afcribe to your Scottish Bifhops the like Power f You either did,or you did not. If the former, with what Face can you count us inju- rious for arraigning your Bifhops as Guilty o£ arrogating to themfelves the SOLE POWER • and how vain and fallacious were all your tedious Labours through your #h Chapter, to perfwade* the World, that they never claim'd orexerc'd it ; and that both they and you believed, that they' oughc not to have it f If the latter ; then your Scottish Bifhops are not like the Cyprianics3 they are another thing, another Species of Bifhops, not the Succeffors of the Cyprianic Bi&ops jand, confequently not the Succeifors of the Apoftles : No furely, they fucceed to neither ; tor to both of 'em you will give the Sole Right and Power of both Ordination and Jurifdic^ion, but to your own Scdtti(h and English- Bifhops the Sole Power of neither. Nay j ( proceeds he ) he may farther Jee> that all the difference [if there was any confider zble) between the Cyprianic and Scortifh Bishops, u fa far from making for, that it mofk maniftjily makes againft Scoctiih Presb)terians : Which is juft nothing to the preienc Qusftion, it being, If your Birhops be not quite another thing than were the Cyprianics ? Moreover, 'tis fo far from making againft ?resbyceriam, that, if you {peak Truth, it brings their Paftors. fave an Indivifible Entity, as nigh to the Cyprianic Biihops as are any of your Prelats, €i In that, fo much as is !ofit, lyes here, that the Cyprianic Bifhops, tho* [ commonly 142 Cyfyrianui Ifotimus. Chap. I. commonly they A#ed with Confent of their Presbyters, yet were they not bound up by ' Canons from A&ing Abtolotely, when they c faw occafioa for it, whereas our Scottish Bi&ops * are limited, by the very Conftitution, to do c nothing of Con(equeoce by themfelvesj and * by confequence t*iere is not now -that hazard * of Arbitrary Government in Scotland, as there % was all the World over in the days of Sc. Cyprian. Which is only a further real Conteflion that his SHhops do not at all fucceed to chefe of the Kjyprianic Age. Take yet a PafTage or two out of J. S> con- cerning the Power he gives to the Cypriamc Bi- fhops, and you (hall be burden'd with little more of him on this Theme. c< We have ( faith be ) € ( c ) perfect Demonftration of his ( Gyprian's ) c Power to promote and ordain Clergy-men ; to c difpenfe the Goods of the Church ^ to depofe c or excommunicate Rebellious and Undutiful C Clergy-men^ and all that adhered to them; and c to do all this not only by himfeif, but even by c Delegares, as he fhould pleafe to chufe them. And C d ), " Cyprian tells Rogatianus ( d Bijbop ) ' that without confuking any Man, he miaht c have inflided condign punishment on his Re- € bellious Deacon. And {e), '% One otherTerm c there is, not unfrequently ufed by Saint Cyprian, c to fignify the Power Epifcopai, than which he f himfe.f feems to have deem'd none more figni- € ficant or proper to exprefs the fulieft, the high- c eft, the unconfinedft Power. It is Licentia ; * this Termi in the Cyprianic Dialed, fignifies a (0 Chap. 5.§<'3- (<0$.34- (0§"4°i4l. [ Power, Chap. I. Cypriatius Jfotimus. 143 € Power of doing things at pleafure, without be- c ing accountable to, or dependent on any Supe- c rior. And, indeed* this is the proper Import c of the Word, ifwe'may believe the Etymolo- c gifts. This Term our Martyr choofes, to ex- € prefs that great, that Heaven-born Dominion, c that moft Heroic Gonqueft, which the Rege- c nerate Man obtains over the Devil, the World, € and his own Corruptions. This is the Term he r fingles out to fignify that incomparable Free- c dom, thofe are bleffed with who receive the * Holy Spirit: And that we may the better un- c deiltand his Meaning, he choofes another Term $ to explain ic by ; the Term VoUntatus ; a Term € coind, as it were, and contrived on purpofe to c figntfy Dominion in its greateft height and Ele- c vation. This Term Licentia he chooies to ex- c prefs our Saviour's Stupenduous and Afloni&ing € Power ot cafting out Devils • of fixing the c Nerves of Paralycicks ; of purging Lepers ; of c reftoring Eyes to the Blind, and Feet co the ' Cripple ; of raifing the Dead, and exercifing a c Deipotic Power over all the Elements, &c. 1 And he feems to have known no Term fitter, or c more Emphatic for expreffing the Paramount, c the Peerlefs the Uncontrouled and Unconfin'd c Power of the Roman Emperors. Now this very * Term our Martyr ufes on diverfe cccafions, to c fignify the Sovereign, the Paramount! the Peer- c left Power of Biikops. And now I am weary* and able to hunt no longer; nor need I; for 1 am lure, considering how much I nave produc?d out of his Vindication, and referred to, in his Principles, char I have catch'd 144 Cypridnuslfotimusl Chap. I. catch'd his Huge Wild Boar, the great Devourer of GOD's Church, I mean the SOLE POWER, afcribed by J. S. to the CyfrUnic Billiops, and therefore to all Bifhops : And fo, moft unjuftly, yea and fe!f repugnantly does J. 5. (/) term the Imputation of Domination to the Bifoops, Ridicu- lous • fince all Men, yea and ?„ S. himfeif ( g )3 own,that realDomination confifts in an Abfolute, Unlimited, ardDefpotic Power. And yet to his Scottish and English Biftiops he wjlk give only a Negative Voice, fuch a Negative as is Reciprocal be~ " twixt them, arid the Presbyters, as he frequent- ly confdles: Yea they have not that; 'Nay, if we believe him, they have.as good as nothing at all : For ( h ), the Arguments commonly infixed on hy the trelatiHs cannot be rationally defignd ?oi conclud- ing more% than that an Imparity 9 \ or a Majority y or a Superiority of Tower ps due so Bishops, AncL ( i ) Tarity or Imparity is the true State of the cntroverfy. There is therefore no more, but the minimum quod fie of Imparity of Power, according to J% s's own Coofefli a, due to his Bifhops, And again (k)% If you taktivdiih he J the lea/t imaginable part fr*m Parity, you shall forthwith have Imparity. And, Parity con- fijis in Indivifibili. And thus he deftroys both his Books, as to their main Scope, which was to Iden* tify the Cyprianic and Britannic Bifhops,- and, to fcpot, really deftroys Prelacy it felf. For, let there be in the whole Diocets only to many Pa* ftors as make the imalkft Presbytery, let the Bi- fliop be as ftricily as any of 'em ty'd to one Flock, let him never have the Honour of even being Mo- (/)Chap. s-M 7. 'j^ltnd. (b) Chap. 4. §. i«t. (i ) §. 102. {k ) Chap. 2. §. 5. derator Chap. h Cypriatius Ifolimas 145 derator more than any of the reft ; and, which is yet woife/ let him not have one Groat of Re- venue above anv other of the Presbytery ; Only let him have Two Votes or Voices, while each of the reft h^s but One ; Here is an Imparity of Tower • More than this J. S. requires not, yea lefs, iflefs can be, is all he feeks : Would the Prelates and their Favourites, would J. 5. him- feif think this enough* or worth the contending for, or iuffident to fee them far enough from 'Presbytery?- Truy will dp well, therefore, bet- ter to try before they again truftthis their Advo- cate, who has (b palpably and notofiobfly be- tray'd them s Yec there is this to be faid for him, that it fell Apt out thro' wapt of Will, but of Skill, (5r rather thro' the Power of Truth, that frequently fewrceth her greaceft Enemies to become her WitnefFes. ,j\ LXIIL And now at length let me remind him of that which he has conceded, and that which I have proved:1 He hasyiefded t/ )* that SOLE POWER is not to be aicribed to the C>- frianie Bifhop. which ( tho' he there equivocates, and would hin all along perfwade his Reader, that the Gyfrianic Bifhop had it in the Ihi&cft and fuileit aenfc ) is yet a ftrong Evidence, that he defpaii'd of ever proving by plain and foiid Arguments, that the SOLE POWER belong'd to the Cjprianics. He has alfo yielded, as we have juft now heard, that there is only an Indivisible Acomc of Power, really nothing of it due to the Britannic Bi/hops, and, by good confequence, fince he makes them compleat Heirs of all the 0) Chap. 4. §. 10, K power L 146 Cyprianus ljotimus. Chap. 1^ Power of the Cyprianic Bifliops, that thefe Cypria- nic Btfhops had only thislndivifible Atome, Leaft Imaginable Party and real nothing of Power, be- longing to them as their due ± and fo it is falfe, that there was Proper Epifcopacy in St. Cyprian** time; the proving of which, was the main De- fign of his Book (wj. And again, I have irre- fragably made good, that his scotti\h and Engli(b BiGiops arrogate, claim, and endeavour to ex- erce the WHOLE and SOLE POWER, and fo are quite another thing than were the Cyprianic Biihops, and differ as really from them, as chey can be pretended to differ from a Parochial Bi« fticp or Paftor. Once again, If the Cyprianic Bifliops had only belonging unto them, as their due^ a precife Su- periority or Imparity of Power ; then they did either keepthemfelves Religioufly within the Li- mits thereof, or they did not : If J. S. admit the former ,• then no fmall part of both his Books, wherein he gave indifputably to the ty- prianic Bifhops much more than a naked or pre- cife Impaiity of Power, muft be arrantly falfe, and the Intent io Operis, the Defign of his Work, as leaft, theGulling of his Reader ,• and alfo Mr. Rule*} affirming, that the Cyprianic Bi/hops, for the moft part, had but a Majority of Dignity, like that of a Moderator, muft be a moft Venial Error, if it deferve the name. If the latter be chofen,- then> tho' we fuppofe J*S. tohave prov- ed invincibly, that the Cyprianic Biftiops both exere'd, and believ'd to be nothing but their due, all the Uncontrouid^ Unconfind$ and Demotic (w) Chap,* . §, 70. Fowtr, Chap. I. Cjpriatws lfotimus. 147 Power, wherewith he cloaths them, it muft be ac- knowledge, that both his Books are nothing elfe but Demonftracions, irrefragably proving, that the Cyprianic Bifliops were involved in a moft grofs and dangerous Error, and moft paN pably guilty of Tyranny, and that J. 5. himfelf, while ( n ) he calls the Pattern of the Primitive Churches, viz,, thefe of the Cyprianic Age, Ex* cellent and Improbable, and thro' both Books, ftill fuppofes, that the Government which then ob- tained, was the only Government of Ghrift's In- flitution, is involv'd in the fame Error, a&ed by the fame Tyrannical Spirit 5 yea, that he not only breaks GOD's Commands himfclf, but teaches others to do fo. Thefe, Sir, are the Chains wherewith you have bound your felf, and from which you can never be freed, fave by an ingenuous Recantation, by giving Glory- to the LORD GOD of Ifrael, and making Con- feffion unto him. And now at the clofe of this Difcourfe, I acknswledge that 'tis really prolix, a Treatife, rather than a Tingle Chapter ; and yet, as I hope, there is no ground why either I fhould Repent of my Enlarging, or my Obfervant and Trudv loving Reader of his perulal, the multi- plicity of moft important Truths herein disco- vered being a fufficient Compenfation of his Time and Pains. For now, 'tis manifeft that a Sp;ric of Deceit, v Self repugnancy, Infatuation, Gonfufion, Tyranny, Popery, and the like qualities are the effential Ingredients of his Compofure, and that the fame qualities iijibellifh (n) Cfcap.4,5. 113. K 2 the 148 Cypriavtts Ifotmus. Chap. \m* -the Works of the chiefeft Pillars and Defenders of the Hierarchy : Now 'cis manifeft. that its greareft Champions are for the Divine Right of no Church* Government at all, Latitudinarian, Efafftan Gnatko's : *Tis now minifeft that even the Men of greateft account in the Hierarchical Communion, really and materially acknowledge, that their Biftieps rejed and trample the Primi- tive Government,- and Exercife a * Tyrannical Defpc pc Power ; 'lis now manifeft fom their own Cenfettions,rhat the Claiming andExercifing of SOLE POWER is a Ciime fcarce expiable, and that our Charging them therewith is clearly, fully, and irrefragably Juftiri!d : 'Tis now ma- pifeft that J. S, himfeif hds really deftroy'd their Dagon% Prelacy depriving it not only of Head and Hands, but alio of its Trunc and whole Seeing, making it nothing in the World but the Ua(l imaginable Ind^uifibte. Surely, this can be afcri- beci to no other Caufe, than to the over ruling - Pre vidence of the G O D of Truth, who fre- quently caufes Truth's greateft Enemies become i s Wicnefles, and really, condemn their bed beloved Errors. Nor can his moft real, moft frequent, and moft palpable Self contradi&ions, and Self condemnations, and thefe in things to h!m of greateft Moment, proceed from ought elic than the .infatuating Power of ftrong Delu- fion lent upon him. becaufe he received not the Love of the Truth : .Otherwife, would he ever have pretended to prove, that their Bifhops neither claim nor eierce the SOLE POWER, from thele very Books, yea thefe very Paflages and Words, which make ic as clear as the Light, that Chap. I. Cyprianus Ifotlmus. 149 that. they really do both * Would he ever have ailerted the Identity of the Cyprianic and Bntanic Bifoops, and yet yielded that thev differ in that which the Hierarchies make an Accribiue effen- tial to all Bifhbps * Would he ever have alio wd his Book to be hurnYf if he had i herein afcrib'd theSOLEEOWER*lJ*rifdi8imto ehe Cyprianic Bifhops, when vec v: was never mure clearly, and evidently lodg'd in the moft Defporic and AbfVu*? McJnarcb *than 'da iodg'u by J. S. in thefe Cyprianic Bifhop* \ I fay, gU "che(b.ai|d many other rhinos, which I truft fhajl J>e of fome Ufe and service ro the O . ch of G O D, arc now clear as the Light. Yea I am perl wa- ded, that, were I to lay no more, 1 have evn already enervated and overthrown really, and on the matter, the- far greater and more mo. mentuous part of his Voluminous Treatite, and am confident, that no Man of Knowledge and Ingenuity, fhall ever after ehb have the Face co deny, that the Britannic Bishops and their Ad- herents are truly SOLE-POWER Men, or to pretend that they are one and the fame with the Cyprianics ; Or, finally, if he ftand to the Con- ceflions of J. S, to undertake the Defence of Prelacy. However I (hall not leave things thus, but {hall more fully dete& him, and Examine all the reft of the places of his Book, wherein he appears to place his chiefeft Strength and Secu- rity. K 3 CHAP, 150 Cyprianus lfotimns. Chap, II, CHAR II That the Britannic Hierarchy u no lefs really Romiili than the Italic, fuflairid and Demon- ftrated. T §. I. f* g ^O the former Chapter I have, tho' I once otherways defign'd, clofly fubjoyn'd this, becaufe of the Confanguinicy of the Matters handi'd in both ,• it being certain, yea and yielded by the greateft Prelatifts, that SOLE POWER PRELACY is grofs and bare- fac'd POPERY : And in it I take mainly to Task the I X Chapter of J. S's Vindication ; the very Title of which $tb Chapter [ Viz. No Countenance given by the principles of the Gy prianie Age to the Papacy. And, the Cyprianic Epi/copacy is jhcwn to be inc0njt(ient with a Papacy. J is wholly impertinent, either in refped: of his purpofe, or of thefe whom he there oppofes. The Charge of the Presbyterians, from which to liberate the Epifcopals is his Work through this Chap. H# Cypriatiuf lfotimui. 151 this whole Chapter, was and is, That Scottifh an^ Englifh Prelacy and Hierarchy is real Popery, and Romifb Leaven. They abltrad from the Cyprianic Principles ,• they manage their Charge only againft the Principles, Dodlrine, and Pra&ice of the Britannic Hierarchies : Cyfrianic Bilhops, as is juftly Colleded frcm J. 5's Ac- knowledgement, had due to them as good as nothing of Power,* they had only the leafl ima- ginary part of it, fuch an Imparity as conjifis in Indi- vifibili. And again, they will tell him, if the Cyprianic Bifhop was fuch an Abioiuce Monarch and Tyrant as he has defcribed him, that the Title of this his Chapter is arrantly falfe, and the Principles, at leaftthe Practice, tended not a little to the Introduction of Popery, They will tell him, moreover, that the Gyprianic Epif- copacy might,while it continued, beinconfiftent with a Papacy, and yet contribute not a little to its Introdu&ion : For, 'tis poffible that the Principles whereon this Epifcopacy leaned, natively tended to Popery, and were afterward improved to that effed : Of which more fhortly. And now, pray, what rich Difcoveries can we exped in this Chapter, when its very Title is palpably impertinent, falfe, and falla- cious. His Tragical Exclamations of the Injuri- oufnefs of our Charge merit no milder Cenfure, provided it be juftifiable : And indeed there is nothing more juftifiable, as anon (hall moft luculently appear. §. 1 1. In the Forefront of thefe fuppofed Calumnies and Slanders /. 8. places thefe follow- ing Words of Mr, Rule's Preface to The Cyprianic Bijb0p 152 Cyiriaws lfotimus. Chap. H &i(hop Examined : It is unaccountable , that in a matter that Salvation does fo much depend upon> in the Opinion of Prelatifts, they Jhould lay jo much ftrefs, as commonly they Aoy en the Opinions of Men, and theTeftimonies of the Ancient Church, feing all, ex- teptTapijis, agree, that matters of Faith , and which Salvation dependeth upon, muft be determined only by Scripture, and that GOD [peaking in his Word is the only Judge in {uch Controverfies. Thus Mr. Rule. "Paffing by many things (repones J.S*) (a) € obfervable in this Difeourfe, you fee this plainly cin it, that there is no other way toaccountfor c the Prelatifts making fo much ufe of, laying c fo great ftrefs upon the Teftimonies of the c Ancient Church, but by making them Papifts. * Now, if this was particularly levelled againft c me. I flhall only ask it G. R. would not have € laugh'd at me, if I had gone about to prove by 4 Texts of Scripture that fuch and fuch were the * Principles of the Cyprianic Age, with regard c to Church Government. Thus J. S But as he denys not, that Epifcopacy is in the opinion of Prelatifts, a matter on which Salvation very much depends, and dares not deny that the Afcribing of the Power of determining Contjro- verfies of Faith to any other than GOD (peaking in His Written Word alone, is Popifa Dodrine; and feing it is no lefs undenyabie, that the Pre- latifts infift but very little on Scripture, but very much, if not wholly upon Humane Writings; there can be no other way to account for their making fo much of the Teftimonies of the Ancient Church, but by making them, in this ( <*) Chap. 9. §. 2. matter, Chap. H. Cyprianus Ifotifntts. 153 matter, Papifts : And fo there was fufficiene Reafon to level it againft the Prelatifts in gene- ral, but moreefpeciaSiy againft J. S, And, by confequence, J. S's Queftion, 1 (hall only asky &c„ contains nothing fave a Calumnious FaMhood, 'viz.. That Mr. Rule thought or fuppofdj that J. S. ought to have proved any fuch thing by Texts of Scripture : Whereas he thought no fuch thing ; but jufHy both thought and (aid, that if he had not been too much addled to the Popifh way, he had never either hid fo much weight, or infifted fo long on Humane Tefti- monies; which none can jaftiy deny cobv ftill fallible, and frequently, as in the prefenc caie, both faife and flippery. If ( continues he ) it was kveli'd vtntrjtty dgainU all Advvcues for EpifcopaCy, thin it f sills H G. R/s> jhafe tB maintain that never PreJatic Advocate ftnmpxed to find Epifcopacy in the Scriptures Bus finOS you, as do the Papifts» when arguing from Scriptures, hafte over them, like Men bare-footed over burning Coals, and wh n arguing from Humane Wri- tings, dwell and deiignt in them as Fifties in the Water, whLh is the very enormity whereof Mr* Rule accufeth you, you are too liberal in Car* ving to him, or any of his Mind, a Chare where- in they are not at ail concerned. Or ("adds J. S.) that the Caufe ofEpifcopaCy is the wor/e for having the plain Teftimonies of the Ancients toajfiji Scripture, in proving it. And now, Sir, for once be inge- nuous : Is this all the ftrefs you lay on the Teftimonies of the \ncients i Do not you think, that their fuffirages do much corroborate your Caufe f If you do, as certainly you do, how 154 Cyprianus Ifotmus. Chap. If. how impertinent and fenfelefs are thefe your Words? What ? Spent you fo much time, and were you at fo prodigious pains and labour as firft to Write 12, and then 69 Sheets to prove, that the Ancients were in your mind touching Epifcopacy without any hope of gaining any more by all this, but only, that your Caufe of Epifcopacy is not the worfe ? The Caufe of Epifcopacy, is not the worfe tho' the Author of Robin Hood, or of Ge(ia Romanorum, had allowed it. Nay, you believe, that by thefe Humane Authorities you can prove the Divine Right of Diocelan Epifcopacy. §. III. Their Do&rine of the Diocefan Bilhops being the Principle of Unity, comes next tobeconfidered. For proving (faith J. S. ( h ) ) that there was proper Epifcopacy in St. Cyprian** time, linfifted on this for one Argument, That by the Principles of that Age> every Bijhop was the Principle of Unity to all the Christians within his Difiriff, wherein, for the mofl part,tbere were many Presbyters, a§ at Rome 46, &c. He was the Head, and all the reft, Presbyters, as well as others, were Members of the Body, &C. All I am c oncer rd for is, to purge it of Popery. But I would counlel J. S. to be wary and tender of it, left with this fame Dez,e he purge it of it felf. I affirm then with Mr, Rule, That this very Argument is fully with as much flrength, managed by the Papifls for the Popes Univerjal Headjhip over the Chrijiian Church. And that the Pope mufi be the Center of Unity among Bifhops is indeed the native Conclufion of the Argu- ment. And that this Argument deftroyethlhe Parity Chap. II. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 155 ofBifk$ps which J. S. fleadetb f§r. Thefe Mr l£s Affections I affirm to be good and true: Lee us fee how J. S, overturns them. I pleaded then for a Parity among Bifhops as G. R. confejjes. No doubt you have got a fplendid Viftory, when you have got Mr, Rule to confefs that you maintain Self-repugnant Principles and Do&rines. I affirm moreover, as did Mr. Rule, That this Arguments native Conclufion is, We muft either have the Papacy over the Church, or Anarchy in itm To which J. S. anf^ers, Had G, R. Jhtwn3 either that there was no fuch Principle received in St. Cy* prian'j time ; or, that my Inference from it was not neCefjary% he bad {aid fomnbing to the purpo/e : Nay ; had he done either of th^fe, he had done nothing to thepurpofe ; the Quaftion between you and him being* If your Doctrine of the 'Piocefan Bijhop his being the Principle of Unity to all in his Diftridt, have not a native tendency to the Introduction of Popery ? And not, If either Cyprian held fuch a Principle, or, what Inferences are deducibie from it ? But ( con- tinues J. S, ) to make my Argument infer the Papacy, is more than what is m-)fi Jurpri^ing : D/d ever Vapifl Reafon at this rate ; Every Bifhop in St. Gyprian'j Time, was the Principle of Unity to his own Church : Ergo the Bifhop of Rome, was the Principle of Unity to the Church Catholic ? But are you yet to learn, that .the Queiiion under debate is neither what was the Judgment of Cyprian, nor what the Papifts infer from it ,• but if your Do&rine of the Diocefan Biflhop his being the Principle of Unity to his whole Dio- cefs, be not Popifh ,* if it lean not on fuch Principles 156 Cypritnus Ifotimut. Chap. fl. Principles as fift not in a Diocefan, bur, except they be violented and ftop'd ere they run their natural Courfe, lead to the Pope^ as their Ulti- mate End and Defign > The Pope's Univerfal Headship Can no more follow from every Bishops being the Principle of Unity to his own Diotefs, than from the Presbyterian Minifter of Curry' s being the Prin- ciple of Vnny to the Preibyterian Congregation in that Varish. But, as it is hot true, that we believe any Paftor of a Fiock, or any meer Man to be the Principle ot Unity to any Church ; fo 'tis as untrue, that the Arguments which prove, that a Paftor has a Power over a Flock, contribute no left to the Erection of a Papacy* than do they thateftablifh Diocefans overParochialsj as in the Sequel fhall be manifefted. In (hort, I did ( as 1 jiill think ) effectually prove, that the Principles of the Cyprianic Age flood in di- reB Oppcjiticn to the Popes Supremacy^ But on Sup- pofition, which you have, on the Matter, con- fefled to be falfe, that the Principles of the Cypri- anic Age were the fame with thefe of our prefent Hierarchies, have you proved, that they ftood in fo direct Oppofition to it, as to have no Native Tendency thereunto, and that they could not be of as good ufe for fetting up Metropolitans over Diocefans, Exarchs over Metropolitans* &c% as for letting up Dioceians above Parochial Bi/hops? Did you prove this > Did you attempt to prove it ? This G. R. knew very well* and could not deny it : No reafon therefore, to think that it was ( the Intentio Operands ) my Defign to eftablijh the Pope's Vnivtrfal Headjhip. But BeUarmine ( c ) endea- ( c) De Cler. Cap. 14. voured Chap. If. Cypritnus Ifotimus. i57 voured to eftablifii Epilcopacy by your very Ar- guments which ye bring from the Jewifb High Prieft . Defign'd he not therefore to eftablifh the Pope's Univerfal Headship ? As litth reafm to fayy that ( the Intentio Operis) the Tendency of wy Ar- gument made for the Pope ; untefi G. R. Inclines to maintain, that a particular Bijh*p cannot be the Prin- ciple of Tjniiy to a particular Church, unlefs there be an Univerfal Eifhop to be Princ'ipU of Unity to the Church UniverjaL How this I take to be a task too bard for all the PaVifls and Presbyterians in Christen- dom. But it is fo far from being a hard Task.ihat indeed it is none at all : The Hierarchies chem- felves do our Work, while, foi lack of better, they prove Diocefan Epifcopacy with fuch Argu- ments,-as no lefs, yea more forcibly eftablifh a Papacy. His Gaffing Presbyterians with Papifts is no iefs fenfeleis, than if a Papift, being by Pro- teftams, proven guilty of Paganifm, /hould put on an obftinate Brow, and tell them, that both Proteftants and Pagans would never be able to make good their Charge, §. IV. Another Argument I irrfifled $ny ( faith J* S) {d)wasythat by the Principles then received, what- t S. much, not only for their Pope, tut jot their Unbloody Sacrifice. To this J. S. gives the following Return; IfG. R. was in earnefl, be should have looked a little better about him> before he had involved Saint Cyprian and all his Contempora- ries in the fame Guilt with me; for Til take my Oath cnty Jo far as I am for the Mais, they were my Ma- kers. Or rather, if their ufing the terms , Prieft, Altar, Sacrifice, &c. can be made an Argument f$r the Popish Mafs,f£* Papifts have not me:but G. R. to thank for it; For I do fincerely protejt,Iam not able to make an Argument of it. But if J. S . may be trulted, they made {uch ufe of thefe Terms, as amounts to a pregnant Argument, that the Cbriftian Hierar- chy was copied from the Jewish : But furely the Ori* ginal, the Jewish Hierarchy, comprehended ne- cellariiy true, or not metaphorical Priefts, who were to offer up not only Real, but alfo Propitia- tory Sacrifices : And could (uch Priefts, and fuch Sacrifices be wanting in the Chriftran Hie- rarchy, if it was a true Copy of the Jewifh> Now this Argument, were its Foundation fure, fliould be pretty plaufible, at leaft to prove, that Cyp>ian, and his Contemporaries were for the Popifh Un- bloody Sacrifice : But indeed it is built on no- thing but Sand ,• for hell never be able to prove, that they believed the Divine Inftitution of aChri- ftian Hierarchy copied from the Jewifh. Otiier Accounts may be given of their frequent ufing of thefe Chap. II. Cyprianus Jfotimus. ~ 1 5 9 thefe Terms ; As, that they, complying with the Jews in fome Terms and Cuftoms that fcemed harmlefs, might the more eafily gain them. And indeed the ufe of thefe Terms was harmlefs corns * paratively in thefe Fathers, who forefaw not the ' Occafion they were to give to the Antichriftian Abominations that enfued ; but is yet moft Cri- minal in J. S. and his Partifans, now after the grand Mifchief, thelc Judaick and Anti-Apofto- lick Terms and Ideas brought into the Church, is fo fully and clearly dcte&ed. So clearly, I fay, and fo fully* that whofoever pertinacioufly ftuck to the ufe of them, hare been generally, thro' the Reform'd Churches, judg d not fufficiently purg'd of Romifh Drofs. Even the main Props of the Englifh Church have really own'd, that this Ufe ot thefe Terms is not to be retained, that it has much indammag'd the Church of GOD, and chat it furni(hes Rome with Arguments for Upholding of her Herefies : Which is evident, were there no more, from this, that the Authors of both the En^lijh Tranflations of the New Te- ftament, make no fuch ufe of thefe Terms j at which the Papifts are much difpleafed, as being thereby deprived of a fine Argument for their Unbloody Sacrifice. And to give an Example : The Rhemifls, in their Tranflacion of Ail. 14. 2;, (with them, 22.) ufe the Word, Priefts, and ac- cufe the Vr&teHants, who us'd the Word, Eiders, of Guile and Folly, and fay, That fuch Corruptions of Scripture their Hatred of Prieithood driveth them unto. To wnich Fidk thus anfwers: The Cauft why we avoid the Name of Prieft, is becauje it is by common uje taken, tofijrnify?riefisoftheLaw, whoft I . Name 1 60 Cyprian* s Ifotitmit* Chap. If. Name is never in the New tefianent given to Mini- (ters of the Church ; yet is our Translation true. — —— ■ »" Many indeed of the Ancitm Fathers confound the Names */Sacerdos and Presbyter, wherein < as they are not to be Comm^nded^ becaufe they cbjerve not that DifiinBion of the Names , which you confcfs was alwife obferved of the Afotiles j fo can you not prove, that they did it as you jay, for none other Caufe, but to fhew, that Presbyter in the New Lawy is the Jam* in Sacrificing, or in every other refyecl^ that Sacerdos was in the Old Law. Moft clear and appofite to the fame purpofe are Dr. StiUingfteet's Words (e)3 4 It is then ( faith he ) a common Miitake to think, that the Minifters of the Gofpel fucceed by way of Correfpondence and Analogy to the Priefts under the Law ; which Miftake hath been the Foundation and Original of many Er- rors. For when in the Primitive Church, the Name of Priefts came to be attributed to Go» fpel Minifters from a fair Compliance ( as was thought then ) of the Ghriftians only to the Name ufed both among Jews and Gentiles ; in Proceis of Time, Corruptions increasing. in the Church, thofe Names that were uled by the Chriftians, byway of Analog} and Accommo- dation) brought in the things themieives pri- marily intended by thofe Names ; fo by the Metaphorical Names of Priefts and Altars, at laft came up the Sacrifice of che Mais ,• without which, they thoughc the Names or Prieft and Altar were infigniHcant. This Miftake we fee run all along through rhe Writers of the Church, aiioon as the Name Priefts was appiyed to the ( e ) Iren. Pare. 2. Chap, 6. §. 11, c Elders Chap. U. CjprUnus Ifotimus. \6i c Elders of the Church, that they derived their € Succeflfion from the Piiefts of Aaron's Order, But I (hall not multiply Teftimonies in a Matter fo clear : 'Tis certain* that Proteftant Divines* in their Refutations of the Arguments that the Papifts bring for their Unbloody bacrifice out of the Fathers, fpend no fmall part of their Labour in difcufling tbefe Terms, concerning which we how debate. From ah which 'tis evident, that 7, 5. and his Affociates, while tbey not only ob- ftinately retain thefe Terms, but alfo argue from the Fathers their naoft unwary ufe of them, that they were for a Jewifh Pricfthood and Hierar- chy in the ChrifHan Church, do not a little o- blige, or rather harden the Romanics in their Herefies. $. V, But let us go on with J. S. whofe Ar- gument, ( if we believe him ) taken from the Cyprianic Bi[hcp his being the High Priefi to the Whole Diocefs, (mites the tope under the Fifth Rib. ( f ) For if, ( faith he ) by the Piinciples of that Age, every particular Bijbsp wot the fame to bis own church* that Aaron wa$ U the National Church of the Jews, that is, an High Prieft, -without any >Vi«- fibic Supcriour, then by ibofe Principles, we have iti many Aarons, as many High Priefts, acknowledging no Vifible Supe;iour;*j we have particular Bifhops of particular Churches : And by unquefihnabU Conference, no Room left for One Aaron to High- Prieft it over the Church Cathelic. Now,cherc be- ing nothing ©f Argument here, which is not in his following ( g ), I (hall caft them together s ' When ( Jaith be) l came to confide?* how e- */}$.*• (/)£.<*. id tcry 1 62 Cyprianuslfotmusl Chap. II. very, particular Bifhop flood related to the Church Catholic, I proceeded by Steps. The Fiift was, that, by the Principles of the cyprianic Age, allBidiops were Collegues, and made up O.ie College. A Step, methinks, confidering wha.t I have difcourfed above, the Pope will give me fma!l Thanks for: But theSecond, as I thought, was yet more directly levelled a- gainil him. It was, that as the One Bifhop was the Principle of Unity to a particular Church, fo this College of Bifhops was the Principle of Unity to the Catholic Church ; And Jefus Chrift was the Only principle of U- nity to the College of Bifhops. Subjoyning thus to the Peribn my Letter was diredied to, I hope, not being a Romania, you will not re* quire, that I (hould prove the higheft Step of this Gradation. My meaning, I thought* was fo plain, that no ingenuous Reader could rea- dily miftake it, viz. That the College of Bi- fhops, by the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, had no Vifible Superiour. There was no Bi- fhop of Bilhops : No Univerfal Bifhop : No Intermedial Step between the College of Bi- fnops, and the lnvifible Head of the Church. Thus he, Andjiow it is time to examine his Defences againft Mr. Rule, who faith (h ), Here I ob(er/#• 7?. De Unitate Ecclejis% &c> in the belly of which[c^c] doubtlefs Cyprians 5 3 J, alias 27th, Epiftle is comprehended, the ve- ry Epiftle whereon Mr. Dodutell founds the whole Strudure of his Doctrine of the Tlijhep9* being the Principle of Unity. Wherefore, even on fup- pofition, that this Dodrine had been as really Cyprians, as it is J% S's and his Brethrens, I have the Allowance of the moft valuable Hierarchies themfelves, to examine it by the Rule of Truth, and Juftice, and fend it packing, if, on due Search, it be found to wrong Chriftianity, §. VI. I aflert therefore, that this their Con- ceit is not only void of all Solidity and Truth, but alfo has a real and native Tendency to Tyranny, yea and Papacy it felf. This, tho' I have already removed what J. S. faid to the contrary, I ilia II more largely confirm. And that it may be done with the greater Perfpicuity ( k) Trcatife of the Pope's Supremacy, Pag* 33* L 3 and 1 66 CjpruttHt Ifotimus. Cbap. I and Evidence, 1 fhall give as clear and fuccinft an Account as I can, of their Dodlrine and Sen- timents of che Bifliop s being the Principle of Uni- ty, prefuppofing what I already have given out of J, S. Take it in the following particulars : I. The Univerfal Church is a Homogeneous B^dy, like that of Water ,• from which tho# you take any one part, yet it remains in as great In- tegrity of ics parts as it was before* and can fub* fift as well without that part as it did with it; Juft fuch a Body ( fay they ) is the Church Uni- verfal ; in which there is no Church fo neceffa* ry to the reft, as that without it they cannot confift, or continue in beeing : Becaufe there is no Office in all the Ecclefiafiical Difcipline, which equally belongs not to every ohc of the particular Churches. But every Church Particu- lar is a Heterogeneous and Organical Body, like that of perfed Animals ,• in which Body there is One Excernai and Vifible Member or Part, viz, the Head, from which the reft derive their Vi- tal Influences, and without which they cannot jfubfift. It This, fay they, is not only the Do&rine pf Cyprian, and other Ancient Chriftians ; but al- io conform to Scripture, r Cor. 12. which com- pares the Church to an Organic Body : S© that it derives the mucu&l neceffity of all the Mem- bers from the Fun&ions they perform to one another. And tho' GOD can immediatly fup- ply the Defe&s of Chrift's Myftical Body, yet his Will is, that this Supply (hould be expected from $he Gifts of the Brethren ; fome of which Gifts were of leis Univerfal Ufc> 95 that of Miracles ; others Chap. If J Cyprianus lfotimn$> 167 others of more, as Governments and Primacy : And therefore, in his Myftical Vifible Body ( for of this he's fpeaking ) the Apnftle acknowledges the Ufe of a Head, as alfo of Eyes, and Feer, which Head is as neceffary to the reft of the Members, as a Head is to the Body of an Ani- mal, which Body, or any oi its Members can- not live, without Dependance on this principal Member, ^Principle ef Unity, or Head. III. Which Principle of Unity , or Head, is the Bifhop alone, as Cyprian nacn proved, both by the then obtaining Pra&ice, and CHRIST'S Infticution. I V. This Unity 9 whereof the Bijbop is the Trinciple, is the Ettypal and Reprefentadve of the .Archetypal in Heaven,* the Bifhop Pe^)rcfenvingthe A»y«*, CHRIST ; without Communion with whom fobjed Members can have no Communion with CHRIST. V. This Communion with the Biftiop muft be keep'd by Participating, or Receiving from him the Chriftian Myfteries, viz,, the Sacra* ments, whereof he is the only Difpenfer, and which were borrowed from the Hea- thens. V I. In order to make up the Unity of the Vifible Church, 'tis not enough thac (he have One Invifible Head, CHRlM ; but ihe muft aifo have another Individual Perfon ro be her Vifible Head* the Bifhcp : He is the Churches Monarch ; on his Perfon, not on his Do&rine ihe is built, Thi. Vifible Head mult be Onef not a Plurality, for this reafon o(Cyp*ian, becaufe there is One CHRIST, and One GOD ; for in both 108 Cj/pridpius IJotlmus. Chap. |L both the Archetypes the Unity is not of a Plu- rality, but of a Perfon. And the Church ft ill efteemed fo much of that Unity, that whofo- ever attempted to {hake it, (he accounted them Hereticks. The Abolifliers ot JtSUS, whether thev had brought in a plurality ofChrifts, or divided JEsUS from CHRIST, were even from the Apoftles times reckoned Hereticks. Nor, faith the Author, do 1 judge that there was another Caufe why the Apoftles fo much extolled the Unity ev'n in the Trinity, why alio they derived the fame Unity in the Trinity from the ^Jnity of the Head ,• but that by all means they might fliew, that ev'n the Three Perions cannot be admitted to conftitute the Unity of the Head, but that this Unity muft belong to One Perfon. If, therefore, * there were more than One Per- son in the Head of the Vifible Church, it could not Reprefent the Celeftial Unity, and fhould have nothing common with it. Moreover, that Reprefemation rtiould be Heretical : For (eing we. Chriftians, fhould be io One as the Father is One with His CHRIST ,• they infinuated, that there arc moe Perions in CHRlbT 01 the Father, if we (hould admit moe Perfons into the Reprefentation of CHRIbT or the Father; for there is no caufe why we fliould place Hercfy in Words more than in Deeds, fe- ing the Reprefentatiop of the Deed ought to be Cure* VII. All this, as the Hierarchicks pretend, Cyprian folidiy proved from the Primacy our LORD gave to Peter over the reft of the Apo- ftles, in thefe Words, Mattb. 16. 18. Thou art ' v Peter, Chap. II. Cyptiannt lfottmuu 169 Peter, &c. , where GHRIST promifes to build his Churchi not on Peer's Gonfcffion, but on his Perfon, gives him a Priipacy over the reft of the Apoftles, makes him alone the Steward of his Houfe i and Type of the One Bifhop which was to be plac'd in every See, and, in rcfpe<3: of him, all the reft of the Apoftles only private Perlons. V I I I. All this is not to be underftood of the Church Univerfal ; for fhejis Governed Arifto- cratically, by Bilhops A&ing in a Compieat Parity, and Independently on any Mortal* And fo the Pope's pretentions are fufficiently and perpetually precluded s But it is to be underftood of particular Churches, the Govern- ment whereof is Monarchical, each Church being Governed by its own Monarch, the Bifhop alone. IX. By a Particular Church is mean'd a City, like Rome, Carthage, Alexandria, &c. with its fubje&ed Territory or Diftri who belie- ved the Pcntateuch> as really fuppofe the Conti- nuation of the Solemn Appearance of all the Males thrice each Year as the Continuation of a real Prieftbosdy Sity Prie/t, or High Prie$ over a large Diftrid* and over many Inferiour Priefts? Were not both Jtw$ and Samaritans as really agreed concerning the Continuation of the Solemn €$nventiom of the Males, as concerning the Con- tinuation of a real Priefthood , &c ? But can Mr. Dodwdl prove, that Cbrjftians are bound to make fuch folemn Appearances at the Bifhop's Cathedral i This indeed he faintly attempts to do: Ghap It Cyfri**us Ifotimns. 173 do: Faintly, I fay, fearfully, and confufedly ( m ). But in (lead of doing this, if he does any thing, he rather proves, ( I fay the fame of Maurice^ to whom he refers ) that in the Prime Primitive Church there was a Bifliop for each Congregation. But fuppofe>that he could really demonftrate, that all Chriftian Males were obliged to Appear thrice every Year at the Ca« thedral of the Biftiop, and Communicate with him, fhould he *ior by the fame Breath evince, that the Church of England defpife, trample, and contemn GOD's Ordinance ; fince no fuch Panegyrick Affembly, or Solemnity is ever to be found or heard of there> Again, the Woman, in her Queftion, did as really fuppofe the con- tinuance of a Prepltiatory Sacrifice to be frequently Offered in the Temple, as of a High Prieflhoed, or any other kind- of Sacrifice. Nor doth our Saviour's Anfwer in the leaft intimate the Abo* lition or Abregatipn of the Propitiatory Sacrifice, more than of any other kind of real Sacrifices or High PrieftbooJ. It is palpable Popery^therefore, to extort from this Text, Sacrifices, Prieftbood, and High Vriejthood, Neither has he here one Grain of his own $ but all is borrowed from the Babes of Babel ; as the Rbtmifts> and Janfe* nius ( n ), Bee an ( o ), and Bellarmine ( p ) : Forthejefuit with great prolixity endeavours to prove the Sacrifice of the Mafs, from the lame Scripture, And to the end that the compleat Harmony between the Jsfuit and DodweU may appear, I (« ) Chap. id. §.9. ( n ) In Loc. (o ) Msnnsl Lii* f . Cap. f o. ( p ) D« Mtfk Lib. I. Cap, it. feu Lib. 5. De Euchariftia. f&ali f 74 Cypritnut tfoUmut. Ghap. ir. fhall give you Bellarmnes Arguments, as I find them truly abridg'd and tranflated by tyillet ($ ). like Temples, and great Diftri&s or Dioceffes lub- je& to their High Prieft or Biflsop. With Willet joyns Fulk% on this place, againft the Rhemiftsi The Subftance of whofe Anfwer is, That, by Adoration is mean'd Worshipping of GOD gene- rally, and not Offering Sacrifice only ; and that in the Lord's Supper there is no more any Sacri* fice than in Prayer, or any other Chriftian Du- ties, whether private or publick. And he jufti- fies this his Anfwer by the Teftimonies of Jujlin, IrtneuS) Tertuliian , Cyprian , Origen9 €hrjfofiowy Hierom, Auguftiv, tyrill, Thee dor et9 Eutbymiu*% and tbeephyiaft. Of the fame mind are Bifhop JewcH(r J, Bifliop Bahingtonn( /Xand Bifhop Morton (r) jyea and ail the greateft Lights of the Church of England^ not to fpesk ot the reft of the Reformed Churches, with the firft Reformers themfelves, 'who, as one Man, con- demn this unhappy and Antichriftian Notion. He ought therefore to have been better advifd, and more fober, when he traducd all thefe Worthies with the odious Name of Entbufiafts. (r) Defi jfpohg. Pag. f}o. (f) On Gtn 14. (t ) C*tk. jiff* S°°k 2. Chap. 7* and Book 4. Chap. a$. In Chap. H. Cypriamts Ifotimus. 177 In what place of the New Teftament thefe ConfiiUUions of Unmetaphorical Trie ft s and Sacrifices are to be found, he has not told us, but only left us to guefs what places he eyed : And it was congruous for him to do fo, feing they are to be found no where. Such Arguments as thefe are fo far front contributing any thing to the Honour or Ad- vantage of Diocefan Epifcopacy, that, on the contrary, they muft imprefs into Mens Minds a deep and well grounded Senle of its Anti- evangelic and Ancichriftian nature and tendency. jj\ VIII. But I need not much to dive into the Writings of Mr. Ttodivell, to fifh for Proofs of the Romifhnefs of his Principles: For none, in their right Mind, can Read the AbftraA I have already given, but they muft fee it appearing with a Wimefs. The infUving Domination and Tyrannical Power he gives his Bifhop is not the leaft hurtful of thefe very Sins, for which Rcme, .in the Apocalypfey gets the name o{ Egypt. 'Tis doubtful, if chere beany Popiih, Doctrine fo grofs as theirs, which gives the Church a Vifible Head, through which (he derives all her Life and Sabiiftence. And their perverfion of 1 Cor. 12. whereby they would prove this Doftrine, is altogether Popiih, and ftollen out of Btllarmin ( u ). Their founding of the Church not on Peters Confeffion, but on his Perfon ; their making him the only One Steward of CHRIST'S Houfe ,• and their giving to him a Vrimacy ( yea as much Power as they give to the Bilhops over the Presbyters, which liue is noe (*) De Pmif. Lib; 2, Cap. 12. M (frail ; 178 Cypianus Ifotmtis* Ghap; IF. fmall ) over the reft of the Apoftles, is borrow'd from the fame Loyolice ( x ). The erecting in the Church a Jewifh-Wkt High Prieft, they owe alfo to the Romanifts ; as is to be found in the fame Bellarmin (y). And accordingly their Altars, folemn Vanegyrick Feaffs% Proper Sacrifices 9 Sacrifices of Bread and Wine^ and Cathedral Temples, are ail derived from the fame Judaizing Romanifts. §. I X. But the Pope, as they pretend, is fufftciently excluded, by fuftaining, that all Bifhops are High Pxiefts, and compleatly Equal, and that the Church Univerla! is not an Orga- nic, but a Homogeneous Body, and fo admits of no Vifible Head. But this can fatisfy none, nor vindicat them from the juft imputation of Popery *. For, let once a Man believe their Doctrine concerning the Bifhop's being the Principle a\\jnity^ and he'ii fee an evident necef- fity of One Head, or Pope, to all Ghriftians; hell (ee, that they mull either be ftrangely demented, or not fincere, while they deny this Inference ,• hell fee, that this fhift whereby they pretend to evite it, is but a meer elufion. For, if Peter had no lefs Power over the reft of the Apoftles than the Hierarchies give to every Bijhov over his Presbyters $ then this Equality of the Apoftles, and in them, of all Bilhops, is quite gone* And altho' they tell him, that Peter underwent two Refpeds or Confideracions, in one of which he was Equal with, and in the other, Superiour to the reit of the Apoftles ,• he will juftly laugh at this Di earn, as having no ( x ) De Pmif. Lib. r . Cap. jo. & fcq. ( y ) De Pmif. Lib/ i. Op. o; de C/*r. Cap. 13. foui dation Chap. r. Cyprianus lfitimu* lj§ foundation in Scripture, no orher ground, but the naked Afle;c«ons, and airy Fancv offome dreaming Speculators. If once one be perfwa- ded, that, on this account, that GOD is One, and CHRIST is One there rauft be another Individual Vifible Head to Reprefent this One GOD, or One CHRIST, is it likely that fuch a one will fift in Diocefan Churches more than in Parochials, and not afcend to the Church Uni- yerfal, and conclude that there is no lefs a necef- fity of One Individual and Vifible Head here on Earth to Reprefent that, and to give Life to the particular Churches, than of One fingle Perfon, to Reprefent, Head, and give Life unto any inferiour Church whatfoever ? He will fee that their Diocefan Church is really no lefs Mon- ftrous and Two- headed, than is the Roman ; he'll fee, finally, that DodwelT* Pillar, raifed to uphold their tottering Structure, is nothing five the Romijb rotten Prop, the Antifcriptural and fenfelefs Fiction expreiFd by BeBarmin in the following Words. All the Apr-files wen Heads, Refters, and Pafiors of the Uni'vnfat Church f but not the fame -way that Peter was Heady Rector, and Vapor. For they had a Supreme and mofi ample. Tower 9 at they were Apo Hies or Legates, but Peter as an ordinary Pa/lor. Moreover they fo bad this pleni- tude of Power y as that Peter notwithstanding was their Head^ and not e Contra ( z, ), I (&) Osines fncrunt Capit^Re&orcs, & Pa (lores Ecclefiaj Univcrfae, fed noa eodem modo quo Petrus. llli enim kabuerunt fummam atque ampl ffimam Poteftatem uc Apoftoli feu Legati, Petru* aurem uc Paftor ordinarius. Deinde ita habuerunt plenkudihcm poteftatif, ut tamen Pctrtis eflet capttt eorum & ab illo pwndeient non e contrario, Dtf Pwif* Lib, I# Cap* II. M z Stcindlf, 180 Cyprianvs lfotimus. Chap. IL Secondly, Many of theHierarchics in Do&rine, and all of them ( as Ihali in its place be demon* ftrated ) in Practice, condemn the Equality of ^Diocefan Bifhopsj and fet Metropolitans over them ^ and thus we have High Prie/ls over High Priefts, and his Diocefan Church becomes a Non-organical and Imperfect Body, requiring a Vifiblt Head above its proper Diocefan. Thirdly, The Univerfal Church muft be reck'ned a Heterogeneous ©r Organical Bcdy> no lefs than any particular Church ; for CHRIST cannot be Head to her under another confiderati- on or refpe<5i : And therefore, if a particular Church muft have another Individual Perfon, befide CHRIST, for her Principle of : Unity , and Head, without which fhe cannot fubfift ; the Univerfal Church ftands no lefs in need of ano- ther Individual Principle and Head, befide CHRIST alfo. Fourthly, If fuch an Unity, without which the Catholick Church can have no Life or Being> muft be plac'd not in Confent in found Do&rine, but in Perfons,- it will be found much more congruous and reafonable to place it in One Individual than in a Multitude, in One guiding the whole College oiBtfhops, than in the Col- ic felf. Nothing, I fay, more natural and rial than this Conclufion : A College of Dio- cefan Bifhops ftill remaifisaMu5titude,nolefs than a College, or Presbytery of Parochial, or Con- gregational Bilhops, or Paftors. Wherefore, . :hly, The Proteftant Writers have been always careful, inoppoficion to the Papacy, not to place the Unity of the Church in either the Unity Chap. II. Cyf nanus Ifttimus. 181 Unity of Perfon,or Perfons Reprefenting her;but in that of Confent and Harmony of found Faith and Dodtrine. " What Lovanian vanity is this, (faith Bifiiop Jewell) (a) " to fay, the Members f of the Church of CHRIST abide in the Unity c of the Pope? What Scripture, or Doctor, or * Father ever told you of fuch Unity ? St. Paul ' faith we are all one ( not in the Pope, but ) in < CHRIST JESUS, Whitaker faith ( b )y " That 'the internal Unity of the Church is preferved, c when Pious and truly Faithful Men being taught c by CHRIST, and the Holy Ghoft, acquiefce c in one Faith neceffary to Salvation, not for € the Authority of the Pope, but becaufe they € learn'd that it was true from the Holy GhofL And, cc Our Concord is not contain'd in the * bond of Humane Authority, but in that of the € Scripture. And external Unity is that which 'confifts in a publick Confent of all Doctrines, c which, altho' defirable, is not yet prorniled. And ( c ), H The third Argument againft the 1 Roman Monarchy is Calvin s> out of the 4 to c the Epbef. One Body, one Spirit, one Hope of our * Galling, one LORD, one Faith : In thefe Gaufcs c of Unity the Apoftle mentions no Pope for ' preserving the Church in Unity. Bellarmin * boldly afterts, that one Pope is fufficiently * comprehended in thefe Words, One Body and c One Spirit 1 He underftands it, I luppofe, con- c fufedly, as hirnfelf laid above. For where c will he find One Pope in thefe Words ? In [ Body, or in Spirit ? As? faith Bellarmin, in a 1( a ) Def. Apl. Pag. 418. (b) Controv, 4. £»tfl. I. Cap. 2. S. m9. (OCip..3.5.«. 1 82 Cyprhnus Jfotimus. Chap. II 4 natural Body Unity of rhe Members is prefer* € ved, bec^ufe all the Members obey one Head ; € loin rhe Church, Unitv ispreferved, when all * obey One. I anfwer, ft) it, what the Apoftlc c Writes of One Body and Spirit belongs nothing € to One Pope, ( And 1 fay, on the fame grounds,** belongs nothing to One Bifhop.) 'cAnd * unlefs Bellarmm were the moft Confident of ail € Divines, he would never have detorted thefe *wordsroprovea Pap^cv lfDodwel/,J.8.and fuch Companions had not been altogether as immodefb they nad never detorted this or its parallel Scriptures to hammer ouc their High Prieft, and Thcefan Monarch. **The Apoftle ( proceeds Whi- taker ) " pucs the Epbejians in mind chat there is ' One Body, and conemdes, thac cheretore they c ought to keep Concord and Unity. And the 4 whole Church is Qne Body, ot which every 'pious Perion is a Member. But pray, whofe * ' Body is the Church ? The Pope's ? (the Bi\hofs ?) * Did the Apoftle, did Paul in the leaft either * exprefs or fignify, that the Pope is the Head € of this Body ? Did he in the leait, either here, or in the parallel Scriptures exprefs or fignify, that the Bilhop is the Head of this Body, the Head of the Church, either Catholic or Parties lar. n*m 1 mm Mutato nomine de te Fabula narratur* - " um C|Is it obfeure ( continues Whitaker ) to any * whom Paul underftands to be the Head of this 'Body ? &c '* Unity (faith Sutlivius (d) ) (d) Dc Pint if. Rent. Lib* I. C*p. 7, ■.-,■•■■ . ,...., € is Chap. II. Cfprianus Ifotimus. 183 € is preferred without a chief Monarch in the Q Government of the Church ,• Endeavoring 9 4 faith the Apoftle, to keep the Unity of the Spirit € in the bond of VeaCey &c. Eph. 4. ;, 4, j. But € the Apoftle no where mencions one Monarch, 1 there is therefore no need 6f him. And as little mentions he a Diocefan Monarch ; there is therefore as little need of Him. ( e ) The Unity of the Church confi(is in the Unity of Faith, of the Sacraments, and in tht Worfiip of One GOD. I might alledge to the fame putpofe, Fulk, Morton, and many other famous Engii(h Divines, not to name the reft of the Reformed Writers, ( on whom to infift it were endlefs ) were it not that I defign brevity, and believe that what is faid will fatisfy all that are capable of fatisfa&i- on. Sixthly, Is it reafonable to fhink^that if a Man once be perfwaded, that there is in the Ghrifti- an Church a High Priefihood and Hierarchy copied from that of the Jews, he fhall not be very apt and inclinable to Judge,' that there ought to be One High Prieft over allkhe Chriftian Church, as well as there was over the Jewijh, to the end the Copy may be liker the Original ? On all thefe accounts, Men muft of necefltty, having once renoune'd the Dodrine of the Parity of Gofpel Minifters, become as ready and apt to leave the Dodrine of fimple Epifcopacy, or the Equality of Diocefan Bi/hops : The fame Prin- ciples and Motives that oblige them to defert the former, do with no lefs cogency beat them from the latter, and drive them to one Catholic (O Lib, 1. Cap. 1. Principle 184 Cyprianus lfolimts* Chap. H. Principle of Unity, and Vifibie Head, in the clofe, §. X. This was the fad Fate of the Ancient Church, fo foon as fhe was four'd with this Leaven. For tho', as elfewhere ( f ) I have made evident, and DodwcJl and J. S. deny not, the Fathers held and afferted ordinarily the cpmpleat Parity snd Equality of all Bifoops ; yet they did piece and piece, gradually and in- lenfibly Aide from this their Doctrine: They had fcarce admitted and embraced the Dodrine of the expediency and congruity of Imparity amon% Pattens, when they began to violate their Principle of the Equality of Bifhops. For fo foon as you are able to deprehend in the Ancient Church a Diftindtion between Bifhop and Pref- byter, youfhall as foon difcover a difference no lefs noticeable among the Bifhops themfelves. This cannot be queftionable to any who (hall but once ialute them ; and fo an Inftance or two fball fuffice in a matter fo undenyable. The 34th of thefe called the dpoftoHc Canons de- crees, Thrtt the Bifhops of every Nation ought to know him who is fir (I among them, and acknowledge him for their Head, and do nothing of Moment without his Confenty and he nothing without theirs (g). Where the Primate, or firft Bilhop, has a Nega- tive Voice allow'd him over all thefe of the Nation or Province,- and fo there is Imparity with a witnels among Bifhops themfelves, in, f/X Mr* Q[ter. Part 2. §. so. (f) T«* 6f7«S*tt avrfo w KKp&hluu, *} fwfh 71 irp&7%Y vrtfi7rlov aPiv irti or, Chap IL Cypriattus Ifotimts. 185 or, at leaft, very near to the Cyprianic Age: For about that time were thefe Canons made. In the next fucceeding, wa the fourth Century^ we find Metropolitans exprefly mentiond.as havings been of fome duration aad (landing ( h ). And altho' neither Patriarchs nor Exarchs had yet crept ih> there was notwirhftanding in Alexandria tomerhing too like an Exarch; for its Bifhop had the Power over all the Biiliops of Egypt, Lybia, and Pcntapvlis, wherein there were feveral Pro- vinces fubje& to their feveral Metropolitans: Yea it made one of the fourteen DioceiTes of the Empire, and fo was ruled by an Ecclefiaftic Exarch. And fliortly after this, wx,. in e Council of Ch alee don, we find chefe Exarchs of DioceiTes, who Ruled not only over private Bi- ftiops, but Metropolitans, exprefly mentioned Gan. 9. and 17; Thefe Exarchs again were fub- je&ed to Patriarchs, and, laftiy, the Patriarchs to the Pope. Nor could their Mifchievous So- phifm,and falfe Pretext of Unity, lead to a better hinderend: Like Adonibez>9.k> as they had dealt with others, fo GOD, in his Tremenduous Judgments, dealt with them. §. XI. There were at the fame time other Biihops, called Chorepiftopi, or Country Biftiops, as low and mean as any of thefe nam'd were high and magnificent ; Thefe were lirtle better than Drudges to both Cicy Bilhop -and City Clergy, and yet they were as true and real Bi- fiiops as the higheft in the Hierarchy • as is af- firm d ev'n by the learn'deft of prelatifts, as Beverege, and others. Moft memorable on ( b ) Cone, Nice*, Can. 4, 6, 2, this 186 Cyprianus Ifotintm. Ghap. If. this occafion are the Words of Dr. Parker ( i ). Nowhere ( faith he ) the Papijis and Presbyterians agree, as they do in every thing elfc againft the right Conftitution of the -Primitive Church * that they (.to*-, the Chore fifcopi) were not prtper Bifhops but Presbytirs, And I deny not, that fome Presbyte- rians have thought, that the Ancients, after the Diftin&ion of Bifttop and Presbyter thro' Hu. mane Cuftom had obtaind, look cl on thefe Ghor" epifcopi as Presbyters, or as fuch as were thought in the Primitive Church to be of no higher Or- der ; tho' never a Presbyterian (aid nor thought, that they were no more but fimple Presbyters by Divine Appointment, (eing all of 'cm believ'd, that there was never fuch a thing of Divine Inftitution. And if this be a Popifh Dodrine I leave to the Confideration of thefe who bruik any Remains of Knowledge and Confcience. But were this Opinion never fo noxiousi 'tis no- thing ; the moft knowing of Presbyterians are free of it, as Calderwood ( k), and Blondel f/)t And on the other hand, Whitgift ( m J, Forbes (w), Field O), and Maurice ( p ), all firftrate Hierarchies, are Dogmatick, that the Chorepifco- pi were no Bifhops, but meer Presbyters j and fo, in Parkers mind, faft Friends to Papifts. And now judge, if Parker, in this Dealing, en ther feafd GOD, or regarded Man. Nor was ever any Man, nor can any Man be more inno- (0 Account of the Government of the Chriftian Church, §13. ( * ) Alt. Dam, Pag, 228, & feq. 29 r, 4Ta. ( /) Apslcg. tzg. j*o, &c. Cw) Df. Pag. "248. ( n) Inn Lib. 2. Cap. if. ( 0 ) Of the Church, Bat 5. Ck*p. 29 ( p ) D'f. Diocef. Epjct Pag. 452. cent, Chap', II. Cyprianus ljbtimnj. 187 cent, who ever did, or {hall endeavour to ciaf5 Presbyterians with Papifts, who are Parties as far different one from another,, as is Sweet from Bir ter, Light from Darkncfs, §. XII. And now, to return to our main Ar- gument: We need only to compare this Prin- ciple and Do&rine of compleat Parity among all Bifhops which was held (0 conftantly and una- nimoufly by the Fathers, with their Pxad:icef ere&ing theie various Degrees of Bi(hops, and eftabliihing among them a huge Imparity ,• and we muft anon perceive, thac the whole Plea of the Hierarchies, from the Fathers, for the Di- ftin&ion of Bifhop and Presbyter, is at once for ever overthrown. For, be it given, but not granted* that the Fachers in their Pra<5tice> held it inviolable, and ftuck clofs to it ; this will no more prove, that they thought it of Divine In- ftitucioa, than their eftablifhing thele various Degrees among Bifhops rhemfelvcs will prove> that they thought that thefe various Degrees of, and Imparity among Biihops, were aifo founded on Divine Warrant. Be it alfo given, that they profeffed, that this Diftiadlion was grounded on Scripture ; yet it is nothing, feing at dmes chey faid no le(s in favours of Imparity among Bifhops: As when they intimate, thac Ximothy was Billiop of all jtifia, and Titut of all Crete ; either of which Regions contained many Bifhopricks, and each City is allow'd to have had its proper Bi~ (hop ( <\ )% Now, how they fell into fo Itrange a Management, is noc eafiiy conjedured : It it ( q ) Vide Tbeodoret. Argum. in I Ttm, & Qhryfoft. & Tht9» pb)tacl. in Tit. ii Evjleim Lib. 3. Cap. *• be 1 88 Cyprianus Ifotlwns. Chap. If. be not f aid, that they thought,that>in Scripture Ac- count,all Bifliops were Equal ; yet they thought, that the Church had a Power left her for Altering thatConftitution; or elfe, that this came to pals out of meernegle&ing of due Refle&ion on what they did, fo that they never adverted to the Dif- fonancy between their Opinion and Pradtice. Yea fo inadvertent were they5 that they ufed with equal Security and Confidence, to publifh in this Matter Affertions flatly contradictory • For the falfe Areopagite ( e. g. ) faith, in this Au- thor's Mind, u there was no Bifhop of Bifliops : * No Univerfal Bifhop : No Intermedial Step be- c tween the College of Bifliops, and the Invi- c fible Head of the Church. And I own the juflnefs of this Colledion ,• but withal I deflre J. «S's Attention to the Vfeudodionyfe bis Eight E- fiftle, to hemophilus the Monk ( /), u Be thou 4 fabjed ( Jaitb be ) to the Venerable Deacons, 1 and let them be fubjecft to the Priefts, and the c Pricfts to the High Priefts, and the High Priefts c to the Apoftles and their Succefiors. h there here no Biflwp of Bifhops ? No Intermedial Step be- ( r ) Chap 9 §. 6. ( f ) *c/ /ii ol^ Sfioi wrcypyoi, kaI •1 itrirotsos, *J si 7$>v diroriKw J\si the worfe kepr, or the Sheep the negligentlier look* ed unto / The Policy that Darius ufed, Daniel 6. when he appointed a hundred and twenty Governor rs over all his Realm, and over them three to cverfee them, and take an Account of their Doings, is greatly commended : And why may not this Policy be neceffary in the Ecciefiafiical State alfo > But you here run fmoothly away with the Matter, and fup- pofe, that there may not be for feveral Cities, and feveral Flocks, feveral Watehmen and Shep- herds, becaufe there be fome that have a gene- ral Care over many Flocks and Cities. If a thoufand Towns or Cities have a thoufand Watchmen appointed unto them, to have the particular Care over them, and alfo one, two, or moe to have a general Care both over the Watchmen, and over the Cities alio, do you not think, that all (hall be in better Order, and in much more Safety. And again ( a ) Cart- wright thus reafons: " Moreover thefe Minifte» ries, without the which the Church is fully buildedi and brought to Ferfe&ion and com-* pleat Unity, are not to be retained in the Church : But without the Mtnifteries of Arch- bifhop, &c. the Church may be fully builded and brought toPerfe&ion, therefore thefe Mi- nifteries are not to be retained. To which ( * ) Pag. 3°7. Whit- Chap. II. Cyprianus lfotimus. 19$ Wbitgift gives the following Arfwer. " Your * Minor is untrue. For the Chuich in a King" * dom, where it hath an External Government! € where ic indudeth both good and bid, where € it is moieftsd with Contentious P^rfons, with c Schifms, Hkrelies, &c. cannot enjoy compleat € Unity, nor be perfectly governed touching the c Exrernal Form and Government, without fuch * Offices and Governours. Your Major alfo eon- € taineth dangerous Doftrine, including as well cthe Chriftian Magiftrate, as the Arcb-bi(hcpm c And it is in effbr Presbytery, i*> fo notorious ? as to need no proof: in So far a? I € have been able to advert, the Grounds of the € Calumny may be reduced to Two. f» That € the Prelatic Advocates make u(e of Popifti Ar- c guments, or borrow their Arguments from the c Papifts. 2. That Epifcopacy proves the u ay ? to the Papacy : The fame Reafon that raifes a c Bifhop over Presbyters, with equal Force tends * to raife a Pope over the Biihops. Thefe two * Grounds ! fliall briefly examine. On the other hand, I affirm, that all this is fo far from being a Calumny, that never was there a Charge more true, more juft, or more well grounded : Molt needlefly, therefore, has he amafTed fo many Phrafes and Speeches out of Mr. Rule's Good Old Way, and Mr. Fjrre/ter's Hierarchical Claimy and my Nazianzeni Querela^ to prove, chat the Pref- byterians, and we. in particular, bring this Charge againft the Prelatic Arguments. As to what concerns me, I deny nothing j lam a- iham'd of nothing of all he has tranicribed ; not will I take notice of the two or three forry Snar* (0 i. 8. ft 2 lings iq6 Cjpriams Jfotimus. Chap. If. lings which he interweaves with the Paflages he quotes, wherein, fometimes defigning to hit me, he, if he does any thing, hits his own Party. For my giving to the Jefuites the Name of Je- hufites, he will have to be Sheer Wit, and yet I had it out of a famous Prelatifh Sutlivius^ the Tide of one of whofe Books is, ]VL Sutlivii de Pontifice Romano, ejufciue injufiijjima in Ecclejia JDominatione ., adverfus Robertum Bellarminum, & univerfum Jebufuarum Scdalitium* He has the fame pretty ofcen thro9 his Book. Other Preiatifts might, doubtlefs* be found ufing this or the like Paranomafiic Traje&ions; the Matter is not woith the Purfuit. He is as wide of his Mark, but more diflioneft, while he reprefents me as faying, that De-dwell, feme time or other, will throw off the Mask, and frofejs him[elf a Roma- nift, I was never fo rafh as to fay fo : I am fure, he can do as good Service to the Romijh In* tereft while he keeps it on. His laying, that I Circumcife DoElor Monro, that my Nazianzeni Querela is a brave Book, and the like, I negled:, as Stuff too infipid to take with any Man, and too blunt to hurt any Man, if it be not the Au* thor himfetf. ftor deals he more fairly in his Animadverfions on the Paflages he takes out of Mr. Rule and Mr. Forrefter * He pretends, e. g% that to this Argument of Dr, Menro% for Epifco- pacy, I i% That we have the fame (if not bet- * ter ) Evidence of its having been the Govern- c ment of the Church, ever fine? the Apoftles ' days, than we have for the Canon of the Scrip- € cure ] Mr. Rule gives no intelligible Anfwert except chat he calls it a ? of i^ Argument, But in- deed Chip.lL Cypriaftus Ifotintus. 197 deed jp. S. could not underftand his Anfwer, becaufe he would not, for which I may appeal to any Man, tho' but of ordinary Intelligence* if he ferioufly compare Dr. Monro s Enquiry >, Pag. 133, 134, 135. with Mr. Rules Good Old JVay% Pag. 141, 142, 14;. Jp.XV.But to our principal Work,-which is to ex- amine how he has diflipated our Charge, viz, .that they ufe *Popi(b Arguments >and borrow their Arguments for eflablifiing Prelacy from the Papifts. And firft he &ys%tbatitis not neceffarily tr ue.Why fo^Why many of the Advocates for Prelacy have been Men as leJrndyaS any Papijt of them ^11, and had Opportunities and A" bilities to derive their Arguments more tmmtdiatly* and thereby more Jecurely, from the true Fountains. On the contrary, if, as I proved* and he at- tempts not to difprove, the Prelatifts all along ufe thefe very Arguments that the Papifts bring for Prelacy, againft the common and received Do&rine of the proteftantst and thefe very Ex- ceptions and Evafions the papifts ufe, whereby to evite the Arguments the Reformed bring a- gainft it, they give a fure and infallible Sign of their nearConfanguinity,yea Unity with the Pa- pifts. Is any Man, when he Harmonizeth any two Sefts, oblig'd to prove, that either of thefe Parties read the Books of the other? Is this either poffible or needful to be demonftrated ? Is it not enough, if he prove, that both Parties hold the fame Do&rine, ufe the fame Arguments3 ad- vance the fame Defences and Anfwers, and have the fame Friends and Adverfaries ? At , a word, his Anfwer is intirely of a piece with the Anfwer oj : Barclay , the Quaker* who, having been prov- N 3 ed j 9$ Cypriamts Ifottwut. Ghap. II. cd to be guilty of Suinianifrn, thought it fuffici" ent to Repone, that be bad never read two Line1 cf Socinus. I pafs his faying, that tbe?relati(ls have been the Men in Britain, wbo have moft Learnedly, mo[i Irrcfiftibly, and upon the bc[i and furefi Principles, overthrown the very Foundations of Popery^ as a parcel of his Thrafomc ai^d falfe Boafting, it being moft certain, that never Man cither has, or can throughly, folidl) . a* d hap* pily overthrow the Foundations of Pop.' y. but upon the Principles of Parity- His Bragging, that not the Presbyterians, but Prelatifts were, in the time of King James the ytby the cbn f Chant- f ions for tbe Proteflant Cattje in Britain, is nothirg but a Glorying in his own and his Brethrens Shame, who, when they themfelves, vuth JcarceparalelFdFury* Malice, and < rueity. had fo ruin'd, crufh'd, and overwhe'm'd all the Pres- byterians, but more efpecially iuch as were moft able to oppofe Popery, that they could fences find where to lay their Hea^s, much lefs get time, Books and other thing? requifite to the Papal War, can yet accule them, as if they had, of choice, eithei dclertcd, or done but little for the Proteftant Incercft. §. X VI. In the next place, he endeavours to prove, that our Charge is SenjaUfs. Take it in his own Words (d ) : " Granting ( faith be ) c this Plea were true, yet it is certainly moft € Senfelels. For, fjy, that we bow owed Argu- * ments from t^e Papifts, what are they the * worfe for that, if otherways they are good? ?! thought the value of an Argument had de* (Of i*. f AA 'psndecj Chap IL Cyfrianus Jfotimus. 199 pended on its Intrinfic Force j and if it had enough of that, it mattered noc who had ufed it. And how can the borrowing of an Argu- ment from Papifts infer that the borrower is inclined to Popery ? St. Paul borrowed Argu- ments from Aratm and Epmmides two Heathen Poets : Was he therefore an Heathen Pcet ? Muft every Man be a Pagan Philofopher who borrows an Argument from Plato or Cicero to prove the Soul Immortal? Muft all Ghriftians be Devils, becaufe ( as they ) the Devil has fometimes confeffed our Saviour to be the Son of GOD? Come, Gentlemen, you W. J. and you T. F. and you G. R. fuppofing.you were engaged with a Socinian, concerning the Divi- nity or the Satisfaction of our LORD, would you carefully abftain from all Arguments which at any time had been ufed by any Papift, for eftablifliing thefe Great and Fundamental Articles ot our Religion f If you did fo, me- thinks you (hould make an admirable Congrefs of it. If nor, what could you have to fay to the Socinian, when he ftiould tell you, Fy for fhame, Gentlemen, are you Papifts ? is not that a Popifh Argument ? Thus he, and much more of the fame ftamp, but nothing more to his purpofe : And that this is nothing to it the thinking and ingenuous Reader muft fee and own, if, as he is obliged to do, he keep in view the Charge we now manage, vi&. That the Hierarchical Do&rine of Imparity among Paftors, or of the real Diftin&ion between Bifhop and Presbyter is univerfally defended and afferted by Papifts, and no lefs unaniraoufly reje&ed and difproved 2 co Cfprianus Ifotmus. Chap, II. disproved by Proreftar>ts, that both Papifts and* our Britannic Hierarchies ufe the fame Argu- me rs to cftablifh this Dotitrinet the lame Im- provements of thefe Aiguments ; and finally, the fame Defences, Diftindions, and Evafions in oppofuion to the Arguments that Proteftantsin their Debates with Papifts, and Presbyterians in theirs with Preiatift> bring againft it : This, I fay, is our Charge: And fince, as is now made appear, k is true, then there is no dealing with it, i o evading or eluding of it with any pretext whatfoever : Yea his own Reafon and Con- fcience cannot mifs to tell him that he wa$$ when he penned chis Difcourfe, poflefled with a frenzie or worfe ; Otherwavs, was it p^ffible for him to be ignorant, that, in the prelent Cafe and Queftion/ we muft i?bftract from the In- trinfic value of boch Arguments and Pofirions ? Wds it poffible for him to be ignorant, that all thefe his jnftances were the produdt of Senfelef- ttefs fcarce parallelable ? Do the Arguments borrowed by Paul from the Hcatheniih Poets* or thefe that may be got from Plato for eftabiifhing the Souls Immortality, miiitate for Pagauifm againft Christianity ? Or does any Man, when he demonftrates the truth of the Do&rine of CHRIST'S Deity, or Satisfaction, by Argu* ments common to Proteftants with Papifts, Fight for Papifts and Pcpiih Do&rine, a%ain(i Proteftants, and the Do&rine peculiar to them? g. XVII. In ihort, if this his Anfwer be fultainablc, neither Socinians, nor Qu~ktrs^ nor any other Papizing Seft can ever be convicfted of Chap. If. CyprUmts Ifotimns* aoi of Popery. And accordingly thefe Sectaries be- ing accuf'd of Popery, their Defences exa&ly coincide. Take an Inftance or two : Robert Barclay the Quaker, in his Apology, denys, that the Scriptures are a bompledt €anon% for this Reafon, Becaufe in all the Scripture tve Read.not this necejjarj Article of Faith, that tbefe Books are only Canonic Scripture. This Argument Mr. John B*oun (e) fliews to be Popifti, and taken out of Bellarmin ( f ); to which Barclay ( g ) makes this Reply, What then ? J could tell him an hundred Arguments u(ed by him, which the Papifts aljo uje againfl us : Will he (iy it follows, they are invalid. To this I Du» ply'd as follows ( h ) : " Can he fay, that his Adverfary had an hundred Argumencs common to him with Papifts, tending to the overthrow of the Dodrine of the Reformed Churches, which they nold in oppofition to Papifts, Either this he muft fay, otherways he only difcovereth a defperate Caufe, and an effronted Defender : For certainly there are Arguments common to both us and the Papifts, by which we defend the Truth of the Chriftian Religion in oppofition to Heathens and Jews; yet rone, except he that is altogether carelefs what he fays, or that mindeth to infer Quidlibet ex Quo- libet, will affirm, that Proteftanu are Papifts, or fapijis, Protefiants upon that account. Hence it is clear, that, as there is not the leaft (hadow of a difference between Papifts and Quakers m this point, fo this Quaker is confciousof ir, fe- ( ■ * ) Quakerism the Path way to Paganifm, Pagi 87. (h) VertPatr, frg. 72* 202 Cyprtanus Ifotltms. Ghap* II. 8 ing he could not but know that if this fhift did € him any fervice, to diftinguirti him from a c Papift, it will no lefs diftinguifh a Papift from 'himfelf* and prove him to be no Papift, This my Duply my Tlow-manf who undertook Barclay's Defence, adventures not to handle or mention in the leaft : And it had been hi* true Intereft to have ferved all my Book after this Faihion ; for, Even a Fool when he holdetb his peace is counted Wife. In the mean while I juitly interpret his filence to be a real Confeffion of the Crime and Guilt of Popery. Nor is another Confeffion of his, in the very place, where, according to his undertaking, he ought to have purged Barclay from my Charge, lefs obler- vable (i). He concludes us Papifts ( faith he ), hecaufe fcrfootb, we deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, and the chief Judge of Controvtrfies. I do fo, and except you retract this Herefie, you muft ftill be reputed Tapijis in this great and weighty Article. But hear his Anfwer :v Firft, He bath need here of feme of his Metafhyfical Formalities to di(linguijb betwixt the Rule or Law, and the Judge, but this we may txpeSt next. Flat flaring Nonfenfe. I tell him, if he be capable of Inftru&ion, the Words Chief Judge are exegetick of the Words Principal Rule. The Reafon ( continues my Plow-man) be giveth h, hecaufe our Arguments (as he alleageth ) conclude with theirs, and in(lancetb that of Revel. 22. 18. compared with Deut. 4. 2, but hath brought nothing to di/prove the Inference : Only telling us, to this purpcje may Bellarmin Anfwer, and the refl of the ( 1) Plowrman Rebuking the Prieft, p'g. 125- r . Jefuites, Chap. IL Cypridnttt Ifotimut. 103 Jefuites. And this was enough and all I was obliged to bring j my onlv purpofe there being to difcover the Identity of Papi/ls and fluakers. in this grand Error and Heretical Affertion, That the Scriptures are not the principal Rule of Faith and Manners, and the chief Judge of Controverts. And the Quaker, in all this his Difcourfe* clearly juftihes and confirms my Charge. But the diffe- rence ( continues he ) lyeth here, the Vapitfs would thereby Jet up the Roman Church, and unwritten traditions to be the primary Rule ; but we the Teachings ofthe Spirit of CHRIST: So that accord* ing to Patroclus ownwords9 in page 32. we differ as far at Heaven and Earth. And nowf that by this Swatch you may judge of his whole Web, ob- ferve that he confounds and (huffles two points oi Popery that are moft feparable and diftind: one from another* viz,. T* deny the Scriptures to be the principal Rule of Faith and Manner s% and the chief judge of Controvtrfies, and, Ta fit up the Roman Church and Unwritten Traditions to be the Primary Rule : I accufed the Quakers only of the former, He, out of a ftudicd Senfelefnels,tells me, that they are not guilty of the latter. That ever I faid the Quakers and Papifts differ as far as Heaven and Earth is a monftrous untruth: Confult the page he cites. Sure, a Papizing Quaker's brain differs little from the moft noy» fome and noxious part of Earth. And now to return to J. S* and Robert Barclay , 'tis undeny- able, that their Anfwcrs are really.the fame, containing in fum and fubftance this moft fenfclefs and ridiculous Varalogijmi Viz,. He chat holds Doctrines and Arguments common , to 204 Cfpriattus Ifotimnf. Chap. f/" to Proteftants with Papifts, cannot on this ac- count be reckoned guilty of Popery ,• Ergon He that holds Doctrines and ufes \rgumenrs proper and peculiar to Papifts in oppofition to Prote- ftants, cannot oh this account be reckoned guilty of Popery. Take yet another Inftance out of George Keiths then an Arch-Quaker, as Mr. Alex- andtr juftly calls him ( k ). " Every Dodrine < ( faith he ) affirmed in Words by the Papifts is c not a Popifh Dodxine, otherwife, that there * is one only GOD* that CHRIST dyed for c Sinners, and rofe again, and in a word, all the f Articles of the Apoftolick Creed fhould be € Popifh Do&rines, becaufe in words affirmed by ^Papifts. A Popifh Doctrine then is A De- € Brine taught and believed Commonly by Papifts * repugnant unto or contradicting the Testimony of the € Scriptutes either exfrefly^ or by juji and mcefjary I? conference of Jound Keafon. This Definition of ' a Popifh Do&rine is fo fair and juft, that, as I ■ fuppofe, no Proteftant will difown it, nay noc *)ohn Menzies himfelf. And (I), " Before I *defcend to a particular Examination of thefe 1 eight Inftances> I premile this general Confide* € ration, vi%. That if we fhould acknowledge * that thefe ejght Inftances, as worded and laid € down by John Menzies, were held by all Papifts, c and Quakers fo called, which yet is falfe, € yet that the Confequence doth not € follow, that they are Popifh Doctrines, unlefs c he had alfo proved, that they are repug- € nant unto the Scriptures Teftimony* ac- * cording to the Definition of a Popifh Do&rine '(* ) Quakerifm no Popery., pag, 2, (I) Pag. 3. I formerly Ghap. H. CffriafiHi Ifotimus. 205 c fonjierly laid down* Now this John Menzies € hath not fo much as attempted. And ( m)% "That which indeed maketh a Popifh Do&rine, Ms, that it be not only affirmed by Papifts, and 'that moft generally, but that it be contrary * unto the Scriptures. Thus Keith, which is the fame to a hair with J. S's Defence and Purgati- on. And now, as I am fure, that all the Do- cftrines or Dogma* Protectants hold in oppofition to Papifts, are true, rational, and Scriptural, fo, on theother hand, I am perfwaded, and believe all honeft and fenfible Men to be perfwaded of the fame, that in the difcuflion of this Queftion, viz. What is to be counted a real and proper Popijh Tenet or Sentiment ? this Rule, Method, or Definition which is offered by J. S. and G. K. is moft falfe, fallacious, and by no means to be admitted. Yea, tho* our Charge were falfe, this his Aniwer is notwithftanding moft fenleleis and impertinent ,• frnce thus a Subterfuge is prepared for any Man, tho' guilty of the moft grofs and palpable Popery> if he think expedient ( as many Guilty of this Crime do ) to plead not Guilty : For he may fiili repone^ that any Article even of all the Council ot't rent is not repugnant unto the Teftimony of t.he Scriptures, and then advance the innumerable (hifcs and perverfions Papifts have invented, whereby to cover and palliat his Popifh Sentiment. §. XVIII. Nor is there more honefty in what J. 5. fubjoy ns : Suppofe>again}you were to write againfl the Belgic Remonftrants concerning Irrefpe- the Janfenifts in thefe Ar- ticles agree ,• and, by Confequence, are in fo far Proteftants. All this is Matter of Fact, which can be eafily vouch'd, if calfd in Queftion, Now, let the Reader judge of J. S. and his Do- ings, as Confcience and Reafon (hall di&ate. I go on, and f paffing what he fays of our fuppo- fed Difpuce with the Emfiians, there being no- thing new of Argument therein, and as little Truth in his Vauntipg, that his Prelatifts are Anu- a 08 Cyprianus Ifotimusl Chap. II. Anti-Era/tians, and patient Bearers of the Crofs) come ftraight to his i^tb. jj\ §. XIX. Where he, will prove our Tied to fa Monjtrcusly ShcfmeUfs. ' Tell me, upon youYIn- c genuiev, from whom you have your Argu- € ments for -*De fen jive Arms } For Rejifting Sove- c rai'gn Princes, the Powers that are of'GO'D, and * immediatly Subordinate to GOD? For all your * KingnkiUinfc, and King depojirg Doctrines ? Is € every Argument ufed by Mr. Rutherford in Jlis c Lex Rex j purely of Scottifh Presbyterian Invention? ' € Is there never fo much as an Hint of any One c of them all in the Writings of Beitarmin ? , I fliould have Retaliated him with another TeH trie, upon your Ingenuity, were it not as clear as Light,, even by this his Qaettion, tho' no more proofs could be given thereof, that he is pot Mattel of one Grain of Ingenuity. I muft therefore turfi to *my Reader* and beg of him, as he loves Inge- nuity, Equity, and Confcience, to- judge be- tween us, and determine, if the Do&rine of Self defence be fopifli'i ( I fay properly Popifh • for this he muft mean, other wife Ks Counter* Charge is no Counter-Charge, nor meet* with ours : And, indeed, that he fo means,, is clear from the whole Tenor of this his Difoourfe, ) If, of all Vroteftants, the Scottiflj Covenanters alone, from the year 37. and downward, have man,* tained it ? If the practice has not been com- mon to the generality of A\ Proteftaiit Churches, and that even fince the very fiHl Reformation ? If thefe Churches have not generally luftained and defended their p/a&ice as jufi and lawful ? If the greatest Patrons of Prelacy, Q EHzabttb^ K. James -Chap. II. Cyprianus Ifohmus. 209 K. James, and K. Charles I. did not atflft them in this their Self-defence ? If, finally, the whole of England, Clergy and Laity, have not, by a never to be forgotten Example, moft fully, moft clearly, moft perfiftingly, in the Face of the Sun, ratified, approved, and juftih'd both Dodrine and Practice fc Thefe Queftions let my Reader weigh in the Ballance of the San&uary, and then Determine, if even the Spirit of Impudence and Slander it (elf could have advancd a more falfe, more effronted, and more (hamelefs Recrimination? §. X X. - All this is fo clear and undenyable, that the Adverfaries, defigning to blacken and defame Scotlands ufing of Defenfive Arms, are compelled, nocwithftanding all their Art and Cunning, roundly to contradict and give the Lie to one another. Dr. Burnet, in his firft Conference, yields, ( for who can deny it ? ) that^many Proteftant Countries ufed Defenfive .Arms againft Superiours ; and fays, that this was Lawful, becaufe the Superionrs were Limited by Laws* or their King, as in France, was a Minor, or the Inferiours were not Subjects, but Vajjals ; none of which things^ if we believe him, has place here, where the King is ^bjo/ute, altoge- ther Illimited, and Unaccountable, and where there is noufe of a Parliament, but only for Confutation to be taken or rejected ashepleufes, the Meeting of which is only a Declaration of their Homage % not their Vriviled^e.' By thefe and fuch artifices, he hop'd to render odious all the A&ings of the iS^f//&Presbyceiians,efpecia!!y from the year 1637, and downward, and alio toperfwade Men? that O they qio Cypridnus IJottmus. Chap. II. j they were unparalleled by other Proteftantsj but in; the mean while,he Taw, that in order to effeft his purpofe, it was altogether neceffary to make his Countrey Men abfolute Slaves, and, by a deal of falfe Hiftory, and evafipns unworthy of a Man, deftroy all Laws and Priviledges of the Nation, and make the King of Scotland free to fay what the Strumpet (aid of tht tyrant, Qu$d lubet Hat. Notwithstanding of all theie Un* manly and Parafitical Endeavours, to prove the A&ingsof the Scottifh Covenanter s-to be unexempli- fiedby other Proteftants, he is oftentimes put to a fiand, and can find no imaginary dHfiroilitude between the Actings of the Scots and the Others* as in Snvedland) Piedmont, and in Scotland it lelf at our Reformation from Popery ; I fay, he can find little or nothing to fay, but that thefe doings were not defended in Proteftant Schools, But I (hall not lay open ail his foul dealing, but forgive him, fince he has, by his after v A&ions, pradtically recanted, and refuted him- felf. §. XXI. Dr. Heylyu, in his Hi/lory of the Tresbyterians, goes a quite contrary way to Work, maintaining, that all Proteftant Churches, ifyou except fome Lutherans, and iome of the Church of England, are no lefs kebellious and every way Criminal, than the Scottijh Covenanters. " In this ' Condition ( faith he (n) ), it ( Geneva ) con- € tinued till the Year i $28, when thofe of Berne, € afcer a publick Deputation held, had made an c Alteration in Religion • defacing Images, and € innovating all things in the Church on the ' Zui'tgltan Chap. II. Cfprianus lfatimut. 21 i Zuinglian Principles. Vint us apd Fardlus, two Men exceeding ftudious of the Reformation, fcad gained fome footing in Geneva about that time, and iaboured with the Bilhop to admit offuch Alterations', as harf been newly made in Berne. But when they few. no hopes of pre- vailing with him, they' pradifed on- the lower part of the People, with whom they had gotten moft efteem ; and travelled io effe&ualiy with them in it. that the Bilhop and his Clergy in a popular Tumult are expelled the Town, never to be reftored xo their former Power. After which they proceeded to Reform-the Church, defacing Images, and .following in all poinrs the example of Berne, as by Viretus and Fareltw they had been inftrucfted ; whofe doingsin the fame, were afterwards countenanced and approved by Calvin, as himfelf confeffeth. Nor did they only in that Tumult a!ter every thing which had difpleafedthem in the Church, but changed the Government of the Town • difclaiming all Allegiance either to their Bifhop or their Duke,- and (landing on their own Liberty as a Free Eftate, governed by a Com- mon Council of 200 Perfons. And (0), "So we have the* true beginning of the Genevian Difcipline, begotten in Rebellion, born in Sedition, and nurfed up by Fa&ion. He affirms, that all the Leaders of the Reformed Churches, their firft Reformers, the famoufeft Profeflbrs in their Academies and chiefeft . Do&ors, as Farell, Virety Calvin, Bez*% Kncx9 Vrfin^ Parens, Bncany were Affertors and Promo- k('JPag.£o . Q i tefi 212 Cypriamts lfotiMus* Chap. II. ters of the Doftrine, and Abettorsofthe Pra&ice of Defcnfive Arms find, therefore, Trumpeters and Fomsncers of Sedition. Geneva he makes to be the Mnbcr City to the reft of the ReformedChurches, and all of them, vi*. thete of Poland, Hungary $ Auftria% Silefia^ Moravia, Water avia, Suifs»Cantons9 France, Lnited Provinces, Embdtn% Scotland^ &G. to be equally with that City guilty of thefe Sedhious and Rebellious Pra&ice*. Nor, if we credit hinii are the old Waldmfes or Albigenfes more innocent : They are Rebells, Infolent, Outragious, and Bloody Murtherers (f )• He fays, indeed3 that all thefe were Presbyterians, and I own it ; but 'tis as true, that thefe made up the far greater part of Proteftants, and that they were never condemned by the reft on the account of this their Principle or Practice of Defenfive Arms. I (ay, they were never con- demn'd by any of them, except fome few (if thefe may deferve the name of Protefiant) Herodian Parafites. Yea, in this their Pradice they were Aflifted by the greateft Princes of thefe who are 1 jok'd on as the bppofite part of Proteftants. In a word, he involves all Proteftants in the guilt of Dej rez five Arms , favefome Lutherans and thp Church of England. JJ\ XXII. But were all the Enghjh Epijcopals Oppofers of Defenfive Arms ? No : Ev'n Impu- dence ic felf dares not affirm it. Sure Sir Thomas TVyat3 ali his Army, Abettors, and Well-wifliers, wno were not a tew, ( and if Fortune had once fmifd on him> he had got the whole Kingdom to follow him ) were not only Pnsbfj (?) Fag. 4*- UUM Chap. IL Cyprianut Jfotimus 21% terian Puritans : No ,• many of them were doubt- lefs, the moil eminent of the Ghuvch-of-EngUnd Men. Dr. tteylyn himfelf, fpeaking of the fame Affair, fays ( q ), " Much more 'tis to be admi- red, rhat Dr. John Voinfit, the late Bifliop of f Wmcbefter, (hould be of Counfel in the Plot, or € put himfelf into their Camp, and attend them € to the place where the Carriage brake. Where c when he could not work on Wiat to defift from c that unprofitable Labour in remounting the 1 Canon, he counfelled Vaub*m% Bret, and others, f to (hift for themfelves, took leave of his more 'fecret Friends, told them that he would pray c for their good Succefs* and fo departed and ? took Ship for Germany. He fays indeed ( r ), that no Engli(h Protejlant^ but only Zuinglfan Gofcelltrs rejoyced at Queen Marys difappointmenc of her hope of a Child, and deiired that fhe (hould havp no Iflue to fucceed in the Throne : By which he feems to infinuate, that only thefe Zuinglians or Presbyterians could be for Defenfive Arms ; and yet (f)> he clearly intimates, that even after the fuppreffion of Wiat, not only huge numbers of the common People, but alfo many Perfons of Quality and Men of great Eminence adhered to Wiat's Principles, and, if Heylyn may be trufted, ufed very ill Arts to raife a new Infurre&ion. Yea, the fame author plainly in- forms us, that then the whole Body of the King- dom liked well of the Principle of Vefenjive Arms, and had a good mind to put it in Pradice : For, having relited the Conditions in the Marriage iq) Hift of the Reform. Part 2. psg.35. (r) Ibid. pag-4T- if) Fag. 58. O % Contra# 214 Cyprianu* Ifotimus. Chap. II. Contract between King Tbilip and Queen Mary> and fiid, th^c they were much for the Advan- tage o{ England, he proceeds thus ( t ) : " But € foir was not underftood by the generality of c the People of England, many of which out ofa ' reftlefs Difpr»ficion, or otherwife defirous to *reftore the Reformed Religion, had caufed it c to be noifed abroad, that the Spaniards were by 4 this accord, to become the abfolute Lords of ' all the Kingdom ; that they were to have the * managing of ah Affairs; and that abolifhing all * the ancient Laws of the Realm, they would * impofe upon the Land a Rioft intolerable 6 Yoke 'of Servitude, as a conquered Nation. c Which either being certainly known, or pro- ' babl'y fiifpc&cd by the Queen and the Coun- 6 cv, it was thought fit that tne Lord chancellor * fhould make a true and perfed Declarati* ' on. Which Declaration not* c wichftanding>the Subjects were noteafily fatisfi- *edin thefe fears and jsaloufies, which cunningly € had been infufed into them by fome popular * Spirits, who greedily affrtfed a change of Go- vernment ; and to that end fowed divers other 'difconrents amongft the People. To fome c they fecretly complained, That the Queen had € broke her Promife to the SuffolkMzn,—- — and c by thefe Articles, prepared the People in moft * places for the Act of Rebellion. And that it c might fucceed the better, nothing muft be * pretended but the prefervation and defence of € their Civil Liberties, which they knew was * generally like to take both with Papifts and (0 Pag«s 32,33, Proteftancsj Chap^ II. Cyprhnut Ifotimns. 215 * Protefknts ; but (o that they had many Engines * to draw fuch others to the fide, as either were 'confiderable for Power or Quality. The Duke ,cof Suftlk was hooked in> upon the promife of c Re-eftablifhing his Daughter in the Royal € Throne ; the Cartws and other Gentlemen of c Devonjhirey\ipoa aflurance of Marrying the Lord c Courtney to the Princefs Elizabeth, and fetting € the Crown upon their Heads ; and all they that f wifhed well to the Reformation, upon the like % hopes of reftoring that Religion which had 6een * letled by the Care and Piety of the good King *Edwardy but now fuppreffed, contrary to all * Faith and promife, by the Queen and her Mi- » 'nifters. By means of which fuggeftions and c iubtil practices, the Contagion was (o generally c diffufed over all the Kingdom,that if it had not c accidentally broke out before the time appoin- * ted by them, it was conceived by many Wife c and Knowing Men, that the danger might have 4 proved far greater, the difeafe incurable. Hence it inevitably follows, that either there were no Epifcopal Proteftants in England, orelfe that all of them were Self/Defence-Men, and were juft ready to have put in Pra&ice J. Sys Popifli Principle, had not their defign been crufh'd before it came to Maturity ; and that they firmly believedy that Salm Populi eft Suprema Lex, that the laft end of Government or Gover- nour is the Safety and Good of the People or Community ,• that the whole Kingdom is pre- ferable to any one Man, that, if of neceffity one of the twaia were to be loft, the Safety of the former is preferable to that of the latter ; that 2%6 Cyjtrianus Jfotimusl Chap. II. that finally^ if the King go crofs to the chief ends of his Office, and play the Tyrant over Bodies and Conferences of his Subje&s, they may defend their Religion and Liberty, and bridle his fury ; like as Children may difarm and bind their Father while mad and ready to kill them. That the Body of the Eng Ufh Primitive Protectants were of this mind and belief, is undenyably contain'd in thefe /very Paffagcs wherewith this Capital Enemy of Self Defence has furnifli'd us j and I am as lure that the Scottifh Presbyterians never went beyond it. Wherefore, if J. S. had been a juft or honeft Man, he would have purged his Englifh frelatifts before he had objected King-killing and King-defojing Dodrine to the ScottifoVresbyterians. He names no Authors, that his deceit may Jurk in generals ; but I fup- pofe, he means #ww, whom my Plow- man fome- where obje&ed alfo, as being the Aflerter of this Do&rine. In the mean time, I defy all the Hierarchies and Quakers, eyen tho' they take the Jejuites to their Afliftance, to prove, that either { Knox, or any other Presbyterian, approv'd the Murdering of any Man, much lefs the Murdering of Kings. Kncx and our other firft Reformers did indeed found the Trumpet^and with all vehemen- cy excite the Nobility and People to Reform the Church, qaft out Idolatry,and reftore GOD'spurs Wor#iip,whatfoever it jliould coft them,and who- loever Ibould oppofe them. They took the Alarum, #nd molt generoufiy and Chriftianly to work they go, they are oppofed by all the Power and Force their Queen could make ; they notwithftanding feieak thro' all Obflacles, %nd carry on the Re- formatioji Chap. II. fypriantts lfotimus. 117 Formation fore againft her will : and thus mod fignally put in practice the Do&rine of Defenfivc Arms. All thefe their Doings, as Heylyn himfelf frequently owns, were approved not only by Cal- vin, Bezd, and their Genevans, but alfo by the Generality of Reformed Churches : Yea, they were approved by Queen Elizabeth, and the Body of the English Nation* as the Army of Auxiliaries fenc hicher for the Expulfion of the French demonftrates : They were approv'dj and that more elpecially and exprefly, by the great- eft Englijh Bifhops, e.g. Jewell and Biljon, as is by Henderjon.m his fecond paper, afferted, and by the JCing himfelf* in his third Anfwer, confeffed* Finally, whatever the Presbyterians laid or did of this kind, was of late fuperlativeiy approved by the Englifh Clergy, as well as Ldicy, while they chas'd away, banifh'd and depo^'d their King, who had, doubtlefs, proceeded further, if they had judg'd, that otherways England muft have been loft. Wherefore it is the Intereft of the Hierarchies, to defer for fome Ages this Accufa- tion,till the length of time give them occafion to raife Duft, darken the Truth, coy n falfeHiftory, and deny that ever there was fuch a Matter of Fad. And now, muft not he, who fo boldly gave out, that this Do&rine of Defenfive Arms is Po- pifli, that is, a Do and ceafe to be Prelatifts. $. XXIII His fecond Counter-Charge is no lefs furprizrng than the former (u). "From * whom had you your Diftindiion which has c been fo ufeful to you, and done you fo many * Services ; this, I mean, That Bijhops and Fref- € hyters do not make two different Orders, but on - € ly Two Degrees of the fame Order of the Prieft - * hwP. How had" you ever had the Benefit of fl/w- € del's Apology for St. Jeroms Opinion, if he had * not had this DiftinftionlNowfrom whom had he € it ? From whom had all of your Party it, € but from the Popifh School- men? But in all this there is fcarce one Syllable of either Senfe or Truth : For,fuppofe this DiftindHon were tru- ly embraced by Presbyterians, does not alfo the Throng of the Hierarchies cordially admit the fame I Does not Andrew Logie (x ) affirm, lhat the Order of all Vrieftt Jiands but one and the fame,adrnitting only aBiJj>arity of Degree in the Order ; and Dr. Burnet ( y)y That a Bijfrcp is not a diftintf Office jrern a J>resbjter, but a different Degree of the fame Office, I might produce whole Squadrons of («)§-i6. (*) J.S.Chap. 4«§«39. (?) Confer. Fag. 3 »o. Pre- Chap. H. CyftlMus Ifotimnt. ai9 Prelatifts affirming the fame, were it not, that ;t is a Matter undcnyable. Moreover Blonde^ ( I may fay the like of Salmafim ) is fo far from allowing, that Bi[hop and Presbyter imke, by Di- vine Appointment, different Degrees , that, on the contrary, they are, in his Mind, altogether one and the fame ; as is evident, were there no more, in his Obfervacions from the TefHmonies ofjerom, to be found at the very Encry of his jipology. He believed, that, by Divine Infticuti- on, they ma.de neither different Orders, nor diffe- rent Degrees, that the Terms were Synonymous, and che thing mean'd by them incirely one and the fame : He believ'd this was the Do&rine of Jerom* and, together with Jerom, of the whole Church through all Ages • and that they plainly enough expreffed fo much, when Men fpoke their true and unbyafTed Sentiments ; and chat they were wont to mean no lefs, when they faid, Bi(hop and Presbyter made but one and the fame Order. The Truth is, the Presbyterians unanirnoufly and juftly look on this Diftinfticn as abotromlefs Fi&ion of che Popifh School-men> the better to defend Epifcopacy ; without which, they well perceived, chat they could not prore& the Papacy. This DijjUnStion was greedily imbib'd by the more Sly and Subtil of the Englijh Hierar- chies, hoping, with this Buckler, the moreeail- ly to ward off the Mortal Blows given by rhc moft luculent Tcftimonies of Scripture, and Ac* knowiedgmencs of Fachers and other Writ- ers, to their Darling che Hierarchy : And accordingly J. S. ( z, ), leaning on this Di~: ftinciion, 1 fay, this very Ditlinftion, or Fiction (&) Chap. 3.^, 10. rather, 220 Cyprlanus Jfotimns. Ghap. II. rather, which he blufhes not to fay the Presby- terians hugg, as doing them excellent Service, hopes to get free of all the Arguments Blondel, in his Apology, leyelled at Prelacy. '* BlonieVs ■ Plot ( in ftiort ) is ( faitb he ) plainly to juftifie c the Conftitutionof thole Churches, which are € Govern'd without Bifhops ; to maintain the € Validity of their Orders, and, by Confequence, € of their Sacraments, and other MinifterialPer- ' formances ; or, in other Words, That their € Want of TBijhops does not Unchurch them. Now, c as it was not neceflfary for ferving this Defign, c to ftate the Controverfie, he v/as chiefly to ma- c nage, upon the Point ^of Parity or Imparity ; fo * neither has he done it, anv where, in all his c Book. The great Queftion which he Vend- Ma'es, and whereof he always maintains the c Affirmative, is> whether Bifhops and Presbyters € do Originally make but one Order ? Which is c indeed liccle better than a School Nicety ,• and, cwhen Sifted to the Bottom, will be found 4 little other than a Controverfie about Words. He infinuates ( a ) the fame of Salmajiw ; and fays, That tbofe two Champions very wdl underftoed one another, and that their Schemes are much of a Piece: And yet, if we truft J. S. neither of 'em underftood himfelf, or the Defign they in* tended. Otherwifes could they ever have com- pofed fuch large and laborious Books, only to gain that which was little better than a School Nicety , and a Controverfie about Wordsl But the main thing I obferve in J% S's Words is, that, in his Mind, Blondel and Salmajius, tho' they could Chap* IF. Ctyriamts lfotimtts. 221 could have proved, that Bifbop and Yreshyter do Originally make but one Order, yet they would have done but very lictle Service to their Caufe* except they had proved more, viz. That both make but $ne Degree ; and fo this Diftin<5Hon, which> if he may be trufted, is to be exploded as fenfelcfs and ufelefs, and imputable only to Papifts and Presbyterians, fiands him in very good ftead, and fufifices to fliield him and his from all the Attacks and Aflaults of both ®londel and Salmafius. §, XXIV. From all this, and endlefs Quota- tions that might be brought from other Epifco- pals, it is evident, that the Diftinftion is purely Prelatical, and that, if it be overthrown, they are for ever deprived of their fureft Hold and San&uary. Now, its Overthrow I doubt not to effed by thefe following Arguments. ju Thefe Prelatifts that make Bi(h»ps a diftinft Order% do, ac times, tho' with little enough Self- Confiftency, own all of them to be Equal, and that none of them can have Power over another; So chat he chat Vrefides in a Synod of Bifliops/ can have no more Power over the reft, than has he who is but a meer Vrtfes or Moderator in any Courts confuting of Judges compleacly equal a- moig theaifelves, Now, why all this,- but be- caufe it is imp;aaced in every Man's Mind, that one and the fame G dcr of Men muft be com- pleacly equ-il, in reiped of that Power where- with that Order cloaths them ; It is clear there- fore, that one and the lame Order admits not different Degrees. 2. The 222 Cyprianns tfotimm. Chap. IF. 2. The other Order, I mean that of Deacons, admits ©f no higher and lower Decrees of Power i wherefore,on Suppofition that Bishops and ^refbyttrs make but one Order, thereisnoreafon whvitihould be parted into fundry Degrees, more than that of the Deactns.l kno w indeed,that it is long fince Arch* deacons and Sub-deacons came into the Church? but I fpeak here with refpcA to Divine Right and Inftitution, and take it for granted, that neither Ar€h»deac*ns nor Sub-deticens have any Footing in Scripture : I know no pretext for their Infti- tution in the New Teftament, and I am fure there is really as little in the Old ; fince there is nothing furer, than that GOD never defign'd to fubftitute the Deacons in the place of the Le- vites, tho' Men, by their groundlefs and dange* rous Allufions, havefo named them. 3. As all the Jpoft/es undenyably made one and the fame Order, fo, as Cyprian truty fays, they were all endued with Equal Power and Ho- nour : For, which, in this Difpute, is ftill to be remembered, even tho' Peter Ihould be fuppo- fed to have been always the Prafes and Modera- tor of their Meetings, it nothing impairs the compleat Parity of all the Apoftles. Now, fe- ing the Order of the Jpoflles admitted of no Degrees of Power or Honour, why fhould they forge this VifltnBion in that Order which fucceeds them ? For, that Presbyters, no leis than Bi-> jhops, fucceed the Apoftles in the chief parts of all thaty wherein they can be fuccceded, is yielded by our Antagonifts themfelves. 4, There Chap. IL Cyprianus Ifotimus. 223 4. There is fas Amfrofe, or rather Hilary ( h ) affirms/ and the Body of the Ancients really owns ) but One Ordination of both Bifhop and Tretfyer; they mull therefore be compleatlj one and the iame : And confequentiy this Or- der can admit of no Degrees, feing there can be nothing in it, but that which is conferred 011 the Ordained, in their Ordination^ as the effect thereof. Nor let them repone, that the Chief and Inferior Vriefts were of the fame Order, and yet were not Equal in Tower; feing they arc not able to prove, that the High Frieft had any more Power over the Reft, than a meer PrefiJenC of a Bench or Confi/lory : Indeed, that he was no more fifthat) is* on the matter, affirm'dby Drs Burnet ( c), and Sutlivim ( d) : And if he had any more Power, it was fomething extra & fnpraOidinem, fince the true Defcription of aa Order of Men is no other than this, A certain Company of Men, who are of one and the fame Station and Rank; Thus a Bench of Judges* who are of one and the fame Order, a<5t all in Parity ,• and if any of 'em have a Power Para- mount, as the King in the Parliament, this is extra & fupra Ordinem ; For whofoever is in fuch an Order, muft of neceffity have all thePri- viledges that the Order can confer on him. Moreover, this Term Order, or Orders, as Stil- lingfleet ( e ) affirms; was taken rather from the Romans. " By the way ( faith he ) we may ob« J ferve the Original of the Name of Holy Orders (O In 1 Tim.*, (c) Confer. Pag. 194 (d) Anfwcr to a cettain Lybe], &c. C^iap. 2. & de PQKtif. Lib, s.Csp. 3. (O tow. Part. a. Chap. 6 § '7- 'in 224 Cypfianus lfotimusl Chap. II. * in the Churchy not as the Papifts, and others c following them, as though it noted any thing € inherent by way of ( I know not what ) Cha- c ra&er in the Perfon ; but becaufe the perfons c Ordained were thereby admitted in Ordinem a- c mong the Number of Church-Officers. So c there was Ordo Senatorum, Ordo Eyuefiris, Ordo • VecurionuWi and Ordo sacerdetum among the € Romans. Now, it is certain, the Roman Senators were all equal among themfelves, the Order ad- mitting of no different Degrees ; and that the Confufs Power over them was nothing, but that of a pr*fes, and was conferred on him by the S^ nate it felf : Or, if it was more> then it was ex* tra & fupra Ordinemy fince, in refped of the Order Senatorial all Senators were compleatly equal. Moreover, that this Objection taken from the Difference among the Priefts, has here no piacet * the fame Stillingfleet (f ) clearly proves : For thus he continues. €€ From hence the ufe of the c Word came into the Church ; and thence Or- c dination, ex m vocis, imports no more than c folemn Admiflion into this Order of Presby* c tersj and cherefore it is obfervable, that lay- c ing on of Hands never made Men Priefts un« s der the Law, but only admitted them into 1 publick Office. Whitaker gives a fhort, but fuf- ficient Anfwer to this their Popifli Objedion (g). As there is noiv no Sacrifice, fo neither is there any Vrieftbood. Or, if you will have Whitaker to be a Presbyterian, then hear your own Sutlive ( h ). (f) Ibid, (g) De Pontif- Row. Quefl.i. Cap.a. (h) De Pontif. Lib. i. Cap. 8. Habuit enim Vetus Teftamentum Templum unum, Sacrificia plurima, Sacerdotum & Lc- virarum Ordines, Sacrafque Ceremon;as, 5c Leges, qu^ ad Ecclefiam Chrifli nullo modo pertinent. ?*>' Chap. II. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 225 The Old Teftament C faith he .) had one Temple, many Sacrifices, Orders of Priefts and Levites, Sacred Ritesy and Laws, which things belong not at all to the New Tejiatnent. f, Betlarmin yields no lefs C #)• " If ( faith € he) Episcopacy be a Sacrament diftinft from * thePresbyterace, it will be eafie todefend,that ca Bifliop is, both in Order and Jurifdi&ion, c greater than a Presbyter by Divine Right; c which now all the Heretics ( the Proteftants J ? deny : Ocherways this can lcarcely be defended. Downames Confeflion feems yet more obfervable (k). "This new Popi/h Conceipt (faith he ) f therefore of confounding Bifhops and Presby- ; ters into one Order, arifeth from rheir Idol of c theMafse>and their Doctrine ofTranfubfiantia- ction,wherby every Prieft is as able to make his ' Maker, as the Pope himielf. I call itnewe.be- 'caufeallthe AncientWriters doe confeiTeBifhopsf * Presbyters and Deacons to be three diftind De- * grees, and confequently Orders of the Mini- f fiery: For what is an Order, but thatDegreci c which, among things or Perfons which are fub« € ordinate one to another, fome being higher, c fome lower, any one hath obtained ? On thefe palpable Untruths I (hall not here animad- vert ; I only obferve this Truth blended in a- mong them, that one and the fame Order admits not various Degrees, but that Order and Degree is? in the prefent cafe,, quite one and che fame thing. And Birtiop Taylor joyns him ( / ) : Whether Degree ( faith he ) and Order be all one* or no^ is (i) De Sacramento Ordinis. Cap, J. (k) Def Biok 3, Ch.4%Pag5 iof, ( / ) Epifccpacy aiTcrCcd, Pag. 166. P of 226 CyprUnm Ifotimu. Chap- H# of great conJtd.raticn in the frefent, and in relation to many other Queftions. And having thus ftated the Queftion, he fpends fome time to prove the Affirmative. Is this Queftion then, in the Mind of thele prime Hierarchies, little better than a School Nicety * and, when fij ted to the botm torn, little other than a Controverfie about Words ? And Durand, as great a Prelatift as he, proving, that Bifhops make a diftind Order irom Presby* tcrs, ufes the following Argument (m). Be- taufe an Order is nothings (ave a Degree of Power or Mmiftry in Diffcenjing of Spiritual Things : But Bi- ihops can difpenfe Jome Sacraments, which cannot be difcensd by Simple Priefts. And here, by the way, let me notice, into how lad Screights Prela- cy brings it's Defenders. Durand had a very true and juft Notion of Order, and wherein it confifts ; and accordingly he law well enough, that chefe who make but One Order of both Bi* Jhops and Presbyters, really delert and mine Epif- copacy, which by no means muft be done: He faw? on the other hand, that to make them two, was to crofs the whole Stream of Authors An" cient and Modem* and, which was yet worfe, Lombard himfeif, on whom he comments ; and therefore neither muit this be done. What fhali he do then ? Why, he even talks Nonfenfe, and concradi#s himfelf. The Epi/copate ( faith he ) ( n ) or the Epifccpal Ordination, is an Order and Sacrament not precijtly Jtftintt from [imp le Trieft- hood, but is one Sacrament with it, as is that which isptrftfl, and that vjhich is imperfect. Which Per- fection of the Epi/copal Order he places in the ( m) In Lomford. Lib. 4* Pift. 24. Quseft. 6. (n) Ibid- Power Chap. II. Cftfunut Ifotimui. 227 Tower of Ordination : But it is certain, that this Power of Ordination is a D^rf.e of Power tr Mini* fir) in difrcnfing of Spiritual things ; And thus he inevitably overthrows his own Definition of Or* der. 6. Even Lombard himfelf, that great Prelate and prelatift, and Father of the Schoolmen ( the great Patrons of both Papacy and Prelacy), ilio7 he abufes lomc Scriptures to propugn the Divine Right of the Epifcopate as diftind: from the f re/- byuratey yet in that very place ( 0 ) totally de- ftroys his whole Building, and, really grants what we .plead for, in the following Words. " Having briefly fpoken of the feven Degrees of * the Church, we have infmuated what (houid € belong to every one. And tho' all of 'em are Spi* € ritual and Sacred, the Canons notwithftanding € determine, that 7we Orders only ought, by way € of Excellency, to be termed Sacred, viz. thafi € of the Diaconate, and that of the Presbyteratc % c becaule we read, that *he Primitive Church had % only thefe Two ; and of thefe alone we have * the Command of the A pottle ? For the A* * poftles did Ordain Biihops and Presbyters in c every City. We read ai(o, that the Apoftles c did Ordain Levites ( i. e. Deacons ), the 'greatett of whom was Bteffed Stephen: € But in procefs of time the Church did appoint * Sub deacons and Acoytbs. Where it is undeny- able, that Lombard ( as did alfo his Commenta- tor Duns Scotus ) really confounds Order and Degree ; that the Order of Deacons* and, by firm Conlequence, that of Presbyters, had no Diverfity ( 0 ) Lib. 4. Dift. i\. P Z Of 228 Cyprianus Ifetifnus. Chap. If. of Degrees y no Majority or Minority allow'd in it by Divine Appointment • that there can be nothing in the Order of Presbyterate, but that which belongs to Presbyters as fuch, or is their • EJJtmial Form ; nothing that belongs to a BiJhop% but as he is a Yrcsbyter ; and fo, by irrefragable Confequence, a Bifiop, as diftind from a Presby- ter, is not comprehended in this Order, nor has any footing in Scripture; That theApoftleto Timothy and Titus, and el fe where, gave Rules for Presbyters alone, on which is all one, for fuch Biflnfs as were reciprocally one and the lame with Presbyters, and therefore never once dreamed of fuch Biflwps, as are in the leaft diftin- guiihable from Presbyters ; That all the Paftrfs the Apoftles planted, were no lcfs Bijhops thap they were Presbyters, and that on this very ground, that they were Vresbyters ; That/ final- ly, the Office of Epifcopate and Presbyterate is reci- procally one and the fame, and the Terms com- pleatly Synonymous. The fame Do&rine of Lombard is taught by Gratian ( p ), the Father of the Cancnifts, an other Squadron of the Papal and Vrelaiical Champions. And Efiiusj the moft Learned and Seniible Commentator on Lombard ( for the throng of 'em have little fave Confufi- on and Nonfenfe ), and a molt earneft Prelatift, yields, that the Divine Right of Epifcopacy cannot be clearly f roved from Serif ture ( your Monarchical Sole Power and Papal Vrelacy he utterly abhorr'd: Ail the Prelacy he allows as lawful, was only a flonfant Moderatorfhip, with fome Executive Power conferr'd by the free Votes and Choice of the Presbytery upon one of their Number, which he was to exert not in liis own, but in the whole Presbyteries Name'/). But ae are nor fo much concerned with what BloxJel had the Freedom to yield to as tolerable, as what he afferted, yea and proved to have ob- tained all the Scriptural and Apcftolic times, and even thro5 a compleat fpace lower • and that was true and real Parity. c< But, Blondel t faHi J. $, ( t ) "in moft Exprefs Terms, * makes an Imparity, or Majority of Power intrin- c fick co the Notion of his con[\ant Moderator or € PrefiJent ; of him who, at the beginning, was € p omored to his chair by his Seniority : So *thats according to his Scheme, The Primitive c Church was never Govern'd by Pafiors a&ing in * Parity. He fays, his conjtant Prefident had a $£p- c gular and Peerlef* Power, He had not only the € Chair, but the Chief Power in the Presbytery : He € was Head of the College, and had a Primacy : * The reft of the Presbyters freely conferred on € him the Honour of the chief Power > as well as c the Chief Chair. And I hope this import? fome- c thing more than a Priority of Dignity ox Order. 4 Nay, he was Prefidenti as he had the Preroga- f tive of rhe Chief Power and Chair* as he was Fra-* € trum *Z*tyj>cy i e. the Prince or Captain of the € Brethren, he neither had nor could have any (/) ApoLPag. i6i, 163. (f)§. 14. € CoU Chap II. Cyfrianus Ifotimus. 231 € Collegues. Thus he. And now take Blende I' s Plan, as follows. During the Apoftolic Age, and fome competent time after, Bishop and Pref- bytcr were Reciprocally one and the fame ; thele were combined into Clafies or Presbyteries, the El- deft Minifter> Pajlor, or Bishop of the Presbytery was, by vertue of his Seniority, Constantly the Moderator y and when he died, the next in Age fucceeded him therein, and bruik'd it during Life, and fo on. € Jheps, on the very account of their Presbyterate, * were endued with Equal Power and Honour : * That the Moderator was fubjed to the Power of * the Presbytery, and obey'd its Commands with ' no lefs Submiffion than did the mesnefl of their * Number : He had the Chief Power in the Col- € lege* but had properly no Power over the College * of Presbyters ( u). All this, which I havetranf- lated Word for Word, or truly, as I trufh ( faith- fully. I am fure ) have Senfed, and ten times more to the fame purpofe, is moll clearly and infontrcvertibly contain'd in Blenders very Pre* face, to fpeak nothing of his Book ; But3 which is yet more., if a Matter fo clear be capable of more clearnefs, Blondel^ as if he had forefeen J.S's Frauds, in that very Preface ( x ) exprefly com- pares thele Ancient Moderators with the Moderators of the French and of the Scottifo Presbyteries, al» lowing not one Grain of more Power to the for- mer than to the latter,. tf. XXVI. And now I return fide (b ), BentdBus Jufhnianus ( c )3 Baylit rhe Jefuit ( d ), Becan t e ), Alpbonfut de Caiiro \ f) and BeBarmin ( g ) ; And ro rivet the Nail immoveably^ add to all thefe the Council of Florence ( h )3 and the council of Trent it felf ( i ). The Conclufion BeUarmin, in cne place juft now cited, undertakes to prove, is, That the Episcopate is by Divine Right greater than the Presbyter ate both in ref]?eff of the Power of Order and Jurifdiffion : Now to make good this Conclufion, he brings as one of his principal Reafons, the following Argument : u The c fame is proved by the Diftin&ion of the Apo- c files and the Seventy Difciples ; For all the € Fathers conftantly teach, that the Bifhops c Succeed the Apoftles, and the Presbyters the c Seventy Difciples. The fame Argument, for the fame purpofe, is ufed by Baylie% Becany and the whole rout of the RomJnifis. (y ) In Luc. 10. (z) In Aft. cap. 2. 13. ( * ) Ad Ann ?2. Num. i$, and Ann. $8, Num. 3. ( b) In Tir. r. ( c) In Galac. 2. ( d ) Catech. Controv. Trait. 2. Quaeft. 22. ( e) Manual. Lib. 1. cap. 12. §. 3f. (f) Adverf. H$reC Lib. 6. Fol. 102. ( g ) De Clcricis. cap. 14. (h ) Caram. Summ. Cone, Foj. 457. ( ; ) SefT. 23, To 334 Cyprianus JJotimus. Chap. If. To this Argument the very Flower, yea, I may lay, the whole Body of the Proteftant Advocates anlWer with one Heart and Voice^ The Apoftolate was Extraordinary , and that the Apoftles therein cannot be Succeeded, and that, by Divine Right, a Bifhop and Presbyter is alto- gether and Reciprocally one and the lame, and finally, that Bellarmin and his Companions egregioufly contradid: their own Do&rine, and make every Bifliop the Pope's Equal. See, amongft infinit others, Cbemnitius (/&), Junius (/), ^Danaus ( m )y Chamierus ( n ), Rivet ( o ), Cro- tius ( p), and Amejius ( y ). Thefe, I fay, my Learned Reader may confult. I might bring diverfe (peaking the fameDo&rine in our Coun- trey Language : I will, at prefent content my felf with one, but fuch a One as may be reckoned worth a Thoufand, and leaft of all ought to be Rejected by our Prelatifts, he being both an Englijb Man and a Gburcb-of-England Man ; I mean Willet, who to this Argument of Bellarmin gives the following Anfwer (r ). fC Bellarmine 4 denyeth (Jaitb be ) that Biftiops doe properly 'fucceede the Apoftles, De Vontifice Lib. 4. Cap* 25-. € becaule he would magnifie the Pope his ghoftly c Father above all Biihops : But now forgetting * himlelfe, he faith, Epijcopi proprie fuccedunt Apo- ( k ) Exam. Cen. Trident. Part. 2. pagi 223. (7 ) Ani- madv. in Belltrm. Controv- 5. Lib. 1. Cap. 14. Not. 14. ( m) Rcfp. ad Controv. 5. cap. 14. ( *) Panftrat* com. 2. Lib^ 10. cap. 6. Num. 12- ( Cathol. Ortbod. torn, f, Traft. 2. pagr. iti. (p ) Antibec torn. 2, pag. 530, ( o) Bellarm. Enerv* torn, 1. Lib 3. Cap. 4. ( r ) Synopf. Papifm. Cbntiov. 5. Queft. 3. Part. 2. pag. 23 2, 233. 'Jolii, Chap. II. Cyprtanus Jfotwttf. 235 //fr* was fent to Preachwot to Bap" tiz>e, r Cor. 1. 17. This alfo the Prophet Efay ftiw-weth) where hee faith in the Name of the LORD : My words , whtch 1 have put in thy Mouth, &c. Efay 59. 21. The promife of liicccffion, wee fee, is in the Preaching of the Word, which appertained as well to other Paftors and Minifters, as unto Biflbops. Againe, feeing in the Apoftles time Epifcopus, and Pre/- byter, a Bifhop, and a Prieft, were neither in Name nor Office diftinguifhed* as Matter Lambert Martyr proveth by that place of Saint Paul, Tit. r. where the Apoftle calleth them Birtiops, verf. 7. whom before verf. f . he had named Presyters, Priefts, or Elders. To this agreeth the Councell Aquifgranen.fi Cap. 8. Col- lecting thus out of this pace ; Paulus Apoflolus Presbperos* ut vere Sacer dotes* fub nomine Epifco* € porum 2%6 Cyprianui Ifotitnm. Chap. II. forum adfeverat ; Taul the Apoftle doth affirm* the Elders, or presbyters to be true Priefts or Vafiors * under the name of Bifhops. Ic followeth then * that either the Apoftles afligned no Succeffion* while they Mved, neither appointed their Suc- ceffors, or that indifferently all Faithful Paftors 'and Preachers of the Apoftolike Faith, are the c Apoftles Succeffors. And now, was not J. S. moft prudent, Sage, and comprehenfive, while he advanced this Retortion, which at once in- extricably involves him and his Fa&ion in the very guilt our Charge exprefles; and, on the other hand, for ever liberates his Adverfaries from even the leaft fufpicion or appearance of being equally chargeable therewith. For, if we keep in view the real Idea of a Pofijh Dcffrine, is it poflible that in all the Decrees of the Council of Trent anyone fttall be found more both really, evidently, and confeffedly Popi(h, than is this their Pofition : Wherefore, by an immoveable Confequence, its Contradictory Pcficion, the very Pofition he retorts, whereby to involve us equally with themielves in Popery, muft be truely, genuinely, and evidently Proteftant. And now I know, my candid Reader is by this time filled with Admiration, and ready to fay, that nothing but blinding fury, or a real frenzie could prompt him to a Prank fo mad and Self- deft, u&ive ,- and to enquire, if he brought no ieeming congruity , pretext or colour, that, at leaft, he might impofe uponfome unthinking perfons: I fhall not fay what it is j but fomething he has, ff, XXVII. Chap. IL Cyprlanus IfotimHs. 237 §. XXVIL As follows (f): " And what c are your Arguments ( Jaith he ) for reje&ing ' this our Pofition ? Do not you fay that Apoflles c were not Ordinary but Extraordinary Pafiors, by € fecial Commifion^ and, by Confequence, fuch * as could have no Formal Succejfors ? Do not € you fay, that Apoflles could Preach and Found 'Churches all the World over, which Bifhofs 'cannot? That Ape files could Write Canonical € Books, and were Infallible, &c. That they * had the Gifts of Tongues, and Miracles, and c Unlimited Jurijdiffion, &c. which Bi(h$ps cannot € pretend to ? Are not thefe and fuch as thefe, * the great Differences you ufe to aflign between c Apoflles and Bijbops ? And now, Gentlemen, * confider what you have on the Margent, and € harden your Foreheads, and fay, they are not c the Jefuit BeUarmins own Reafonings. True again, Sir, We neither can, nor dare fay it: To get free of your Book perhaps we might find fome fiiifts, impertinent and nonfenficai as they are ; But who can ftand before your Margent > From your Margent — ■« deliver us! for it forceth me, as brazen brow'd as I am, to contefs, that they are even the Jefuit BeUarmins own Reafonings; And were I J. S. the next Book wherewich I bleif'd the World* ihould be intirely Msrgent^ and the body of the Book Tabula Rafa. But to turn earned with him ; does he not know, at leaft, ought he not to know, that Beliarmin in chefe Reafonings, as, Divine Providence, for the greater Demonilration of the Truth, and Convi&ion of i&s Adverfaries, fo ordering 238 Cfpri*ms lfotimus. Chap. II. ordering it, in hundreds of places befide, is Ortbodoxias Teftis, a wicnefs of the Truth j and with them lhakes, yea lays along the main Pillar of both Prelacy and Popery, and contradicts Popes, Councils, the fwarm of Romijh -vuthors, and himfelf to bute ; All of whom, as do our Epifcopals, labour with might and main to per- fwade Men, that an Apoftle, as fiich, may be Succeeded, that the Apoftolate, properly taken, remains in the Church, and (o is no Extraordinary but an Ordinary Office. Which falie and papal Do&rine our firlt Reformers, and the whole ftream of Proteftancs, Cbtircb-of-Englani Men not excepted, ( as I elfewhere ( t ) have convincingly vouched, ) condemn'd and explo- ded. $. XXVIII. Moreover, that BeUarmin (u), when he ufes thefe Realons, is a Witnefs of the Truth, the many P»oteftant Authors who have refuted his Books d* Romano *Pontificey and handled the Queftion he there treats of, really own : As Junius GO* Lubertus (y), Willtt (z), and Whi- taker (a). That which moved BelUrmin to maintain, that Bifhops are not the Apoftles SucceJ]orsy and fo really t© contradict his own Popes, Councils, the throng of his Brethren, and himfelf (k ), was indeed his ardent defire to eftablifh the Pope's Omnipotency : Forheaflerts, and labours to prove ( c ), that Cbri/f committed ( t) Naz. Qupr Page 144, &*• (u De Row Pontif. Lib. 4. Cap L$. ( nor 14.) ( x) In *c//*rws. Coi? trove rf j. Lib. 4 Cap is-. I y) De Papi R»m Lib, 9 C p. 3 (z ) Synopf Papiim. Control 4. ^uc»i 7' P.rt 2. ( a ) De Rtm.i'or.nrVQoaefl; 8. Cap ?. (*) DeCler.Cap. 14. afld many other places. ( c ) Dc Pgntif. Lib. 4. Cap* 22 i tie Chap. II. Cyprlanus lfotimus. 239 the Ecclefiajlick JurifdiBion immediatly to the Pope alone ; And ( d ), that all Bifhops receive the Power of Jurifdittion from the Pope ; altho' he affirm'd elfe where ( e ), that all the Apo files received all their Jurifdi&ion immediatly from Chrifil Then, in the place /) wherewith J. S. fill'd his Margent5 he comes to loufe the Arguments Francifcus Vi&oria7 Alphonfus d Caftro, and other Papifts brought againft that which he had afferted before (g ) : The firft of which Arguments is, That the Bi[hops Succeed to the Apoftles as the Pope of Rome to Peter ; and therefore if the Apo files had their Jurifditiion from Cbnjl ; It folhws, that the Bifhops have theirs from Ghrifi alfo. To this Argu- ment he Anfwers, that there is a great difference between the Succejfion of Peter and of that of tie reft of the Apojtles : For (faith he ) the Pope 0/Rome doth properly Succeed to Peter, not as to an Apoftle, but as to an Ordinary Paftor of the whole Church 5 and therefore the Pope of Rome hath his Jurifdiftion from himy from whom Peter had his. But Bijhops do not properly Succeed the Apofiles, becaufe the Apo* files were not Ordinary Paftors but Extraordinary and Delegated, as it were by fpecial Coramiflion, which kind cannot be Succeeded. The Bifhops never thelefs are {aid to Succeed the Apoftles, not properly that way by which oneBifhop Succeeds another y and one King another 9 but upon two other accounts • Firfi> by reafon of the /acred Epifcopal Order : 2ly, by a certain likenejs and proportiyri : Becaufe when Chriji was living upon the TLavtfty he had under him fir ji twelve Apoftles, after that ; 72. Difciples ; So 1 ( d) Cap. 24. ( e) Cap. 23, (/) Gp. 25, (s) Capp. \ nm 240 Cyprlanus lfotimus. Chap. \l< now there are^firfi, Bifaops under t h e Pope a/Rome, after them Presbyters, then Deacons, &c. Now, that the Bifhops Succeed the Apoftles this and no other way, I prove ; ( Now follow, as I can Scottijh them , Bellarritins Realbns wherewith J. S. filfd his tremenduous Margent ) For they have no part of true Apoftoiick Authority : The Apoftles couldPreach alitht IVer Id over, and Found Churches; as is rnanifelt, Matth. ult. Mar. ult. This the Bishops cannot do. the Apnfties had the Gift of Tongues, and Vliracles : The Bifhops have it not. The Apoftles bad Jurifdi&ion over the whole Church: *lhe Bilhops have not. Again > the** can he properly no Succeffion where there is not one going before : But the Apoftles and the Bifhops were both in the Church tngether. Thus the Jefuit: To which Difcourfc I muft odd another palla^e out ot the 2.id. Chapter of the fame Book • where, Bellar- rnin, having affirm' d and (aid, that 'tis a truth . believed by all Men, that the Bishops receive the Vower of Order as immediatly from Chrift as does the fope himfelf, and that the ufe of the Power of Interior Jurifdi&ion depends upon the Exterior^ fubjoyns as follows. " And indeed all agree in c this, that the Jurifdidtion of Bifhops is in gene- € ral of Divine Right : For Chrift himfelf did c fo Order the Church, that in it there (hould be € Paftors, Teachers, &c. for to this purpofe the c Apoftle fpeaks, He gave forne Apoftles, and feme 4 Prophets, and (ome Evangelifts, and forne ?a(iorS * and teachers. And moreover, if it had not * been fo, the tope could have changd this Order ', * and have appointed, that there mould be no € Bifhop in the Church, which without doubt he * cannot Chap. It Cyprianus Ifotimus. 54.fr 9 cannot do. Which is the very mind of Laynezt the Arch-Jefuit, and grand Advocate for the Pa* palin Party of the Council of Trent (b ), Add to all this BtBarmins never to be forgotten 14 cap, it Ckr. where he exprefly afferts the Divine Right of Epifcopacy ; this he aVovVs to be Catholic Do&rine, the Do&rine of the Council of Trent. $. XXIX. Which places of BeUarmln yield haturally the enfuing Conlc&aries. 1. That never was there a Man more keen and earneft than was BtlUrmin for Epifcopacy* and itsDivjne Right; aad> if hemay beuedited^ as doubtlefs here he may, all Papifts are of his mind, believing, that even the*P^f wno can do all things) cannot Aboli(h it, 2. That the Queftion ReUarmin handles ( i ) is a nteer Domeftic Plci among the Papifts themfelves, and that thefe who choof'd the oppofice fide of the Plea, affirming, that Bifliops have their Jurifdi&ion immediatly from Chrift, are as approved and found Catholicks ( that is Papifts ) as is ftettarmin* and thefe of his fide. This Plea, I fay, is purely Domeftic, and con- cerns the Papifts alone. And that I may illufhare the matter ; 'tis exaftly like that Difference of Sentiments, or Queftion among the Preiatifts, If the Bifliop be, properly lpeaking, the Sale Paftor of the Diocefe ; and if tht Presbyters be under Chrift mediatly, and under the Biihop tmmediatly, afcd Officiac in his Right; and as ( h ) Sogvt Hift. of the Council of Trtnu Lib, 7,pig> 6ti. ( * ) De frwtif. fcibj 4. Cap. *a. *3, *4, *5* SI ^ 242 Cyfrianus lfotimur. Chap. IL his Subftitutes ? Of this (ome hold the Affirma* tive, forne the Negative, and yet the former fort, no lefs than the latter, (I fpeak not now oi the followers of Hammond and Taylor ) profefs, that their fimple Presbyters are of Chrift's In- ftitucion, and that it is rot in the Power of the Bifcops to Abolish the Order: And both Parties are look'd on as true and real Prelatifts. Where- fore, to nopurpofe is BeRarmin by J. S. adducd faying, that if the Bishops had their Power from GOD immediatly, the Pope could not take it from them. ;• That Bellarmin, while he moft earneftly endeavours to fix and defend the Pofcs Incompa- rable Abfolutenefs, really Unapoftles him ; and fo fpoils him of all the Power the Papalines give him. 4. That Bettatmins Reafons, wherewith J. $. upraids us, equally levell at the Papacy and Prelacy, and either deftroy both, or neither. Now, that thefe Reafons, as to the purport and fubftance of them, are truly Solid, and in- vincibly overthrow the Papacy (I may well add ) and Prelacy, is, as has been (hewed, by our Re- formers, and the full ftream of Proteftant Divines owned : I fhail however more particu- larly fet down the thoughts of two of them concerning thefe Reafons, who were both famous and prime Proteftants, and in the Church of England Lights of the prime Magnitude ; Whi- taker, I mean, and Willet. Whitaker affirms, in oppofuion to Bellarmln, Thzt Bijhops have not their Authority from the Pope, hut from GOD : But while he thus affirms, he by no means, means Bi/hops Chap. IF. Cfprianut Ifottmus. 245 Bifliops as Contradiftinft from Presbvters, but as Reciprocally one and the fame ; which isfo bright and flaring ( k ), that even Impudence k fe!f cannot deny it: Now to prove his Affir- mation, he brings this Argument, to v*/ir, Ti at theApoftles received their Authority and Jurif- di&ion from Chrift ; and the Biftiops fucceed to the Apoftles as the Pope to Peter. Now, as fhall anon appear- he do:s not mem, that Bifnops or Presbyters Succeed the Apofties as Apoftles, or in their Apoftolace, but only as they were the firft Minifters of the Gcfpel. To Bellarmins Anfwer, viz. Ibtre is a great difference between the Succe/fion of Peter, and that of the reft of the Apoftles, &z. as y u have in the former §. Whitaker Replyss as follows (/ ). H I Anfwer, 4 firft, That this Difnncaion between Peter and 'the reft of the Apoftles is fi&itious. Neither ' the Scripture, nor any Father, nor almoft zny c Papift, except Bellarmin, mentions it. The c Apoftles were no more Extraordinary Paftors € than was Peter : If they were Extraordinary € Paftors, fo alfo was Peter- for they had the c fame Power which he had. If therefore the 1 reft of the Apoftles could not be Succeeded, * then neither could Peter ; For Peter was no c more an Ordinary Paftor than were the other c Apoftles. For whatever belongs to the Paftoral c Office was Common to the reft of the Apoftles 'withP^r. Let our Adverfaries tell us, what 4 Peter did, which the reft of the Apoftle did not. * Peter Taught, Preach'd, Remitted Sins, Foun- ( 4) De Pontif, Qttxft. i. Cap. 3. (/) De Pontif torn} Quaefr. «,Cap 3. Q z < ded *44 Cjprianus lfotimutl Chap. II* c ded Churches, Set over them Presbyters or * Bilhops, Bound and Loofed : Did nee the reft * of the Apoftles the fame things * And the * Jurifdi&ion of Peter cannot be placed in this, \ that he was an Ordinary Paftor ; ■ ■ — ■ ■ — € And this the Scripture it felf alfo Witneffeth : * For ?a ul faith, that Chrift gave Jir/l Apoftles : 4 Whence all the Papifts confefs, that the Apo» * ftolate is the Chief Office. Therefore he that * is an Apoftle, upon this very account that he f is an Apoftle, is greater than any Ordinary f Paftor. But if Veter was an Ordinary Paftor> * then he was not an Apoftle : For thefe two * Offices cannot conllft together in one and the * fame Man. For fince an Apoftle is an Extra- € ordinary Paftor, and hath an Extraordinary c Gift, he that is an Apoftle cannot be an Ordi- * nary Paftor. I Anfwer idly. That the Jefuit * evidently fights here both againft himfelf and € his fellows. For he denyes the fope Succeeds * to Peter as to an Apoftle, but as to an Ordinary * Paftor of the whole Church, and yet all the * Papifts, in their Books, call the Roman See * Apoftolick, »nd the Pope Apoftolick, yea fome- * times at* Apoftle, and rhey affirm, that he can * do that which the Apoitlcs did, to wit, Preach * thro' the whole World. Found Churches, and c fuch like things : Yea and they call Boniface c the Apoftle ot Germany, and AuiJin the Monk * the Apoftle of England, who were fent by the * Pope. Now, this tiellarmin denyes : For if the * Pope Succeeds not to Peter a* 1*0 an Apoftle, c then he himfelf is not as an Apoftle ; And if I be be oot an Apoftle, then he ha* no Jurifdi- 'dion Chap. II. CypriattHs Ifotimus 245 Aion as an Apoftle : And fo their devices deftroy one another. I Anfwer %lj. I am not ignorant of the truth of that which the Adver- fary faith, that Bifliops do not properly Suc- ceed the Apoftles, that is, that they have not fo great Authority as the Apoftles had ; for this is properly to Succeed. So a King fuc- ceeding to a King has the fame Authority • fo a Proconful to a Proconful ; fo a Bifhop to a Bi(hop : For he that fucceeds has equal Au- thority with him to whom he fucceeds. But as the Apoftles received the Keys from Chrift, and a Power of Teaching and Remitting Sins ; fo alfo do the Bifliops : And the Apoftles were* as it were, Common Bifliops of the whole World, but the Bifliops every one of them of their own Churches. But the Bifliops did not fucceed to the Apoftles in thefe things which they had Extraordinarily, that isi 19 that Power, which is truly and properly Apoftoli* cal. For Bellarmin himfelf confeffcth, that the Bifliops have not Authority to Preach thro* the whole World, and to Found Churches : Whence we may underftand how raflily forae Smatterers in Divinity affirm, that the Apofto- lical Authority remains yet in the Church. Bellarmin here ingenuoufly confeffeth, that the Bifliops have no part of the true Apoftolical Authority, the Chief part of which he placeth in Preaching thro' the whole World, and Founding Churches. Hence I gather two things. Firfi, That, even in BeUarmini Judg- ment, they ate deceived who affirm this Apoftolic Authority to remain in th$ Biftops. Qj 'ato 246 CyprianuslfoliMus, ' Chap. II. c. 2//, That the Pope bimfeif cannot challenge € this, becaufe this PoWer is Apoftolical 5 But 3 c the Pope Succeeds not to Peter as an Apoftle; c therefore he has not this Apcftolick Power. € And indeed HeVaimin fays rightly> that the * Fope Succeeds not to Peter as to an Apoftle, ■ * for then if he truly and properly fuccceded to € an Apoftle, ht. would truly be 20 Apoftle, and * then he woulddo truly that which rhe Apoftles 1 did, that U> He would Write Ca conical Books? . c he would have the Gift of Tongues and Mira- cles, he would Walk upon Serpents he would as the Lord faith by his Pro- *phet, My Spirit thit is upon cheese. Ifa. 5*9.21. * Thirdly, Tp btflarmincs laft Argument we € ahfwere; F\rft» that it cannot be (hewed, that 1 there were any fuch Bifhops, as he fpeaketh of J in the Apoftles time, feeing the names of Epif- * cvfui and Vrtsbftcr, of Bifhop and Elder are con* 1 founded in the Apoftles writings. And now judge, if, according to the Judg- ment of thefe brighteft Stars in the Englifh He- «iifpheret theft Rwfoni of Bcllarmin be not folid ; - -* Truths; Chip. !!• Cjprianns Ifotimui. 249 Truths ; if they do not overthrow the Popifh and Prelatical Dream of the Perpetuity of the Apoftolate ,• and if they p ove not, that an A- poftie cannot properly be fucceeded ; that they can be fucceeded in nothing, but what is com- mon to all Paftors ? And therefore, if J. S. be not either void of common Senfe or common Honefty in this his pretended Retortion, as in* deed he is in all the reft he here advances. We do not only, as he fays, charge them with ufmg of Popifti Arguments, but alfeofpopHhPofitions, and Popish Arguments or Sophifms as the Proofs of them : This, to name no others, I have plain* \y enough done in my N*z,ianz>eni Querela^ and brought, at leaft, fome Scores of InftaneeSj which, as I did* and ftill do believe, unanfwer* ably vouch it. And therefore I iaid (n )% Their Government and Hierarchic Scale is one and the fame $ fav* one Reundle, with that of Rome At their Arguments they hringy either from Scripture or Anti- quity, are learn d from Bellarmin andjuch Roma- Rifts, and admit no lefs Improvement for the evincing a Papal Authority , than the Epi] copals have made thereof, for the eftabfifhing of their Prelatical Power. And in my Introdu&ion, they ufe t§ Englifh theft Romifh Sophifms, and yet fuite difiemhk tbeAnfweTi and Refutations the Reformed have given thereto. Thefe, with fbme others of my Expreffions, he has colle&ed, but without any Proof, or the Ap- pearance of any Proof, fave fuch infuife Stuff as you have already feen, of either their Falfenefs or Impertinency ; as if it were a Shame for me to fay ought, chat pleafcs noc the Hierarchies, (rt) Part r, Scft. l«. §.3. tho* 2 5.° Cypriamts lfoti&ks. Chap. ft. tho' never fo true, neycr fo pertinetot. Now, had he not been Confciom of the Badnefs of his Caufe, he had faU'n upon my Book particularly, laid open the Falfhood of my Allegations, prov- ed that they ftole not their Arguments from Pa- pifh, that is, that the Papifts us'd not thefe Arr guments againft Presbytery, and for Popery, that ths Hierarchies uie for Prelacy* dsmoniuac- ed, finally, that Prelacy is not* by the joynt Forces of bodi Papifb and English Hierarchies* to their Power, fuftain'ci «agajji}ft .the whole Body of Proti liaats^ He law, that to do all thefe, or any of thefe, wasfimply impoflible ; wherefore he made Lies his Refuge, and betook hunfelf to moft wretched Cavills, miferable Evafions, falfe Definitions and Idea's of Popery, Heretical Ter- giversations. And as to his Retortions or Re- criminations ; what ihall I lay ? I dare fay, that never was there a Do&rine, no, not that of the Perfection pf the Scriptures, of Jufcfication by Faith, or of the Iwo Sacraments, more And* papift, more Proteftanti than are thefe which he moft fenfclefly and ihamelefly pretends to Re- tort, as if they were no lefs Popifti, than is that of their Englifh Popijh Ceremonies, of the Divine Right of Diocejan Epifcopacy^ and other fuch Stuff as is common to Papifts and Prelatifts, in oppoli- tion to the Bulk of the Reformed Churches. §. XXX. And now I go on to what he calls Onr ether ?Iea ( o )9 which is (faith he ) that Pre- lacy paves the way to the Papacy : 7 he fameReafon that raifes a Bifhop abeve Presbyters, may likewife raife an Arch-bifhop cv*r Biflbops, and a Patriarch (•) S. 17. ever Chap. II. Cypiatm* Ifotimus. 251 ever Ardvbifliops ; and a Pope over Patriarchs, as Smedymnuus forms it. Fur I have fufficienriy evidenced the Soliditv of this Argument ab while I demonftrated, that the Motives which make N/fen defert the D.oftrinc of Parity arqong Paftorsare no lefs powerful to oblige them to de- fert the Doctrine of Parity among Dioccian Bi- (hop^and fo to carry them up to the Papacv j made it undenyable, that it w s fo in Matter of Fa ffi&t's Influence too ) Cart-wright advanced it in Eng* land% Never Presbyterian almoft has omiticd it fince. Thus he: A a6 yet f» he fays, " That many whom we are earned to have reckon- ed our heft Friends, have been at pains to fhew4 that between Epifcopacy and Popery there is no Connexion ; And then brings many chief Presbyterians, and affirms, he cou!d oring many moe, who, as he faysi Depofe, that this our Argw mmt is of no value% But if it be found, as, I truft, it will? that they depofed no fu:;h thing, ic mud be yielded, that J* S. is guilty of a double Injury, in both making them to fay what they never faid, and to contradict themfeivss to boot. Now' 452 CyptUnus IJotlmuu Chap. IL J&owy fir Anfwer* This, Gentlemen (faith he, di- recting his Speech to the Worthy Mr. RuU% who now refts from hisJLabours, to the Reverend Mr. Forrefier, and to me ) is the third Inftance of jour Modefy, I promised U put you in mind of. But why (hould we three be reckoned Immodtfa more than Bez,a> and almoft all other Presbyte- rians, for treading in his and their Steps, and improving, perhaps, and further illuftrating the Argument they put in our hand ? u For ( to be * ihort and plain ) ( continues be ) it is purely * a Sopbf/m which you have borrowed from the c Tapifts, Bellarmin has it as handfomly drefs'd, € and as takingly fet off, as ever any of you had * it .? As you may fee by his own Words on the € Margent. ■ i m ■■ - And now I would € ask, with what Countenance you can infift on * fuch an Argument, according to your own 1 Principles f How can you be fo Tapaturient * ( to u(e one of your own Terms ) as thus to * borrow an Argument from the Vapipsl Very fair : The Proreftants demonftrate, that many Arguments of the Papifts for, and Defences of their Dodrines, are no lefs ferviceable to Paga- nitm than to Popery j Are they therefore Fa- vourers of Paganiim ? Do not they, by this their very pra&ice, and endeavour to render Popery odious, evidently declare, that they look on paganifm as a thing moft palpably odious and abominable ? The Cafe is to an ace the fame : Nor have I the leaft ground to judge, that fuch Criminal Dealing was the Effed of his Igno- rance, but of a worfe Quality : For Charity mult not willfully put out her own £yes. j\ XXXI, Chap. If* Cyprlanus Ifotimui. 253 $\ XXXI. Nor has the Retortion he endea-, yours fi) a Grain of more Candour or-Confci- enee. Tbe fame very Argument ( faith he ), at leafi ufdn the Matter, has been *s much infixed on by the Independents and other Se&arians, againfi your Scheme, as by you againfi ours% This, I fay, is untrue ; it never was, it never could be infilled on againft our Scheme, either upon the matter or manner. How often ( continues he ) have they told you, that your Subordination of Claf- fes has as natural a Tendency toward Popifo Tyran- ny* as our Subordination of Officers \ And what then ; feing they told us a Monftruous Lie / Yet I'll not fay, you were believing a Lie, when you wrote this : For you know, and I doubt if you dare deny it, that the Subordination of Lejfer Synods or Councils to Greater, Vrovincials to Nationals, and Nationals to Oecumenicals, has been univerfally and juftly look'd on as the choiceft Expedient againft tyranny of whatfoever kind, but more especially Papal tyranny, or the Ea- (laving o\ the Church to the Luji of One Monarch or Tyrant. Tiic Truth is, our Argument, with which he moil fcnfelefly would parallel this of the SeSaries, is no lefs Oppofice to it, than is White to Black, Light to Darknefs ; fince, as is made evident above, nothing is more Rational, nothing more Juftify'd by Experience and Matter of Fad, than is our Argument • nothing more Abfurd and Mad% than is the Argument of the Se&aries, provided it deferve the Name; For what is more Senfelels and Bruciftu than to at firm, that the Subjeftivg oiLejjer Judicatories to Great?. 254 Cypriams Ifotimus. Chap, IF. Greater ones rends natively to the Subjecting bl Greater and more Numerous Judicatories to .LeRcr ones, or all Judicatories, thpr never fo Numerous to the Incontroulable WiU of one Man ? . J.. £ indeed has raked together no frnall Quantity out of forne Independents, and other Sefldries3 *vi£m the Difitnting Brethren, Hooker, Maitin-m<*r-frieQ . Sterry ( who is alfo cited to the fame purpofe by * Ge*rge Keith, in his Epiftle prefixed to his Qua- kerifm nj Popery ), Spittleboufe : But if any Man can fhew, that there is in all that Heap one Gr^in, one Syllable of Argument, one Jota more to the purpofe, than this Abftracft of 'etp, that J. S. has given us, erlt mihi magnus Apollo. It is certain, that if this Fardel of moft Foul, Reafonkfs, and Senfelefs Railing, can ferve him for a Retor ion, and contribute to the Abfolv- ing of the Prelatifts from oun Charge, it does no lefs Service to the Quakers, or any other Symbo- lizerswith Papifts, in the like Streighu §. XXXIL Odder yet, if odder can be> are his Sections 21, and 22. How frequently (faith hej de the Protefters in that little Book (viz,. Pro- tefters no Subverters, Presbytery no Papacy ) injiji on this way of Reatoning, that the %ulmiffion to the Judicatories of the Church, required by the Refolutioners, was a plain Step of Popifh Tyranny. * They fay (continues he,relating the Words of the Protefters ), that you would fain know that which you already fully know, and which they, in thefe very places you quoted, have taught you ? Can they tell you more plainly,that they impute nothing of all that Rigor and Se- verity to the Principles and Scheme of Presbyte- ry ; but only to the Rejolutiomr Presbyterians? Now, does this purge you, or furnifh an Anfwer to our Argument ? Juft as much as it furniflbeth an A*i{wer to any Argument* wh&ewich the Principles of the Papifts, or of any other $z£t> furmih us againft them. The Refo- 2 $6 Cyprianui Ifotimm. Chap. if. Refolutioners, on the other fide, Were as far allowing the Principles and Scheme of Presbytery to be chargeable with Tyranny, Popery, or any tendency thereto ; but deny it withal, that the Affembly was guilty of the rigor and fevcrity wherewith the Protefters charg'd it : If true or not, or if both fides in that unhappy Divifion failed not, concerns not the prdfent Debate : It is certain he gains nothing from the Refolutioners f more than from the Protefters ; ieing the former never affirm'd, that any thing of Tyranny or Popery was a native Confequent of the Principles of Presbytery, But, faith he, "IhsRefolutionen •fay, thev do not derive the neceffity ofSubmif- * fion from the Infallibility of the Judicatories, * and that herein they differ from the Papifts- * Now, we do no more pretend the Infallibility * of ourBifhops than they of their Judicatories. Thus J. S. impertinently and nonfenfically- feing there is here not one word, not one fyllable, which can be brought as an Anfwer to our Argument : For, how fenfelefs and reafonlefs is it thus to Reaion • The Prelatijis pretend no more the Infallibility of their Btjhops, than the Refolutioners of their Judicatories ; Erg*, the Rea- fonsby which they eftabiifh Dioce/ans over Parocb J>9iiors are not equally powerful to Raife Metropo- litans over Dioce/ans, and fo on. Nor is hit following threefold Comparifon of Us Party With the Rejclutioners, one grain more to his pur- pofe, fome of them being utterly falfe, all of them impertinent and fenfelefs. At a Word, I defy J. a. and all his Tribe, to bring ougnt laid by eitner Party, chat can amount to even the Chip. If. Cypriatvs IfitMus. 257 the leaft ftiadow of an Anfwcr to our Argif* ment. j$\ XXXIII. la the next place ( r ) he Contends, har I have furnifhed the Vrelatifiswith the fub fiance of a very good and fatis factory Anfwer to the pitiful Sopbifm. So he nick- names the Argument I now vi dtcate. Now, if this be as he fnys, one vvcuici r ink, it would be but a fmall part of the Civiiiry I owe to the Prelatifts ; for with many an Aofwer thev have firniftied me; againft the beft and chiefeft of their Arguments : And yet I doLbt, ii: after a fair hearing of the matter I be found to be fo kind • at lead, I am fure, I never defign'd to be fo kind ; yea I dare fay, I never was fo kind ; Hear and Judge : To the Argument I now fuftain,Dr. Burnet (/^gave the fiihion of a Retortion, as follows : May not one that Quarrels a (landing MiniHry, argue on the fame grounds ,• a Minijters Authority over the People gave the rife to the Authority Bijhfps pretend over Mlniflers ; and fo the Minilhry will be concluded the firfi (lep of the Beajfs Throne ? While I was ener- vating this Retortion, I ufed thefe enfuing words ( t ) : T*ke a Go f pel Mtmflery unconfounded with a Papal Hierarchy, and then there is not the leaft Colour or pretext frany Mans afcribing to it the fir jl Rife ef Popery ; the Parity we plead for among Paftors cf Flocks \ Jecures a Gofpd Miniii-ry fr'in auy Force Or Appearance oj Keafon in any fucb AJfault. Here, as he dreams* he finds an Anfwer to our Argu- ment ; and therefore Returns, as follows : " Now what can run more fmoothly than, with (') §. *3° (/) Confer: pag. '{ii* (t)Hzz. Quet jag. 105, t©£, R J little 258 Cyprianus Ifotimus. Chap. Um * little Alteration, this way of reafoning does for c us ? Here it is. Take a Gofpel Epifcopacy un- c confounded with a Papal Hierarchy, and then c there is not the leaft colour or pretext for any € Man's afcribing to it the firft Rife of Popery; c The Parity we plead for among Bijhops fecures a c Go/pe/ Epifcopacy from any Force or Appearance € of Reafon in any fuch Affault, as is commonly c made by PresbyUrifim, who are not afham'd to c come in with fuch a Popifh Sophijm as a Prejudice * againft Epilcopacy. This feems to be enough for c you Mr. Jamejon. Thus J. S. But the Ad- vantage of winning at me with this home thruft, he owes tohis ownPrudentialsjin fuppreffing the reft of my Anfwef to D. B's Retortion. For, if, as I there faid, and now fuftain, the Belief of a Gofpel Miniftry, as a thing altogether neceffary for the Being of a Church, be rooted in the Hearts of all Chriftians, fave a few con- temptible Anomals ; and, on the other hand, there be fo little neceffity of Prelacy, that the far greateft and beft pare of its Abettors, and in thefe D. B. himfelf, grants, that it is no different Order from Presbytery, has no footing in the Word of GOD, ancl confounds a Prelate with a Parochial Paftor ,• Then, I. It is evident, that there is no place for D. 5's Retortion, nor for jf. S's Defence thereof; feing the Gofpel Miniftry contributes only to the Ereilion of the Beajis Throne Accidentally and Occasionally ,• but Epifopacy Neceflarily and Natively, as affording to it no worfe Arguments and Props than are thefe with which it felt is fupported, lily. From Chap. IF. Cyprianus lfotimus. 1 59 Illy. From the fame Anfwer it follows, that your Gojpel Efijcopacy is a Chimtra, and fo the An- swer you imagined your felf turniflied with by me becomes an idle Dream. Illly. Nor can you ever without a manifeft Contradi&ion diftinguifl* your Epifccpacy from a Papal Hierarchy ; fince, as even the Council of Trent (0> and Bellarmin(u) acknowledge, the Bifhops make a chief and principal part of it* And the truth is, that both your Bifhops as diilin- guifh'd from Presbyters, and Presbyters as diftin- guifh'd from Bijhops, are a part of the Papal Hitrar- cby* and neither of them any Part of the Go/pel Miniftry. IV/y. Beit, that you Mr. S. and fome others of your gang, plead for the Parity of Bifops : Great matters : What are Tou ? Don't others as Leatn'd and Celebrated of your Paity plead for the Contrary ? Can you be Ignorant of this i Or can you Deny it ? Can you, moreover, be Ignorant, that your Chnfch of England, your only well Con/iitut Church, by her inconteftable Pradice gives you the Lie ? Are all the 24 Eijhops any thing e!fe but Suffragans to Two ? Did noc the Epifcopal Fa&ion, while prevalent in Scot- land, write after her Copy ? Did ever yet the Hierarchy reign any where, but this Subordination of Biftiops to Arch-bifhops was Pracftifed ? Don't you therefore publickly,' and before &he Sup, fay one thing, and do another? V/y. Suppofe, that any Epifcopal Man fhould have Conicience and Courage to uie the fame Arguments againlt Arch* bifhops, might noc the (OMT. *3- («; OeCler. Cap. if. 260 Cyprlanus lfotimus. Chap, If# Jure Divino- Ave iepifcopal Man return you, with Ikcle Alterations your own Anfwer : takt a Gofpel ArchiepifccpaCy, &c. and, The Verity we f ead for among Arcb-bifhops, &C. The lame Return may be made you by fuch as are for the Divine Right of Patriarchs s And yet who doubts, that the Ere&ingof thefe Metropolitans, Primates, Patriarchs, and fuch Oligarchic Advances towards One Head, or Pope, did neceifarily and natively tend co j, is Introduction? Vlly. But you plead for the imparity o\ Bijhops • Of what Bifcops, pray ? Of Viocefans, no doubt* Why not of Parochial or Congregational Bifhops or Paftors ? Why, forfooth then the Church could have no Head, no High Priefi% no Order, no Unity. And now acknowledge theArguings of 5 our Fa<5iion,and confefs3that they with no lels Force beat you from the Parity of Diocefans than from that of Parochials% and compel you, at laft,. to cake Sanctuary in the Capitol. VH/y, And now to be free with you ,• never did a more Stramineous, ridiculous, and fenfe- lefs Ratiocination, than is this which you attempt to defend, difgrace a Prefs. Whether it be ul'd, as you fay Nicolas Sanders did, for a direct Argument in favour of Popery,' or for a Retortion, as D. B. uf'd it5 it is plainly this • If the Church ought to have Payors, then thefe Paftors ought ro have paftors 5 But on the other hand, if once v^u faifdy iuppofe the Reafon- ablenefsof this Unremovable Realbning, it will by a inoft fluent and fmooth Sequel follow, that tnefe Paftors of Pallors ought tp have paftors, and ipon, $V XXXIV. Chap II. Cyf nanus Ifotimns. i&l f. XXXIV. Next ( x ) he faith, "That the c many Presbyterians who have acknowledged •Epifcopacy to be a Lawful or a Tolerable f Government, were likewife bound to h^ve 1 confefled, that prelacy doth not.peceffarily in- * fer Popery. But the Refutation is at hand : For, not to mention, that his giving no Irftan- ces is a ftirewd token of his Diffidence* I Affirm, that they never Acknowledged, that the Sole- Tower Epifcopacy, or Negative Valet- Epifcopacy. was a Lawful or Tolerable Government, except: perhaps in a Comparative fenfe, as Calvin called the Englifb Ceremonies Tolerable Fooleries. It they have allow'd of a Primacy of Oider as a thing introduced by Humane Conftitutiom and Indifferent, you have not one grain of Advan- tage thereby ; and therefore your Confluence is palpably Inconfequent • that there is no necef- fary Connexion between Pre/acy and Popery. He would prove from this, that where Gaujes work Jtfecejjarity, they Work not only Uniformly, but Con- flantly. I Anfwer, they do, if contrary Cauies do not occur, which SufEUminate their Wheels, and fift their Motion. Was not, in the Apoltles Time, the Mylieryo* Iniquity Working Necef- farily and Natively the Birch and Revelation of the Man of Sin, and yet did not S tffrrig*, the Letter Let and Stop for a time the Progrels of its Working, till He was taken out of the Way, Nor is there, moreover, ought furer, than that Popery paves the way to Faganifrv, and has a native Tendency to it, and yet, fo powerful are the Lets and Impediments, that Chrifiiamty can (*) §.24. R 3 never 262 CypriAnut Ifotimus. Chap. II. never be formally, in that Church, Abjured* and Heatbenifm Introduced, He is Ridiculous, while he fayes here, " That fmce ever Epifco- c pacv was in the Church, it has beenfomewhere € without Popery ; and that there was Epifeo- * pacy long before either the Prelate of Conftan* e tinople or Rome did fet up for being Univerfal ' Bilhop : As if this were a fufficient Argu- ment to, compel us to Grant, that Epifcopacy has no Neceffary and Native Tendency to Popery ; fince he knows not his own Name better than he knows, that we both believe and contend that this Ancient Epifcopacy not only hsd a Neceffary and Native Tendency to Popery, but alio, at length, Procreated the Man of Sin himlelf. We deny, that ever their Hierarchy did, flialU or can Exift without Popery, in Whole or in Part. To his faying, That the Pope hat been me ft Keenly and Zealoufly rejeiled by all the Jiijhofs in Britain thefe 140 Tears, I Anfwer, that no lefs Keenly has Judaifm and Paganifm been Rejected by the Popes and Papifts for many hundred Years; and yet 'tis certain> that Popery has a Native Tendency to both ,• not to mention with how much Popifh Leaven the Jure-Divino Epifcopah, Bifaops, and others, have been Soured, tho' for their privat gain they like it not to Subjeft their Altcrim Orbis Papam to the Pope of Rome. §. XXXV. Hitherto he has brought up againft us many Battalions of pagans, Papifts, Brounifts .Independent J,yea and Scottish Presbyterians, £Ot a few ,• But che worft of all follows (; ) ,• for (*,) §.55. a 6. he Chap. II. Cjpriavnf Ifotimus. 263 he has now fummon'd a General Council of Divines, Englifh, French, Genevan, SuitzJ> High German, Dutch, and who knows of how many Nations elfe ; And the fadeft of all is, that thefe our Condemnators are our own Friends, Learn d Presbyterians : Alas then, how heavy will the Sentence of the Prelatifts be againftus! But what have they laid? Why, i hey have been at fains to (hew, that between Epil'opacy and Papacy there is no Connexion, and there is no Confequence from the One tJ the Other, and a ]ury of th m ( fubjoyns he) mo fi Unanimously Abfolve us from being Friends to the Papacy, by oxr being fit Epijccpaty ; inafmucb as they do mo/l willingly depofe, t bat your Argument now under Confederation is of no value. 1 1 eld you before, that it was a Fopifr Argument: I tell you now, that ~never an Author almoji, even of your own Varty, has written againft Popery^ but has Anjwered it : Nay, and Ridicufd it ; Particularly 9 Mr. c Calvin, Antonius Sadeel, another Genevian ; 'Pezelius, Lambertus Danseus ,• Whitakerus, ' Francifcus Junius, Samuel Hubertus, Daniel • Chamierus, Amefius, Abrahamus Rambunius, c Salmafius, Samuel Marefius, Wendelinus, Fran- € cifcus Turretinus, Philippus a Limborgh. Here are XV as I Jaid, a full Jury. ( to whom he adds Moyfes Amyraldus ) Tou have their Depofitions on the Aiargent. And now, who can once Face him ,• when he is back'd with fuch a Company of fo Great Names, efpecially when he has brought up his never failing Margent, chat, like the Gorgons Head, confounds his Enemies at the firft Sight : Yet I chink I may adventure not only to look to to but handle it alio, and thac \vi hou. 264 Cyprtimts ^Jottmus. Chap, H, without the leaft hazard of any Metamcrpko* * §. XXXVI, But firft take, as I can tranflate it, Bellarmins Argument, w herewith J. S. cramm'd his laft mentioned Margenc. iQ In eve- * ry particular place* there is one Bilhop Con- f Ititured to Rule all the reft of tne Minifters f and Paftors of that place. ■*« *■ ■' * ■-- Again, in * every Province are placed particular Metropo- * litans to Rule over theBifhopb therein, and in ' greater Cities Primates or Patriarchs for the € Guiding of a greater Charge. Jr is juft there- c fore, that there fhou d alfo be feme One to € Ru'e the whole .Church., and to whom bneh c the Primates and Patriarchs fhould be (ubjed : *For if a Monarchic A Principally doth agree € to one City, one Province, one fefefiatt, why c not alfo to the whole Church ? What Reafofi € is there, that the Parts (hould be Governed ' Monarchically, and the Whole Autocratically? * And bv whe't Reafons it is proved, that oac Bt- * {hop (houid be over Parifh Priefts, Arc n-bifhops € ovci Bi;hops ; by the fame Reafons it niuv be c proved, that one High Prieft Ihould be over c Patriarchs. Why is one fcifhop necefijtry in 4 every Church* unlefs becaufe o;,e City cannot ' wtii be Governed if not by One? But the * Univerfal Church is likewiic One. Moreover * wherefore is one Arch bifhop required, unlefs € for this, that the Bifhops may he keeped in 4 Unity, that their Stiifes may be determined ; * that they may be called to the Synod ,• that c they may be obliged to exeicife their Office f ' But, for the lame Cautes, one is n^eoful to 'Rule Chap. II. Cypridnus Ifotmus. 265 € Rule all Arclvbilhops and Primates. This, I acknowledge, is BeHarmins Argument, and a Sophifm too : And vet I cannor be of jf. S's Mind, that we ought co be atham'd rocome ia with it, or be accounted Papaturiencs for ufing it: For, I/?, We are fo far from believing Bellarmin* Conclufion, or from ufing his Argument for his Defign, vizj. To bring ail Men to the Pope ; that, on the contrary, we ufe it, that we may bring thefe, whom we judge to be too nigh him, to a greater diftance from him: And fo we cann't be faid to borrow or ule it any other Way, than David did Goliab's Sword. Had we ufed it to prove Beilarmin\.^onc\ufion, we might have been teamed Borrowers of Popilli Argu- ments, no leh juftly than we fo term the Preia- tifts for ufing the Popifh Arguments to prove ths Popifh Conclufion, the Divide Right of Dio* cefan Epifcopacy i But, on the otfc*r hand, to call thfl Ufe we make of it, the Borrowing of a Popiih Argument, ortoalledge, that we, equal« !y> herein, wich the Preiatifts ufing the Argu- ments of Bdlarmin and other Papifts, to prove their Popiih Conclufion, that Epifcopacy is of Divine Right, are Papaturients, and Symbolize with Papifts, is one of the mod Senielefs, bhame- lefs and Monftruous Calumnies, that have rea- dily hitherto toui'd Paper. lldly, I nave demonftrated the Validity of this Argument, as we ufe it againft the Epifcopals, not only from the Practice and Acknowledgments of the Ancient Church, but alfo from the clear Confeffions of the Englijh Hierarchies ; fothat, «• if 266 Cyprunus Ifottmus. Chap. \\% if Jo many Learned Presbyterians have Depofed, that this our Argument is of no value, and have Anfwer- ti it, they muft, of neceffity, have negle&ed fo fully to weigh and confider it as they Aould have done ,• which cann't be counted very ftrange, fince they were not then diredly De- puting againft Epifcopacy. Illdly, 'Tis mod prefumable, that they never defign d to Anfwer it ,• fince, as J. S. has own'd, never Presbyterian almoft, fins* Befca'j time% has omitted it. TVtkly, And as they never defign'd to Anfwer itj fo I affirm, they never did Anfwer it. They deny'd, indeed, the Confequence of Bel- larmin's Argument, not abfolutly, but only in fo far as it lean'd on this Suppofition, that 'tis as poffible and practicable for any one Man, to guide the Paftors and People of the whole World, as to guide the Paftors and People of any one Ci- ty or Diftricft,- ( otherwife, they not only did not deny this Confequence, but, on the contrary, ftill affirm'd and fuftain'd it to be juft and valid.) But herein they do not at all hurt or infringe the Argument as we manage it, and in order to our Conclufion againft the Prelatifts : For, tho' any who Confcientioufly confiders, how weighty a Matter the Charge of Souls is, will frankly yield, that the greater the Number be, the Charge is the harder ; yet the Prelatifts ( which is enough toourpurpofe) are of another Mind* and plead, that the Empire of thsir Ecclefiaftick Monarch, the Bifnop, may be as large, and contain as ma- ny Soul* as the Empire of any Secular Mo- narch Chap^ H. CjprUnus Ifot'mns. 267 narch ( a ), and they pra&ife accordingly; f.g.the Biflaop of London, bcfides the Souls fcarce nume- rable within that Diocefs, is Biihop of all knglijh America, and yec it is undenyabie, that hpcan no more Vific ^nd Guide them, than cafi the Pope all thefe that fubjed: themfelves to his Yoke. Ytbly* They never faid, they never thought, that the wretch\3 Sophifms, viz. That taken from the Pretext of Unity, and the like, where- with they ufe to trick People into the Belief of the Neceffity of Dioceian Epifcopacy, don't ful# ly as much, arid as ftrongly conclude the Necef- fity of a Papacy. Moreover, Ylthly, All they faid of the Non-conclufible- nefs of a Pap-cy from Epifcopacy is only to be underftood of the Epifcepm Pr£fes, or Conftant Moderator, which they might judge tolerable • not at all of the Sole VowenEpijootaCy, or N Therefore be fays either exprefly, or even by the remoteft Conle* quence, that the common and prime Topicks which Prelatifts take from the Pretexts of Order , Unity, &c. whereby to eftablifo nothing more ridiculous and fenfeiefs rhan is this Confe* quence. And yet this moft unreafonabie Rea- foning is familiar to J. S. Afcer the fame way deals he by halmafiwy and other Divines, whofe Words he abufes ( b ). At a word, this whole Margent, as no fmall part elfe of this Chapter is fufficiently fumm'd up in two Ratiocinations ( pardon me for giving them the Name, fince I know not how elfe to fpeak of them ): One of which I have juft now expofed ,• the other is to a hair like it, viz,. Thefe Divines faid, that tho' 'twere practicable for One Man to Guide fome One Church or Diocefs, yet no (ingle Man could Guide all the Churches in the World: Therefore they maintain'd, that the now fre- quently nam'd Topicks, from which the Prelatifts ufe to conclude an Imparity among Tailors, do not as realiv conclude an Imparity among Bijhops, and ac length iec up one Bifhop over mem all. Thele are undenyably your Reafonings, with which all this Your Margent, and fomewhat more alfo, ftancs or fails. And now I will allow you and all your Party to help you, not only as long time as "Baron is faid to have ipent in Compiling his Annals% but ev'n a full Platonic Ttary to make either of 'em good. And now I return to Calvin ; who, on the i. to the Vhi/ippians* having declared, thatj in Scripture, Bifhop and Yaftor is one and the fame, and the Term* compkatly Synonymous, and that aferward, by Humane Cuftom, the Name of £i(lwp was unjuftly appropriated to the Mode* ( b ) See, e. g. §< 27. rators Ghap. II. Cfprianus* lfotitmts. 271 rators of the ClaJJes oiVresbyteries, adds as follows* "For, from this corrupt Signification of the € Word Bifhop, this evil enfued, that as if all the c Presbyters had not been Collegues called to the c fame Fun&ion, one, under Pretext ot this new c Title, did cunningly procure to himfelfDomi- c nion over the reft. And in his Inftitutions (c ), fliewing how the Abufe of Ecclefiaftic Jurifdi- ftion introduc d the Papal Tyranny, he thus writes : " The Power was not in the Hand of € One, that he might do according to his Will ; € but in the Bench of Presbyters, who were in * the Church, what the Senate is in the City. And having alledg'd Cyprian to prove the Truth of this his Aflertion, and to fliew, that befide the Clergy, others alfo of the People did cognofce in Ecclefiaftical Caufes, he (ubjoyns: "But c this was then the common and ufual way to € Govern the Church by a Senate of Presbyters, c of whom there were two forts, the firft Or- * dained for Teaching, and the other only Cor- ' re&ors of Manners : But this Inftitution did by * lictle and little degenerate from what at firft it s had-been, fo that even, in the time ofAmbroJe, 1 Clergymen alone cognofced on Ecclefiaftick € Affairs, concerning which he complains in thefe c Words, The Ancient Synagogue, and afcer- c ward the Church had Elders, without whofe ( Counfel nothing was done. We fee how much c the Holy Man is ctffplealed, that things were c grown fomewhat worfe, when as yet Affairs * continued in fome tolerable Condition, at leaft. * What would he have faid, if he had feen the (c) Lib. 4t Cap. H.§. 6,7. € deform 272 Cypriamts lfotimns. Chap. H# 'deformRuines that are now, which fcarce have * any Veftige of the Ancient Edifice ? Firft of c all, the Bilhop, ag^inftall Right- and Honefty, € arrogated to himfe.f aione, rh it* which was ' committed to the Church. For it is all one, as 1 if the Confu! had expelled the Senate, and ' afurped the Empire himlelt alone. For furely, ' as he is in Honour Supcriour to thereii, fo there * is more Authority in the College than in one ' Man : It was therefore a very wicked deed, 'that one Man, having got irro his own hand 4 the Power which wa» common to the v. r.ole ' College, did pave the way to Tyrannical Do- 'mination, 'natch/d away from the Church her 'own Right, and aboiidi'd the Presbytery c which by the Spirit of Chrift had been ordain- *ed. Bar, as one mifchief ftill procreats ano- S's Dodrine of Parity among Diocefan Bifhops, than to make him defert our Dodrine of Parity among ail Paftors? ( 9 ) AdConttOT: 3. Lib. 1. Cap. 9. & Yea a 74 Cyprianus lfotimtsl Chap. II#« Yea the fame Danaus is as clear and dogmatic, as any Man readily can be, that Prelacy pav'd the way to Popery, and was its fare Harbinger and Antecedent. " So long (faith he (f) ) as " the Apoftolic Conftitution continued in the Church, the Presbyters chat labour in the Word and Do&rine differed *not at all from Bifhops : Bat atcer that by the Ambition of thefe who Prefided over other Presbyters^ and took to chemfelves the name of Bifhops, the Apoftoli- calForm anJ DHcipline was abolished, then the Biihops began to be diflinguifhed even from thefe Presbyters that Preached the Word, and to thefe Bifhops, contrary to GOD's Word, the whole Dignity was afcribed, nothing thereof almoft being left to the Presbyters; which thing, and the Ambition of the Bifhops did in time Ruine the whoie Church, as the matter it felf proclaims in the Papacy • And fo the Apoftolic Epifcopate was aboliihed, and a Humane Epifcopacy began, from which fprang the Satanic Epifcopacy, as it is now in the Papacy. - ■ - ■ ■ ■ ■■ The diftin&ion of a Bifhop from a Preaching Presbyter is Juris Pontificii, of the Pontifician and Pofitive Right, viz* after that the Foundations of the Tyranny of the Biihops were laid ,• but it is not of Divine c Right, as BeUarrnin fancies. See alfo to the fame purpofe ad Caput fequens ; and on 1 Tim. |. he enlarges on this matter. And having luculently proved the Identity of Bifhop and Preaching. Presbyter, and affirmed, that thefirft beginning of Epifcopacy was nothing but a meer Pioftafie, (f) A»i Controv. 5- Lib. i« Cap. 14. or Chap. II. Cypriantts lfotimus. 27$ Or Conftant Moderatorfhip, he goes on thus- c.Se?ng nothing is to be added to the Word of GOD, we fay, that this was rafhly introduced and received in the Churches of GOD, and affirm," that thefe were the real Seeds and Foundations of chat miferable Tyranny that afterwards creep'dinto the Church ,• as is clear in the ; Epiftle oijohn, where Diotrepbes that loved the Preheminence iscondemn'd. — - Whence therefore, and for what end was it introduced ? I anfwer, firft, that, as appears from Ep;pbanius and Jerom, it was In- ftituted in Alexandria, contrary to the Cuftom of the reft of the Churches : But why f The reafon is, asjerom fays, that occafion of Schifm might be removed, and the Seeds of Diffen- tion pluck'd up : Bat on the contrary the matter it felf has taught us, that this was the moft cer- tain Seed and Foundation of the Univerfal Apoftafie from the Faith of Chrifti and the great prop of that moft cruel Tyranny, which at this very day prevails in the Papacy. Thus Vanxiis : Where you have the very Charge I now juftifie, the very Argument I now vindicat, as plainly and roundly managed and urged, as readily could have been done, ' tho' he had even forefcen, that his Suffrage in this matter /houid one day be requifice for difpelling of chat Fog wherein J. S. and his Partifans mind to in- veigle thele whofe lot has confin'd them to the ufe of their Mother Tongue alone. §. XXXIX. Charmer ( g ) propofes the Argu- ment out ot turrian and BeUarmin thus; If cm (t) Panftrat, torn. *« Lib. $, Cap- 14V & 2 particular 2j6 Cyyridftus Ifotitnm. Chap. II. particular Bi(hop ought to be fet over every particular Church, then one Bifhop ought to be fet over all the Churches : But the former is true ; therefore the latter. And he denyes both propofitions, as I aKo do, the Major no lefs than the Minor, in the Senfe now often expreffed : That is, I denys that tho' 'twere pra&icable for one Bifhop to Guide one particular Church, 'tis therefore pra- cticable for One to Guide all Churches : This, I fay, I deny, and that without the leaft hurt done to our Argument, which leans on the falfly fuppoied Truth and Solidity of the Hierarchies their chief and mo ft plaufible Pretexts, whereby they would raife Diocefan Biftiops above other Paftoi s. And now hear the fame Chamier, Ibid. §. ii. where, having faid, that Prelacy was not by thefe who firft began ic judg'd to be ab- folutly better than Presbytery, but only in a certain refped:, he fubjoyns as follows : €€ Up* * on the fame account we may likewife fay, that c Equality among Paftors is better in a certain * relpedt, to wit, for the avoiding of the Tyran- c ny of a few over the reft of their Brethren, 4 yea of One over all ; And how great an Evil c Tyranny is, and how open a^ Gate was made c unto it from the Ambition of this Prefidency, * Experience hath long fince more than fufficient- *ly fhown. And ( b ), " There is none who c doubt$|but this Guftom ( w#'&.of giving oncPref- byterfome Prefidency over the relt ) "wasintro- * duced by good Men, and upon a good Defign • c would to GOD not rather from Carnal Pru- ( h ) Lib. io, C«P« 5* $• *% ? dence Chap. IF. CypriatiUf Jfotimus 277 c dencc than by the Dire&ion of the Spirit : f Would to GOD it had boen attended with as * happy and profperous Succefs, as it was intro. c due'd with the great Applaufe of all. And, Ibid. cap. 6. §. r8. he unfolds largely, how the Epifcopacy introduced the Papacy, and ftuts up the Account in the enfuing Words : Thus* Hu- mane Wi\dom^ if once it decline but a Jot from ihe Original Truth, becomes worfe and -worfe. §. XL% But, Salmafius, ( faith J. S. ) cf in his Apparatus, Tag. 98. lays, That tho' Epifco- pacy were look'd on as being of Divine PJght, yet it would not hence follow, that thefe ^u- periour Stories which were buift upon it, are alfo of Divine Right. And who doubts? that GOD, if he had pleas'd, might have Inftkuccd Epifcopacy ; but does that the leaft harm to our Argument, or fay, that Salmafim allo^'d it not as valid ? " 'Tis true, ( continues J. S. ) c fometimes he feems to affirm, that Epifcopacy 1 introdue'd the Papacy, as P. 169, 220, 507. c But for this Objection I have already accoune- c ed to G. R. Cap. ;. §. 54. But turn to your Book, and look better * for there is no fuch Ac- counting there, I add, nor any where elfe. You there alledge, ^r'Salmafms fometimes talks 9 as if be did not sllvw Epifcopacy to have been ft early ** St. Cyprian'* time, and at other times grants the contrary, that it was more early. But you cannot be fo void of Senfe, as not to know, that this concerns not the Affair in hand: But it is odder yer^ that you dare fay, that Salmafim feems to affirm, that Epifcopacy introduce the Papacy as if he had not really affirmed it, as if S % he 2 7 8 Cypriatius Ifotimus. Chap. X £ fie had not, in the very Pages you cite, as fully and plainly as readily one can do, exprcfs'd it : For, fpeaking of the Pretexts that were us'd for changing Presbytery into Epifcopacy, he thus difcourfes ( i ) : cC But whatsoever thefe * Caufes were.Experience made manifeft, that by * that new way of Government, which was after * brought in, there was afar greater M:fchie£ f introduc'd into the Church,than was that w^.ich * was then feared ; Thefe Schifms and DifTen- * tions affli&ed oniy forne particular Churches ; * — But that Peft, which, by that New f Epifcopal Government, invaded the Churches * did not afSid: one Church or two, bur it op- * prefs'd and ruin'd wicha moft miferabk Tyran- * ny, the whole Body of the Chinch. Neither * did that Domination trample under Foot the * Clergy alone, but aifo the very Lords of the * World. Then he goes on to fhew, that tho' the Pope were taken away, it would be little or rxo Remedy to the Evil, except, together with its Head, the Hurtful Wtei, Epifcopacy were likewise abolifti'd. And ( k ) he affirms, that {rut of the Epifcopal Vrejidency there fyrung in time a Monarchical Empire in the Church. And ( l), Out cf the Bijhop rofe the Popey and cut of the Pope a Mo- narch and 'tyrant, And is all this but a jeeming to fay, that Epifcopacy introduc'd the Papacy ? Indeed his whole Apparatus, as to its main Scope and Defign5 is nothing elfe but a Demonftrati* on, that as the Papacy rofe up out of Epifcopa- cy, (o the Abolition of Epifcopacy, which has ho more Warrant in Scripture, than has the Pa- ( i) Pag. 1*9- ( * ) Pag.ai*. (O Pag. 307. Ghap. IL Cyprianus Jfotitnus. 279 pacy, is the trueft and furcft way to compafs the others Overthrow, $. XLL Turretin, who (m) briefly, accord- ing to his Cuftom, intimates the fame Anfwer with Danaus, ChamUr5 and the reft, to Bellar- min's Argument, does notwithftanding mofl: clearly, frankly, and exprefly fuftain and urge our ufe of it. For (0 ), having faid5 that Epif- copacy was introduc'd partly thro' the Ambition of fome Teachers, and partly by the Confent of the Churches, for the keeping out of Schifms and Diffentions, he adds, u But the Event has * taught, that the Remedy ivas worfe than the € Difeafe, for Schifms were not by this means f prevented, but, on the contrary, it laid the * Foundation of the AntichrilHan Domination. And (*)> u The Confequence from theChurch- S Government which was under the Old Tefta- € ment to that under the New, is not valid : c For the Priefthood being chang'd, there is alfo e made a Change of the Law and Government. € Nor can this Argument be more urg'd in favour * of the Epifcopal Preheminency, than for the c Pope's Supremacy, which is by our Divines fo- c lidly Refuted. He there (hews, how the leaft, and moft minute Declenfion from Parity among Paftorst had an Operative Tendency to the Pa- pal Hierarchy, and refted not till it was corn- pleated. Thus I have (hewn fomewhat largely, and, I trull, perfpicuoufly, that BcUarmiris Argument, as, and in fo tar as we manage it againft the ( w) Inftir. Theol. Elcnft. P. 3. Loc, i&. Qu. 16. ( *) Ibid. Qu. 21. ( 0) Ibid. Pre- p8o Cypianus ljotimus. Chap. II. Prelatifts, is not at all fatisfy'd by thefe Anfwers" that fully loofe it, while in the Romanics hand, and ufed by them ; That the moll eminent of the Divines, by whofe Teftimonies J. S. endea- your'd to prove the contrary, are fully, clearly, and undeny ably of my Mind; And finally,* that thefe ( I might bring no lefs out of the reft he has here abus'd, yea and out of the whole Torrent of Romes Oppofers befide, were it not, that this would make my Book fwell ; %vand he has confefs'd, that to do it is an eafie Task ) ufed pur very Argument againft Prelacy, and charg d it no lefs heavily, no lefs warmly th^n we do, as being the fure Harbinger and Introdu&or of Popery, and avow'd in the Face of the World, that there was a true, fure, and fatal Connexi- on between the firft andmoft minute Declenfion from Parity among Paftors, and the Papal Supre- macy and Tyranny, §. XLII. One other of the Divines whom he adduces, I can by no means pafs in filence ,• I mean the famous Whitaktr* the great Hammer of the Romanics, and Glory of the Church of jLngliind9 who not only lived and died in the Communion of that Church, and was in ftri&eft Amity with the greateft Do&ors and Prelates thereof ,• but, which you'll judge yet odder, C if d&mfim ( o J his Schollar, and their clofs Dependent, may be trufted ) there is nothing in the Book I am to produce, which did not well pleafe them : I mean his excellent Bookie Von- iifcey the very fame Book which is cited by J. S, ( £u£(l. i. Cap. 2. j$\ if. ) There indeed he gives ( o ) Epift. Dedicst. Whittk. d* Pontif. Rm. an Chap. IL Cypriatiut Ifotimuu 281 " an Anfwer to BeSarmins Argument, which falls in with that of Calvin, Dantus, and others of the Affembly J. S. called ; and therefore calls for no peculiar Confideration ; But the place thac I now eye is Qu*$. r. cap. 3. ff. 29. Where he de- * fends againft BcVarmin and Sanders, Cf That Jerm * iselearly and ftrongly for the Identity of Biftiop * and Presby ten and that he never believed, that * Epifcopacy entered in the days of the Apoftles, * but qply alluded to Paul's Words, 1 am */Paul, c &c. when he faid, it was brought in to be a € Remedy of Schifra. But the Remedy ( fubjoyns * Wbitahr ) was well nigh worfe than the Difeafe it € [elf. For as at the firfk one Presbyter was fet ever * the reft of the Presbyters, and made a Bi(hop ; fo * afterwards one Bifhop was fet over the reft of the Bi- € (hops. Thus that Cujiom hatched the Pope with his 4 Monarchy, and by Degrees brought him into the € Church. Now did even Bez,a himfelf, did even any Presbyterian* nay any Scettifi Presbyterian, any even of us three,( whom J.S. will have to be of all Men the moft Unreafonable, and Calumnious Infifters on this Charge and Argument ) ever prefs it more home, or urge it more roundly and plainly, than does Whitaker* Wbitahr, I fay, who was the Darling of the Church of England: Whitaker, who never fcrupl'd at full Conformity with her : Wbitakft, who was no more Presbyteri- an, than were the greateft Prelates of that Church: Wbitahr, finally, who, if H*//ywfpeaks Truth ( p ), was a bitter Enemy to Cartwright, and moft bitterly Ceniured and Pecryed his Pa^ pers, and all his Endeavours for Presbytery. it) Hifh Fre*b. P, iu> *7S. tfor 282 Cjprianus Ifotimuil Chap. H# Nor was the yielding of this fo clear, fo full, and every way fo noble a Teftimony, peculiar to this mod Famous Church- of- £»£/*» §. XL II I. And here I know my Reader may, and that with Reafon, enquire, it Wbitaker really was a Presbyterian : The fame enquiry may be juftly made concerning Bifhop Jewell% who, in a paper which Wbitgift affirms to be his, and Mr« Cartwright feems not to deny, fharply inveighs againft fuch as were for the Abolition of Arch- bifb ops and Arch-deacons, and endea- vours to fuftain the Lawfulnefs of both, and to AnGyer the Reafons brought for the contrary Opinion s He drops alfo fomething of the fame nature in his Apology ( at leaft, Sudive fo in- terprets him ) ; and yet Bifhop J^el^the fame Bifhop Jewe1l% in Defence of the fame Apology, is as clear, dogmatic, and pofitive for the Divine Right of Presbytery, or of the Identity of Scriptural Bifhop and Presbyter, as haply any Man can be ; He is poficive, that Hierom and Chap. Hi Cfprianus lfotimut. 283 and dugufon fo believ d, and juftly fo believ'd* as is elfe where ( q ) demonftrated. The fame enquiry may be made of Tobie Matthew Bifhop of York, and WiUiam James Bifhop of Durham, who, as Mr. Allenfcn affirms, in his Epiftle to the fame two Bifhops, were, in this matter, intirely of the fame Judgment with Whitakcr. The fame Queftion may be mov'd concerning Bifhop Morton, who,inhis Apology, is plainly of the fame mind with Jewell and Whitakcr ; Of Dr. Fulk% whom J. Ss makes fometimes a Presbyterian, fometimes an Epifcopal ,• and* in a word of the throng of the prime Do&ors and Leaders, who then lived in the Church of England. To this Enquiry the true Anfwer is, That ail thefe Divines really believed, that, in Scripture, and according to Chrift's Inftitution, Bifhop and Presbyter were really one and the fame, and that Parity among all Paftors obtain'd, at leaft,during all the Apoftolic Age, and that this was the Faith of \erom, Augu$in> and the reft of the Ancient Fathers : And thus far were thefe Engiijh Divines true and genuine Presbyterians. But again,they thought, that when the Churches neceffity fo required, both Epifcopacy, and alfo many Romifh Ceremonies might be retained ; And in this I yield, they were no Presbyterians, but Latitudinarians ; They thought that the Retaining of them would prove a notable Lure and Bait to catch the Papifts, and bring them to the knowledge of the Gofpel ,• they knew, that the Fathers had u(ed the like method for Con- verting of the Gentiles, tho' perhaps had they ( ? ) Naz. Quer, Pait 1. §. 1. & Part 3. §. 8. adverted 284 Cyprianns lfotmur. Chap. If. adverted to the Unfuccefsfulnefs* yeaandUn3 happinefs of this Practice ol the Ancients, they had never, as to this matter, trode in their foot- ftepts : But, which, doufatlefs, fway'd them not a little, they (aw, that above all things, it pleafd molt of the Court, but efpecially the Queen, that fhe ftiould come in place of the Pope, and be Head of the Hierarchy, and have no proper Ecclefiaftical Government, nothing but an Oligarchy of her own Creatures, whom ihe raight,at pleafure, annihilate that both fhe,and her Court were likely never to part with them, and come any nearer to the Gofpel Rule; they law alfo, that both fhe and mod of the Nobility were no lefs tenacious of the Romifl) Pompuous Ceremonies, whereof, as Dr Burnet ( r ) tvitnef- feth, fome of thefe Divines heavily complain'd ; And fo they concluded, that this Cafario-Vafal Hierarchy and Romi(h Ceremonies could fcarce be rooted out without a great Confufion, if not the utter Subyerfion of the State, with which they were fomixdand incorporated, that it was even hard to diftinguifh the one from the other. It muft be confeffed therefore, that thele Di- vines, many of vyhom were other wife Excellent Men, were moft guilty of Sloth, Cowardice, Pufillanimity, and other great and criminal Failings, which yet I doubt not but the Mercy of GOD forgave and cancell'd : They fatisfi'd themfelves with this, that the fubftance of the Gofpel was foundly taught, (for as yet in England Pelagianifm had got little footing ) and the hope of Reclaiming Papifts, never coniidering; (r) Utt. pag. j it &'• that Chap. IL CyfrtAHus lfotlmus. a8$ that the want of the Government and Difcipline inftituted by Chrift, would, in time, miferably corrupt Religion, and harden the Romaniftsi They therefore comply'd with the Queen, who, as even the Church-of-£»g/ without excepting that formerly exploded : Whereby a return, ( likelieft to be made ufe of) or a farther re- move was left arbitrary at the will of the Queen. And how little foe cared for the pro* moval of the Gofpel is evident* were there no more, from her.cafhiering B. Gr'mdals for his free and Chriftian Letter, Exhorting her to eftablifli an Able and Preaching Miniftry ( u ). That (be ufed to maintain and foment Fa<5tions is alfo related by Ojburn ( x ) : But, which is more ftrcinge ( not to name Sir James Melvil and others ), this is ownd even by the Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery ( y ) : It 'was ftill ( faith he ) one of Queen Elizabeths great cares to encourage Confufions in Scotland ; and in the proof of this Propofition he largely infifts, giving fuch a Chara&er of that Princefs, as makes her very Bad and Unchriftian;which I am affured is but too true, tho' fome of his Arguments for it be moft falfe, and the main Conclufion he there intends, w's. that (he contributed to bring ( *) §• 3 . ( ■» ) Fuller's Hift, Book 9. Cent. 16. (*) Mem. §.6. (;) Pag. 237. in Chap. II. Cyfrianks Ifotimuf. 287 in Presbytery into Scotland, fo ridiculous and ftiamelefs, that the very contrary is from hence to be inferred. But to return ; thefe Divines thought them- felves oblig'd to comply with the Inclinations of this Queen, and her Politicians, outofDefpair that fhe and they could be brought to favour any better Reformarion, or more purity of Religion: And fince they thought that the Oppofing of the Queen and Ceurt would prove but fruitkfs Labour, and do rather ill than good ; they difliked all the Oppofition Carfwright, iraverje, and other good Men made againft the Hierarchy and the Romijh Ceremonies : Yet, in the mean while, all of them frequently, mod of them (till and con- ftantly condemned the Do&rine of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy as Popifh and Antichriftian; and maintained, as is faid, that Bijbop and Yresbyter* in Scripture, and during the Apoftplic Age, were intirely one and the fame ; and that Parity was Infticuted and left by Chrift, and that the Fathers fobeliev'd, So true is it alfo concerning England, which the Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery has yielded concerning Scotland, that the Divine Right cfEpif- copacy9 in thefe times > was not much averted or thought on ( z, ). , §. ^LIV. And now, having routed J. S. his Stout-looking Margent, fince his 26. §* is only a Thrafonical Paraphrafe thereof, and his two laft contain fcarce ought, fave what is already difcufc'd, I think I can truly (ay, that J have re* ally difpatch'd and overthrown his whole Chap- (*) Pages 23 j. 236. 2&8 Cyprianut Ifotimut. Chap. If. ter* I (hall, however, anfwer a Challenge he gives particularly to me ( a ) in the following Words. " I know very well, that you, Mr% ' Jamefon, have endeavoured to Banter D* Burnet € out of a Demonftration of this great Truth c that the Papacy owes not its Rife to Epifcopa* *cy : The Demonftration taken from what * paffed in the Council of Trent i about the Di- * vine Right of Epifcopacy. You have endea- c voured, I fay, to Banter him out of it ,• for € 'tis nothing but Arrant Banter ( not one Word * to the purpofe, not one Sentence of folid 'Reafon ) you have faid in all that Debate. This is Words, not Arguments ,• Can he prove what he fays? Demonftratively doubtlefs, did his Affairs allow time. lam not jufi new ( conti- nues he ) at Leifure to make it appear Jo fuBy as 1 tout J. And who can deny this* that either knows the Man s great Employments, or has (een the Book I now Refute* and confiders the Occafion thereof? But however, has he not, as he here intimates, made what he (ays to appear in part ? No; neither in part nor in whole : Stark nought has he, but a lame and wretch'd Compend of the Sophifiry D. Burnet advanced, and I refuted ; as will to eyery Candid Comparer of the Two, at the very firft view, appear. Nothing new, nothing of Argument, either in Book or Margent, added to D. Burnet's goodly Demonftra- tion. If you Mr. S. judge otherways, then let the World fee, that it meets with the Reply I gave to Dr. Burnet, if you can. I aver, you cannot : Nor is it to be doubted, that you ( a ) §. 27. would Ghap. II. Cyfriams Ifotmtii. 289 would, if you had been able, have done it, and that with a parade. Bur,to give here my Read* er a Tafte of either your Senfe or Integrity ; you fay, ff The ¥ope, all the Court of Rome, all his Party in the Council of Trent, all the Jf fuits then, and ever fince, were very fenfible* that to have declared Epifcopacy to have been of Divine Inftitution, and that every Bifhop had his Power of JurUdiBion immediatly from Gbri/t, ( his Ordainers being only Inftru- ments, not Superiours ) without sny Depen- dance on any Vifible Higher Ecclefiaftical Power, was utterly to have Ruined the Papa* cy. And Betlarmmhas unriddled the Myftery* endeavouring to prove, that Bifhops have their Power of External Jurifdifticn from the Pope, immedaitely. And you cite Salmafiusy faying, 1 That if the Bifhops have of their own propec Right an Empire in their Church, then all Bi- fhops are Equal among themfelves. Now, on Suppofition all this were true, by what Logick would it follow, that thefe Reafons which cheated Men, and wheedl'd them into the Belief of Imparity among Paflors, did not, with equal Force and Cunning, Trick them into the Per- fwafion, that there ought to be an Imparity a- mong Bifhops y then among Arcb- bifhops 9 and fo on j Or, that the Bifhops and their Adherents were not the fpecial Exalters of the Pope, and Supporters of his Pride and Tyranny. This, I fay, is your moftParalogiftick andUnreafonable Reafoning; the very fame which was ufed by D. Bumet, and which in my Reply I irrefragably baflTd and expo^d : On which Reply* v°u. T wifely 2 go CyprUnui JJotimus. Chap. II. wifely judg'd it meet to lay your Thumb; well knowing, that there was no advantageous Grap* pling therewith. But again, what tho' the chief Head of the Hydra were cut off? would this eradicate the Noxious Weed, as Salmafius juft- ly calls them, your Monarch, your King-like (ac- knowledge your own Language ) your Prince-' ly and Domineering Prelates,yea and Prelates of Prelates ? Make they not the chiefeft and mod effectual part of the Papal Hierarchy ? But, %My% 'Tis not true, that ever either Party, at the Council of Trent, once dreamed, that the Af- ferting of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, would have fet all Bidiops in a Levc.ll with the Pope. If it would have really done fo much, T now Difpute nor,- and that fomethingof this kind was then taik'd of,I deny not: Only I am fure,that even thefe Bilhops, who fticki'd molt to have it Afferted, never mean'd, never minded to with- draw their Obedience and Subjection from the See of Rome, or to turn Independents, and Renounce his Vifible Headship,- nor ever Queftipird the Divine Inftitution of his Superiority. Far were, they from any fuch Defign • farer yet from fo much as once Attempting to get a Decree made, declaring in ttrminis^ that all Bifnops were Equal with the Pope. As they all knew, that that was impoffible to be procured in the Popts Commu- nion, fo many of 'em, doubtlefs, of them, I fay, who fet up for the immediate Divine Right of Epifcopacy, believ'd it unlawful to feek it. /pbly. Nor, as is now evicted ( »), is it true, that the T?ope> his Party in Trent i or the Jefuites fince^ (b) §. 2(5,27, 28,29/ ever Chip.* II. Cyprianus Ifitimut. 29X ever denv'd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy^ as an Office diftinB from, and Superiour to that of Pres- bytery : They all look on the DoSrine that Identi- fies thefe Offices as a Troufkant Htr Wicklef\ the Lutheran*, and Galvinifls. The Council of Trent and Betlarmin are followed by all the Romanes, as might ealily be made appear by an Induction, and is more largely above made evident (g);. but I know it will not be deny'd by any that underftands* and cares what he's doing. I /hail however add one Witnefs, but fuch a one as is, all Circum- Itances confidered, of unexpreffibie Weight and Import in the prefent Queftion ; I mean George Caj]ander, a Popifh Divine, of fo greac Repute and Learning, that Ferdinand^ thc k\ ft Emperor of that Name, having a great Defne to Recon- cile the Proteftams and Papifts, but foas to Re- duce the former to the Obedience of the See of Rome, did, after matured Consultation, choofe him for this Set vice: He was Goucifh? and could not go to Court, and therefore wiote, for the effecting the Emperour's Defign, a Trearife, which he named a consultation j in which, he deferts many of the Popifh Principles, yielding abundance of things to the proteftants, to the end he might fucceed the better in his purpofe, which was to gain and reduce them to the See of Rome. Now, among thefe Popiih Principles which he gives up> that of Epifcopacy is one, and none of the meaneft : His Words (/ ) Dc Clcr. Cap. i4, (* ) §. **, 27, 28, 29. are Chap. II. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 295 are (£)> "If Epifcopacy be an Order, Divine^ * and Canonifts do not agree .• But all agree*, 'that, in the Apollles Age, there was no diffe- * rence between Bifhop and Presbyter, but after* c wards for Orders fake, and that Schifm might c be ftiunned> the Biftiop was fet over the Prdft ' byters> ta whom alone the Power of Ordina- * tion was committed. Tis certain alfo> that € *he Presbyterate and Diaconate are the only ' Sacred Orders, which we read to have been in € the Primitive Church, which Pope Urban wit- i neffeth, and Ghryjoftome and Ambroje obferv'd on ' che firft Epiftle to Timothy, from this, that ' Vaul fubjoyns the Ordination of a Deacon to € that of a Bilhop. Thus he, in Complyance with the Proteftants, and, in fpecial, with the Augufian Gonfeflionifts, and the Srnalcattti 'Synod, who, in Oppoiition to the Papifts, had really maintain d the fame Doctrine. This Teiiimo- ny, I fay, if there were no more, all things be- ing weigh'd, is a luculent Proof of our Aflertion, that to affirm Epifcopacy to be of Divine Righc is a real Popilh Principle. On the o.her hand, ( h) Confulc. Artie. 14. An Epifcopatus inter Ordines ponendus fir, inter Theologos & Canoniftas non convenic. Convenit aucem inter omnes olim Apoftolorum ^tare, in- ter Epifcepos & Presbyreros difcrimen nullum fuhTe, fed poft modum Ordinisfervandi, Sc Schifmatis eviundi'caufa, Epifcopum Presbyteris fuifTe prsepofitum, cui foli Chiro- tonia,id eft Ordinandi Poteftas fervata fir. Conftat et^am Sa« cros Ordines propric dici Diaconatum, & Presbyteratum, lit qu3s folos Primltivam Ecckfiam ir>ufu habui-fle Jegarur, id quod r-fearur Urbanks Papa, & annorarunc Ckryfoflnnus Sc jfmbnftus in Epiftolam Pauli ad T.rnxhtum prior em, ex eo quod Epifcopi Ordinattoni f«:ira Diaconi Ordinationem iubjiciac. that i$6 CffrUnus lfotimts. Chap. 1L that this Do&rine of the Divine Right of Imparity among Pa/tors was no lefs univerfally Oppofed by both Lutherans and Qalvinifts ( as they're called ; both in their more private and publick' Writings, is elfewhere fufficiently evided (; ); %p which m-y be added the Auguilan Confejfion (^), wherein the Identity ofBifhop and Vresbyttr is lo clearly aflerted, that the far greater part of the Council oilrent owned it to be the Doctrine1 of that Confiffion, earneftly defired a Decree to be made againft it for the Divine Right of Epif- copacy and noted the Difingenuity of the Bi* (hop of Warmiay and feme few elie, who pre- tended, that thefe Gonfeflionifts held not this Do* #rine ( I J. But 'tis needlefs to multiplyTefti- monies in this Affair: If I had been (hallow, I might have had Score from J. S. not only in this his IX Chapter, bur in his III, where he brings whole Battalions. Yea '(is certain, that, as I have Jhew'd in my former Book, this Do&rine of rhe Divine Right of Imparity was long after the Reformation a Stranger even in the Church of Engiani, and mat the Uie of Superintendents in fome Forreign Churches, does not at all in- fringe our Affercitn. §. XL VII. I know, they now pretend, that the Church of Bohemia was Govern'd by Bifnops, and for the Divine Right of Imparity. But tW they there ufed a kind ot Superintendents, yet there is no ground to Judge, chat they held any fuch Imparityby Divine Right, For? CO Naz.Quer.parr.i. Scft.8, 9. ( k ) Corp. Confeff part 2. pan. 44. tO Swve, Hift of the Council of Trent ^ Lib, 1. p. 6 In their Gonftflim (m) there isnot only a pro- found filence of any Diftinftion or Difference of Degrees among Paftorsj but alfo they place Ordi- nation, Excommunication, and otherfuch Anions as belong to the Presbytery, not in the Power of One, but in that of the Presbyters and Brethren of the Mintftry. ily. Amos Comenim himfelf (»), who was one of thefe Superintendents, in his Notes upon their Discipline, ufes thefe very following words It is Quejlioned, if it be better that the Prefidency be Stated 9r Ambulatory > Now, is that any thing like the State of :he Queftion between the Pref- bycerian^ and Hpifcopals ? Might not Pref- byterians tots this Queftion among themlelves, (If the Mordecatorfcip (hould be Fix d or Ambu- latory ? ) and yet judge, that they fwerv'd not from the Didrine of Presbytery? Is it not .moftiikely, if he had been for the Divint Right of Imparity, that he had propofd the Qaeftion in quite other Terms ? \ly. Tho' fome of his Reafons for Fixed Prefix demy feem as if they would conclude Scripture warrant for Imparity , yet others of them make it clear* chat he msand to conclude no fuch thing. As for ex ample, that wherein he fays, that Chrift Choof d 70 Difciples out of the People, and out of thefe 70 Twelve, and again out of thefe 12 Three, Peter, James, and John (0). Now, doubtlefs, he never doubted of the Equality of the Apoirles among themfelves. ( nt ) Syntag. CoafefT. Pare 2. pa^ea 1 3S. UJ9, 19*. (* ) AnnoCJti ad Ord« Ecclef. Bihm. pag. 87. ( • ) Pag, 298 Cyfrianus lfotimus. Chap. If. 4/p; He affirms ( p ), c* That thefe Superinten- € dents arc not to have Worldly Wealth nor * Honours, nor coercive Power over others,- ' c but to be Subjed to all, as every one is to them. cThus (Jaitbbe) to the Seniors of the Bobe- € mian Brethren, there was affociated one or two' € Confeniors ; and even from thefe joyn'd . € together,an account of their A&ings was requi- . cred by Synodal Authority, neither did they € Sit in fecular Courts and Judicatories.^ j/y. In their Book of Order, or Vifciplirie ( q )3 we have the exprefs following words. *' The * Dignity of Rulers or Biftiops, above . other * ? Minifters is not placed in the prerogative of c Honours or Revenues, but of Labours, and * Care for others. And according to the Apoftles * Rules, a Tresbyter and Bi(hopare one and the fame € thing ; except that a Bijhop fignifies a Watchman € or Superintendent. Where it is clear, they never thought, that, according to Scripture, a Bijhop differs in the leaft from a Tresbyter ; fave that the Words Bifhop and Tresbyter have different Connotations ; Which Jerom, long before them, when he declared theldenity of the two9 did alfo obferve. 6lj. The Superintendents in Voland, as is evident from the Conjent or Gonfepon of thefe Churches, eftablifhed at the Synods ot Szndomir and others, we?e of the fame kind with thefe of Bohemia, in refped: of the Dignity of thefe Superintendents ;and yet their Office only continu'd from one Synod to Chap. II* Cyprianus lfotinms. 299 to another ( r ). And thefe Churches, more- over, fublcribed the Helvetian Larger Confeffion, which aliens a compleat Parity among Pa- ftors. jly. Thefe Hierarchies themfelves (J) affirm, with us, that the Bohemians were Presbyterians, and never believ'd the Divim Right of Imparity among Faflors. §. XLVIII. That the Bilhop ought, or law- fully may eSercife fuch Authority over his Pref- byters/ as doth a King at the Council-board over his Counfeliou s, and that the Presbyters may not Preach but by his Licence, is Popifli Dodrine> affiim'd by BeEarmin ( t ), together with the reft of the Romifh Fraternity : And 'tis look'd on as Popifti Dodtrine, and under that notion, not only by other Proteftants, but by the Church- of* England- Men themfelves refuted. *cWe differ ( faith Willet (u) from them in • two points : Fir/?, they fay, that Bi(hops are 'not onely in a higher Degree of Superiority to € other Minifies but they are as Princes of the c Clergy, and other Minifters are Subje&s, and € in all thingsv to bee commaunded by them. € Secondly, they affirme, that Bifhops are onely c properly Paitors, and that to them onely it • doth appertaine to Preach, and that other (r) Syntagm. ConfefT Part ii pag, 228. Munus ejus ( Superintendentis ) a Synodo ad Synodum durare debet : Et juxta featentiam. Synodic auc is retinendus & approban- dus, autaliuseligendus & conflituendLiS erir. (f) jEmeat S'flvmsi Btbsm. O'il &c Gift Cap. 53. Wwdl F*m* Lccc^s, Vol. 3 Pag. 395. Htylyn, Hift. Presb. Book 12. pag. 4*7. (t ) De Cler. Capp. 13. 14. (u) Synopf. Papiimi. Concrov#5. Qa«ii.3« Pare 2, pag, 233, : Minifters goo Cyprlanus Ifotimus. Chap. IF. 9 Minifters have no Authorise without their c Licence or Confent, to Preach at all and that 'not principally or chiefly, but foly and whaly c to them appertaineth the Right of Confecrating c and Giving Orders. Thus VfiUet ; altho he might well have known, that, as to the Church- of - England-Mens pra&ice, yea and even the Doftrine of many of them, they differ from them in neither. Now, can you deny, that, as I have uncontrovertibly made out, the very Crime he fo juttly charges on the Papifts, is the very Do&rine and Prance of your Hierarchicks ? Don't you your felf Mr. S. follow Bettarmin9 Becan ( x )> and fuch Jefuits, both in Do&rine and Expreffions ? Don't you ( y ) make your Cyfrianic Bifhop the fame to bis Diocefs^ that a King is to bis Kingdom f Don't you afcribe Majeflyto him ( z ) ? Know you not, that the Papalins can bring no lefs plaufible Pretexts for the lofty and condemnable Titles they give to their Popef than you can from Bodirna, Arnijaus, or any other, for thefe Faftuous and Pompuous Ones, of which any true Minifter of CHRIST would be juftly afhamed ? Are you ignorant, moreover, that Tthris Refutator, when he called the Mini* fter the Supreme Ecciejia/lical Magistrate within his Paroch, gave him only by that Title a meer Moderator(h?p, not one Vote more than had the meaneft in the Confiftory ? And, on the other hand, under this Title you mean the Sole* Tlwer. In the mean while, let there be a more ( * ) Manual. Lib. 5. Cap, 19, Qjrcft. % §,5!. (y )Chap; ** §• 4«. ( * ) § 49* Ample ? Chap. If. Cffrianuf*irotimuf. §ci fimple and Gofpel-like Term found, whereby to exprefs that Moderator/hip, and I promife, ia name of all the Presbyterians, that they (hall never henceforth ufe the other. Can you affirm thefe things of your Biihops Maje/ly ? Yet again, did not Cyprian ( a ) attribute Majefty not to One Man> not to One Church, but to the Church Catholick,that is the plebs Catbolica, the Body of the faithful People as diftind from, and oppofite to the Clergy, or to a vaft multitude of Churches, which by their joynt Suffrages had rejected Novatian? Befides all this, have you not gone for Arguments to fupport your Bifhop's Majefty to a Prieft ? Say not, I now accufe you of Popery, for you went not to a Popifli Prieft ; nor that I Circumcife you, as you fay I did D« Monro; for neither went you to a Jeivifh Trie ft j No ; you had recourfe to the Prieft of Bellona, who ia Majefty, Power, and Dominion was next to the King : Nay j ev'n feek for your Bilhop the Kingdom alfo. Rex Aniusy Rex idem hominum Phcebique Sauries. Here is the white you level! at • in this con- fifts the Majefty of your Hierarchy, Grandeur, Pomp, Riches, and Power ,• which you, well knowing that the Scripture condemns it, are not afhamed openly to borrow from Pagan Priefis. Don't you labour to fupport your Bifhop's Ma- jefiy with a moft putid ond ridiculous Foolery > Dvtb not (fay you ( b ) ) Mr. Galvin himfelf («) Ep. w,i%. (b) Chap, tf, J. yi, afcribe §01 Cyprianus Ifetimm. Chap. Jf. 'tfcrihc a Confular Powep/o the Primitive Bi/hops > And doth not Cicero afcribe Majefty even to * Conful Defignatus > Since Calvin only makes an Analogy or Proportion of the Relation be« tweeu the Conful and the Senators in the Senate on 'he one hand ; and of that between the Bijhop and Presbyters, on the other ; that as the Conful CafPd the Senate, Ask'd the Voices, Ga- thered Conclusions, &e. So the Bifhop did the like in the Presbytery : And the Deacon of the meaneft Trade, in the meaneft Town, Caifs t;he Meeting, Asks the Voces, &\ in the Court where he Prefides,* Now, tffuch a one had %ny fenfe, could he take it welly if Majefty were afcribedto him ? Would he not, as w;ell he might, reckon ic a bitter feoff? Cbamier indeed ( c ) fays, " If there were One Monarch c over the whole Church, then all Bi&ops ihould • be Created by that One Monarch ,• beeaufe in # every Republick all Magiftrates are Created by € him who poffefles the Supreme Majefty, But without the leaft gain to you ,• fince he, being there Reafoning againft the Papifts, out of cheir own Chuich-IVlonarchical Principles, 3rd out of State Maxims, by which their Church is Guided, was obliged of necefficy to ufe their own Terms ,• not that he ever thought, that .the Goipel allow'd the Afcribing of Majefty to the Mi : , 5 of the Meek and Lowly JESUS. Nor can there be a furer token, that he thought no fuchTule cou*:d be lawfully given to Mini- fters, than that ( d) he proves, that all kind of /(c) Panftrat, Tom.2. Lib. 10, Cap. 10. §. i. ( d) Turn. I. Lib. lo. Cap. 2. Domination Chap II. Cjfrianus Ifolintus. 50^ Domination, or Dominion is forbidden to the Minifters of the Gofpel : But, which drives the Nail to the Head, ' he (e ) counts it a Crime in Jevius, and other Papalins, that they attribute Majeftj to the Pope. There is yet a greater defe<5fc of either Ssnfe or Candor, manifefted itx your adducing of Hlondel and Salmafius^ as will at the very firft appear to every Reader. JJ\ XLIX. There are yet other matters befide thefe now handled, neither few nor light, where- in you are one and the fame with the Romanics; as, your denying the People a fhare in the Choofing of their Paftors ; Your f warms of unwarranted Ceremonies ; Your fubftitutingof Mens Books in place of the Book of GOD ; Your Allowing to Paftors Secular Rule and Domination ; if our Allowing them to enjojr multiplicities of Benefices, and to Preach by their Substitutes ; Your maintaining rot only of Bi (hops over Presbyters hut alfo of all the reft of the Roundles of the Bahylcnifo Scale, fave one ,• With thefe, and rhe like Agteefa^nts of yours with the -Komanifts we can fill a large Volum, and another with the Confeffions which the Power of Truth forceth both ofyou to yield to the Truth we fuftain. At a word, you Agree with them in every thing wherein you truly differ from us v and? which makes all worfe, you boldly deny that you do fo ,• like the Adul- terous Woman, who eateth and wiptth her mouth, and faith y I have done no wicktdnefs. But tho' itt ( t) J. 2, fetfing 3°4 CftrUnut lfotimi. Chap. II. fetting a fair face on a foul Bargain, you did even exceed Qumtilian himfelf, tho*, like the Gracchi^ you cculd move the Multitude whither you pleaf'd, or were endued with a Perfwafive Faculty above that of Demoflbenes or Tully • yet, Sir, you know, that Tiuth, like its Author, is Unchangeable. What tho* by your Crafc and Cunning, you can varnifh and cover your Guilt, as that mod: Men (hall either not perceive it, or look on it as a thing light and frivolous, and fo quickly forget it ; yet GOD will not. At Iperato Deurn tnemonm fandi aty; nefandi. CHAP. Chap. Ill; Cyfriams lfittmuh 305 CHAP, III. That thd Cyprian and his Contemporaries had Believd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy , yet their Belief and Teftimony could not be enough to Prove it. i 5*. I. ^f* Come now at length to Examine J. S's fpecial CyfrianU Principle - viz. That Cyprian and bis Contempora- ries Believd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. And I Affirm, I. That 'tis of no weight tho' they had fo believ'd. Il/y. Thac they really never fo believ'd. Thefc two AfTertions I (hall make good in order. Thar, if Cyprian and his Cen!emporariesb$\iQvd the Divine Rigtit of Epifcopacy, then we ought to believe ic with a Divine Faithy and embrace U is %o6 Cyprianus Ifotimus. Chap. IIL it as an Infallible Truth, appears to me to be J. S's mind, fo far as I can re^ch it, tho' I cannot find him faying fo much in exprefs terms : However he expreflv calls it of great Conference ( a ). It mujl be ( fffith he ) an Argu- ment of mighty Weight againjt our Presbyterian Bre~ threny if it can be made appear, that Epifcopacy was then univerfally received, qs of Divine Right. \ nd ( b ) he puts forth his outmoft ftrength to prove this Confluence : But in my mind his ftrength is not fufftcient for his Undertaking : Let's try it. The time ( faith he ) between St. John'* Death and St. Cyprian** promotion to the See of Carthage was not f& lcng, but that fuch remarkable Events as the Alteration of the Inflituted Form of Government might have been certainly traced. Now this I deny not j but deny that it was certainly traced : This iss as they fay, dPotentid adAtlum affirmative, and fo a falfe Inference : And yet it is much more falfe to affirm, that therefore it was fo traced as to be fignally oppofed, or that tho' 'twas oppofed, the relation thereof has come, to our hands. In fhorta Iallow,with him, that 'Cyprian and his Contemporaries might fut- ficieruly have known what was the Apoftolic Government, but altogether deny, that it thence follows, that they did fo know it, as with due accuracy and reSedion to think upon it, or clofely and Confcientioufly to flick to it. But J. S. himffcif fhaii anfwer ftis own Argument 0). Ignorance ( faith he ) or Negligence, Prejudice or blind Partiality may induce Men to make very falfe (a) Chap. io. §. 2. (OChip. J. §. 3°> &** (i) Chip, I, §, 49. Inferences^ Chap. IU. Cyprianns lfitimutl 307 Inferences , and draw very faulty Conclusions, even from the clearefi and diHinfte(ly the folide/l and meft unquefiionable Supf editions. §. 1 1. This is mofWrue, and fignally verifi'd* not only of the "third, but even of the Second Age. As to the Third ; all of them juftly ftp- pofed, that the Mind and Pra&ice of the Apo- ftles concerning the Sacramental Cup, if it fhould be wholly Water, or if, of necefluy, apart of it/hould be Water ; concerning Heretical Baptifm^ and other things befide, might be known j And yet, in feverals of thefe matters, a confide* rable part of the Church* in forne of them, as in this, That there ought neceflarily to be Watet in the Cup, the whole Church, for ought is now known, fignally abufed this reasonable Suppofition. But which is yet more ftrange, even the Se:ond Age was no lefs faulty herein j as is clear in their hot Controverfies about theit Obfervance of Eafter : All of them' juftly iuppo-* led, that ic might be fufficiently known, if the Apoftles at that time obferved a Day, and en- joynM its Obfervance on the Church, and i£ this was the i^th of the Moon, or the Day of the RefurreSlion ; and yet, if we believe Socrates, all of them abuf d the Suppofition as to the for- mer Branch, and the Apoities neither obferv'd nor appointed fuch a Day to be kept ,• As ro the latter, a great part of them did certainly abufe it. And 'tis amazing to think, how foon after the Death of the Apoftles this Controverfie be- gan ; even in the time of Polycarp, who, as Irenaus his Difciple relates ( d ), was Joitrg id) Eufih.Vb. 5.C3p. 24. U 2 Difciple," 308 Cyprianus Ijoxlmnf. Chap. III. Difciple, and converfed alfowith other Apoftles. Now, Polycarp maintain'd, that they kept the 14th Day ; and yet, when he came to Rome, Anketui the Biftiop laboured to perfwade him, that not the 14^ but the^fcay of the Rejurreition was to be kept ; and with Anicetus even Irenaus, Tolycarp's own Disciple, agreed. This Contro- verfie grew to iuch height, that in Viftors time ( which was about 50 Years before Cyprians ) the Bifhops were ready mutually to Excommuni- cate one another. Did not then many of thefe Fathers, who lived fcarce a hundred Years diftancc from the time of the Apoftles ( and fo, much nearer to them than we are to our firft Refor- mers ), notably abufe a moft reafonable, fair and juft Suppofition ? And fo much Irenaus ( e ) evidently declares, in his Epiftle to Vtftor Biflbop ©f Rome, dehorting him from his intent of Ex- communicating the Afian Churches. Ibis Viverjity in Fajiing ( faith he ) did not begin in our time, but long before among our Forefathers ; ivhoy as it /terns, throy the Negligence ef managing their Charge, banded down to their VoHerity a cu/iome, Tvhich thro Jimpli city and ignorance bad crept into the Cbnrcb. Thefe tew Lines of Irenaus, were there no more, rout and defeat totally and finally all that either J. $. or any Man e!fe has brought or can bringi to prove, that there could have happened no Alteration of Church Government between the Age of the Apoftles and that of Cyprian : And io I might juftiy negled all he has laid on this head j Bur, ex abundanti, I go on. ( e ) Apud £*/*(» Hid. Ecckf. Lib, 5. Cap. 24. He r . i~ Chap. nr. Cyprittms Ifotimus. 309 He denyes not ( for he cannot ), that it may be fufficiendy known, if our firft Reformers proceeded on the Principles oiParity or Imparity : This, I fay, is a very fair and clear Suppofition ; and yet it is certain, that either the Presbyterians or Prelatifts ( as to the prefent matter it matters not whether of the Twain ) have abuf'd it : The former ailedge, that they proceeded on the Principles of Parity ,• the latter, on thefe of Imparity. Now the length of time between our firft Reformers and us, and between the Apoftle John and Cjprian, is much about the fame^ He makes ( f ) as if he would anfwer this our un- anfwerable Inftance, and intimates that we abufe the Suppofition ; which is io far from repelling it, that it irrefragably confirms and eftablifhes it : For, if we abufe this Suppofition, That a thing at 150 Years diftahce may be known, as he intimates we do, it is an ocular Demonftration of the fiifenefs of his Confe- quence, except he (hew, that the Third Age had fome Infallible way of fecuring it felf from abufing of fuch a Suppofition, which was wanting to later Ages. ,$*. III. So much indeed he fuppofes and endeavours to prove : But before 1 difcufs his Arguments, I'll anfwer the Argument whereby he would prove, that we, alledging, that our firft Reformers proceeded on the Principles of Parity, abufe this juft Supposition ; It is ( g ), The Author .of the Fundamental Charter of fref- bytery, has told us from Knox\* Htftory, That our ReforrHtrs propofed to tbemfelves the Scriptures, not (f)lbii. (s) Chap. 1. §.27. U l fimtly> §10 €y*rianus Ifotimut. Chap, III. fimply^ indeed, neither as Senced by their ewn^ or any Modern Glofles, ( perhaps he might ; but what next ? ) but as Senced and Interpreted by the P'i»«- fles and Vr^Bice of the Primitive Churchy as their Rule according to which they Refolded this Church jbould be Reformed, But, fuppofe this were as true as really 'tis falfe, it could never provet that they proceeded on the Principles of Imparity ; finceallthe Primitive Chriftians5 and efpeciaily the Commentators, really believed the Scriptural Identity of Bifhop and Presbyter : But I aver *tis utterly falfe : Neither that Author nor any Man elfe ever did, ever /hall be able to tell us any fuch thing out of Kncx*s Hiftory. But J% S. ( h ) tells us out of the fame Hiftory, that our Reformers in their Petition to the Queen Regent 1 5* f7, craved, That the State Ecclejiaflical might be Reformed according to the Rules and Precepts of the New lejiament, the Writings of the Ancient Fathers \ and the Godly and approved Laws fl/Juftinian the Emperour. And i$6o. They propofed the fame very Rule to the Parliament , as that which they would (land hy, viz. tie Word of GOD, the Practices of the ylpoftles, and the Sincerity of the Primitive Church. But how it will hence follow, that they denyed the Holy Ghoft the honour of being his own Interpreter, and pinned the Sence of his Word to the Sleeves of either Fathers or Ernperours, I profefs I am yet to learn : The meaning of all they fay isnomore than this, that the Church had fince the Primitive Times moft fadly decli- ned from the Purity of Doctrine, Difcipiine, and Worfhip3 and that that Purity, or the Pri- mitivs Chap. Iff* CyprUnus Jfotitmts* 311 mitive Practices and Laws, in fo far as they are according to GOD's Word, ought to be reviv'd, and the Corruptions fince crept in. purged out: For, doubtlefs, they never craved, that the giving of the Sacrament to Infants fhould be reintroduced, or confecrated Oyl retain'd ,• and fo tar were chey from retaining Erfar, che Quadrageftma, and other Holy Days, which moft anciently obtain'd, that in their Book of Policy, which even Spot/wood inferrs into his Hiftory, they clearly and indultrioufly reje& them, And indeed to prove, that they made no Mortal, but GOD alone, fpeaktng in his Word, his own Interpreter, their Approving of the Helvetian Confeffion, were there no more* abundantly fuffices : For in the very firfr Chancer of it, 'tis exprefly faid, That the Univerjal Church has in the Canonical Scripture of the Old and New Teftament all things that either pertain to javing Faith, or a Holy Life tnoji fully Jet forth. That Calvin makes che Scripture it fe'if its own Inter- preter, will not be denyed by any Candid Reader of the 7 and 8 Chapters of che firft Book of his Inftitutions : But that herein between our Reformers and Calvin ther^ was a good Agree- ment, is no lefs undenyable. But we need not go fo far ; their own Confeflion, their Confefr fion I lay, which in the very fame 15-60 Yeir was exhibited by the Church, and approved by the Parliament, puts the matter beyond all fcrupie: For there ( i ) they exprefly fay, We believe and Confefs the Scriptures of GODJufJicknt to inftruft, and make the Man of GOD perfect. And (k), "As ( i ) Article 20. ( k ) Article si. ' we $12 Cyprianus lfotimusl Chap. III. 'we do not ralhly damne that which Godly c Men, affembled together in General Councils * lawfully gathered, have proponed unto us ; * fo without juft Examination, dare we not f receive whartbever is obtruded unto Men, * under the Name of General Councils: For € pUin it is, as they weie Men, fo have foroe of * them manifeftly erred, and that in matters of f great weight and importance. So far then, as c the Council proveth the Determination and * Commandment that it giveih, by the plain € Word of GOD, fo loon do we reverence and € imbrace the lame. From all which 'cis moft . clear that our Refoimers, in the plrcts he alledges, fpoke, in the firft piace,of the Ancient Symbols or Creeds which the Papifts, by good Confluence, infringe, thouga thej donotex- prefly deny them ,• and in the fecend otmany good Guftomsi and Caaons which they deined to be reduced into practice, as being wholfome and according to GOD's Word ; tor of ail the Ancient Canons and Cuftoms, they as we have feen, couidnotfpeak, yea, even our Adverfaries, who perpetually brag of their Agreement with Fathers and Councils, defer t many Doftrines, Cuftoms and Laws considerably mcfce Ancient, than thefe cfjujtinian. The Paffages which he quotes are alfo brought up by the Author of the Fundamental Charter , and 1 indeed, while I amwered it, mentioned them not) which yec can be no excuie to J. S. ; for ethers of the very fame import and meaning, and conceived almoft in the very fame words. I(/)wrung (0 Naz. Quer. pag. 62i &c, out Chap. III. Cjprianuf Ifoumuf. 315 out of the hand of that Author, and made ic as plain as needs be, that he was palpably a&ing the Sophifter, all the while he ufed them. §. IV. And here I remember, it has been Ob/e&ed, that I meddled not with a place of Buchanan adduced by that Author ; The words arenas this Auchor tranflatesthem. The Scots being delivered from the Gallican Slavery by the English jtffijianze, had fubfcribed to the Religious W or [hip and Rites of the Church of England f m ). Thefe words I handled not, becaufe I well knew, that, tho? the Hierarchies might perhaps find fome falfo Reafoning, and Colours to feduce fome of the more fleepy fort, and make fem think our Refor- mers were for, or not againft Imparity among Paftors, they could never, by all the Mift and Duft, Earth, yea or Hell was able to raife, darken this Truth, That thefe our Reformers utr terly reje&ed and abhorred the keeping of Holy Days, the Hurpiice, Corner Cap) and Tippet, and other fuch Engiifk Popish Ceremonies : Hence it was, that, at my fir ft peruiai of the Fundamental Charter , thofe Words took no Impreffion on me ,• and if they did, they went clofs out of my Mind, clfe perhaps I had dire&ly mention- ed and difcuifed them ; I fhall therefore do it now : And I affirm, that either Buchanans Meaning muft be, ( for his Candor I call not in qadiion J that the Scots were linked with the Englijh in fuch things as croffed Popery, and in particular the Pope's Supremacy,1 or, otherwile, that thefe Words ( which may be (ometimes in- cident to the moft Acurate Wrirer) headiefly (rn) Fundamental Charter, &c. pas 83. dropt 314 CjpriatJHs Ifotimus. Chap. III. dropt from his Pea, who ( as the Author con- fefleth {» ) ) did not ftand nicely upon the Wording of his Mind herein. For, is it credible, he fhould have fpoken nothing in its proper place of an Obligation lo weighty, and given in the Name of all the Scotti(h Proteftants, but only dropt a Word of it by the By, while he is handling ano- ther Affair ? Is it credible, that no other of our Hiftorians fhould have once mentioned a Matter of fuch Note and Confequence f So carelefs (they are the Author of the Fundamental Charters own Words (0) ) ( to fay no worfe j have all our Hiftorians been, that not one of them mentions it, hut be ( Buchanan ) and he does no more but mention it. Is it credible, that tho', in Scotland, either Ne* gligence (hould have loft, or Partiality deftroy'd the Original Contrad, it (hould not have been carefully kept in England, and produced by the Zealots of that Church, for a Demonftration of the Perfidy of the Scots, who could fo quickly break their moft Solemn Bonds and Obligations ? Is it credible, that Spotfwcod, having fuch Accefs to all the Records of both Kingdoms, and being fo much concerned to mention this, fhould have been wholly filent ? Is it credible, that, if fuch a publick Obligation and Bond had been given, our Affembly, Anno 15*66, fhould, in their Let- ter to the Bifhops and Paftors of England, have had the Brow plainly and warmly to inveigh a- gainit their Ceremonies ,• or» if we fuppofe them to have been fo Effronted, that the Englifh fhould not have publickly and roundly told them of their Per jury and Impudence? The Affem- ( n ) Pag. 90* ( O Pag* **• bly's Chap. IH. Cyprianus lfitmus 315 bly's Words are ( p ) : " if Surplice, Corner- * Cap, and Tipper, have been the Badges of I- idolaters, in the very Aft of their Idolatry,what c have the Preachers of Chriftian Liberty, and cthe Rebukers of Superftition to do with the c Dregs ot that Roman Beaft ? Yea, what is he c that ought not to fear, either to take in his 4 Hand, or Forehead, the Print and Mark of c that Odious Beaft ? Thefe Words I eife where ( q ) produced,- and they plainly declare, that our Reformers were Enemies to the Englifh Popifh Ceremonies, and, by good Conf quence, that, if they were confonant to themfetves, they ne- ver gave any Bond or Obligation to obferve them : Yea, there is nothing more evident, notorious and palpable, than that, at the very time^ in which, as the Author of the Fundament tal Charter pretends, they gave this Solemn Bond, they were Reforming our Church according to the Mode! of the Churches of Germany, and Ge* veva, and not at all according to that of Eng- land. The Book of Volley penned if 60, and prefented to the Convention of Eflates, is an irre- fragable Demonftration of this Truth ,• where- in, as for Example, they allow, that all Keepers of Chriflmas {hould be punifhed by the Magi- ftrate : All the Hiftorians are Wimeffes of the fame .• I (hall name two : The firft is Spotf* wood; This ( faith he ( r ) was the Volley dejired to be Ratified ; it had been framed by John Knox,, •partly in Imitation of the Reformed Churches ofGei^ many, partly of that which he had feen at Geneva, (?) sp$tf*ood%3 Hiflory. pag, 199. ( $) Naz. Quer4 Parti. §.8. (r)P*g. 174. The 3 1 6 Cypianus IJotitmis* Chap. III. The other is Sir James Balfoure % He, in his An~ nals, ad annum ij6o, fpeaking of the Articles which were agreed on by the Scots, Enghfh, and French, when Leith was given up, iays, In alltkefe Articles , they didnot meddle withReligion for diver fe reff>e£ls% but the chief was, that, as yet% the Scots Wert not refolved9 whether to embrace the Reformation of England* or that of Geneva. From which Words 'tis moft colligible. that then they had not Subfcribed to the Eng/ijk Ceremonies ,• nor, if the Author may be credited, did they do it afterward; for after a few Lines he exprefly fays, That the Njbility promtve, this Tear i^o, the R*. formation according to that of Geneva eftablijhed by Calvine, and his Ajjociates. But there needs no more ; the Matter is owned not only by all Presbyterians? but alfo is elfewhere made good by the Teftimonies of Heylyn^ and L'Ejlrange, to whom, befide other chief Zealots of the Church of England, you may add HoweU ( f)9 and Wat* fon ( t y This latter is by Nicolfcn Bi/hop of Carlifle ( u ) clafs'd among Popifh Writers ; but he was juft fuch a Papiftas were thefe now named, a High-Church-Man, all of whom have indeed a double Portion of Romes Spirit ; but that ever he was a profefs'd Papift, I have not heard : He could do Rome better Service, while he kept on the Mask. Yea, 'tis really owned by the Author of the Fundamental Charter him- felf. M There was ( faith be (x) ) a Principle had (/*) Famil, Letters, Vol. 3. Pag. 395*. (t) Hiftoncal Collections of Eccleflaftical Affairs in Scotland, &c. ( « ) Scottish Hiltorical Library, Chap. 4. Page. 209. (x) Fag. 16*7. f then Chap. III. Cyprianus Ifotitnu$\ 317 then got too much Footing amongft fome Pro- teftanc Divines, m*« That the beft way to Reform a Church, was to recede as far from the Papifts as they could : To have nothing in common with them, but the Effentials ; the neceffary and indifpenfabie Articles and Parts of Chriftian Religion ; whatever was in its Nature indifferent, and not positively and exprefly commanded in the Scriptures, if it was in fafhion in the ?opi(h Churches, was there- fore to be laid afide, and avoided as a Corrup- tion ; as having been abufed, and made fub* fervient to Superftition and Idolatry. This Principle John Knox was fond of, and main- tained Zsaloufly ; and the reft of our Re- forming Preachers were much a&ed by his In- fluence. In purfuance of this Principle, there- fore! when chey compiled the firft Book of Dis- cipline, they would not Reform the old Poli- ty, and purge it of fuch Corruptions as had crept into it,keeping ftill by the main Draughts, and Lineaments of it; which undoubtably had been the wifer, the iafer, and every way the better Courie, as they were then admonilht, even by fome of the Popifh Clergy : But they laid it quite afide, and inltead thereof hamme- red out a new Scheme, keeping at as great a di- ftance from the old one, as they could, and as the Effentials of Polity would allow them. Thus he. And now I fubfume, as before ( y ), from the fame Premiffes, in the Matter of Prela- cy ,• But no Man can fay, that either thefe Englijb Ceremonies, Crofting, Kneeling, Saints- U) Niz, Qtier. fart !.§.«« §l8 Cyprianus Ifotimns. Chap. l\U Days, Surplice^ &c. were not in fafhion in the Popijh Churches, or that our Reformers believ'd 'em to have been positively commanded in the Scriptures; they were therefore Heart Ene- mies to the Englifh Ceremonies, this Author him- felf being Judge : And fo, tho* they could irre- fragably demonftrate, that our Reformers Swore and Subfcribed the EngUfh Ceremonies, it would only follow* that, for fear of imminent Danger, they ftrain'd their own Confciehces, but by no means, that ever they, in their own Mind and Judgment, approved of them : This indeed, were it true, Cfaculd fomewhac Sullie the Luftre of thefe Heroes, but yet could do our Adverfa- ies no Service, as to the prefem Defign. H But faith be (z, ) " The publickThankfgiving, and Prayers made with great Solemnity, in St. Giles's Church in Edinburgh, after the Pacificati- on at Liitby in July 1560* amount to no lefst than a fair Demcnftraiion of an incire Union be^ tween the two N^cionsas to Church Matters, and Religion ,* for on that occafion, it was thus addrefied to Almighty GOD wlrh the Com- mon Qonfinh and as a publick Deed of our Scottifi Reformers. Seing that nothing is more odious in thy Prefcnce ( O LORD J than is Ingrati- tude; and Violation of an Oath and Covenant made in thy Name • and feing thou haft made cur Confederates in Effgland, :he Inflruments by whom we are now fet ac Liberty, and, to whom in thy Name, we have promijed mutual Faith again^ Let us never fall to that Vnkindnejs, (OLORD) ' that either we declare our feives Vntbank /^ua# {*) Pag, jr. Chap, in* Cyprianus Ifotimus. 319 € to them>or Prtphaners of thy Name. Confound € thou the Counfel of thefe that go about to ' break that mo ft Godly League contracted in thy Name\ c and retain thou us fo firmly together, by the * Power of thy Holy Spirit, that batan have ne- * ver Power, to fet us again at Variance nor Dip* c cord. Give us thy Grace to live in that Chriftian * Charity, which thy Son our Lord Jefus Chrijl € hath 1q earneftly commanded to all the Mem- 'Ibers of thy Body, He brings alfo a Paffage, for Proof ot his Conclufion, of the like import, out of the old Scottifh Liturgies. But 'cis certain, there is nothing in either Paflfage fpoken of the EngUjh, which might not be fpoken of Lutherans, Greeks, or any People who are Sound ia the Fun* damencals, and had affifted them againft the Pa- pal Tyranny, tho* they had not been purged off fuch Corruptions, as in our Reformers Judg* ment, made it unlawful for them to joyn with thefe Churches in Worfhip and Discipline. And was not the Church of England ( asks he) of that fame very Cfnftitutiw, then$ that it was of in- King Charles the firfi his time ? I anfwer, taking tht Church of England in his Senfe, that is, for Laud's Tyrannizing Fa&Ion* th^t flie was not ac all of the fame Conftitution: For thefe Lauden- ftans were and are for the Divine Right of Epif- copacy, even Sole- Power- Epifcopacy, Paffive Obedience, and, to name no more, the whole Mafs of the Pelagians Heterodoxies • none of which Errors, the Church of England, at the time of our Reforma ion maintained : In fhort I confefs, that the Hierarchies may find fome feeming Congruitys and Colours, to make fome prejudie'd 320 Cyfrianus lfotimus. Chap. HF. prejndic'd Weaklings think, that our Reformers thought well of fome Imparity among Paftors • but whofoever, with this Author, attempts tO perfwade the World, that they thought the obferving of Tule, and fuch Holy Days, Crosjtng^ Kneeling Surplice, Corner Cap, Tippet, and the like Englijh and Roman Ceremonies to be defirable or lawfull, or the joyning in fuch practices to be allowable, muft by all knowing and fober Men of either fide, be reckoned for one who has arrived at the higheft pitch of Hardnefs and Impudence ; yea, for a very mad Man, who hopes to fathome the Earth, or darken the Sun. This was the Realon why in my Naz,. Quer. I fcarce cook any notice of, or dire&ly meddled with what he brought to prove, that our Reformers were Lovers of the English Ceremonies, tho' I faid enough, trom which, by good Confequence, the contrary may be con- cludedt I fet my felf mainly to mine the Argu- ments and Defences he brought for the other head, to wit, That they Reformed on the Prin- ciples of Imparity, and am per(wadedf I did it effe&ually. I, for the fame Reafon, negU&ed feveral other things in the fame Book, as that Queen Elizabeth, and the Earl of Morton, were the prime Introducers and Fomenters of Presby- tery in Scotland (a); than which, 'tisdoubtful, if ever a more fenfelefs and palpable Falfoood was either vented or printed. And thus I judge, I have fufficiently accounted for my forbearing to confider Buchanan's Words. And I now come more dirediy co J. S. it it may be (aid, that (a) Pag. 231, ft** there Chap: III. CyprUnusIfotifHtiS. 32 1 there is any diftance between him and the Author of the Fundamental Charter. "May it not cbe added ( faith be (b) ) as another Argument, ' ad Homines, of the reafonabtenefs of this Sup» c pofition, • That tho' as much Evidence, as the c Nature of the thing is readily capable of, has c been brought to prove, that our Brethren have c notorioufly miftaken the Principles of our 'Reformers ; yet hitherto, rather than call in € Queftion the reafonablenefs of fuch a Suppo- sition, they have chofen, 1 (hall not fay, € Obftinately, but I muft fay, very ftrangely> to c maintain, in defpight of all that Evidence, that ' they have fiill been in the Right, in their 'Aflertions concerning the Principles of our € Reformers ? This I am fecure of* But many are more fecure than fafe > and I am perfwaded that it is fo with him. He fuppofes and inti-. mates, if I miftake him not, that the Author of the Fundamental Charter is a fpeciai and chiefs if not the only Man who advanced this fo bright and ddzling Evidence. But as he cannot want to know, I profeffedly took this Book to Task* Naz,. Quer. Pare 1. §. 8. I therefore modeftly judge, that before he had faid fo much^ and withal infinuated,that that Author had fuily and finally overthrown that which we afiert of our Reformers, that they a&ed on the Principles of Parity, he ought to have Examined what I there adduced, at leaft have Tingled out fuch things, as he thought I moft- confided in, and by expofmg the intolerable Weaknefs, and unferviceablenefs of thefe, made it evident C)Chap,i.§. 5; X that 322 tjprUnui Ifolitnus. Chap. III. that the reft deferv'd no Reply : For either this he muft think, or elfe, that my Anfwer is unconquerable; otherways how could he have thus dealt, and yet fupprelTed all mention of it. §. V. I fhali (hut up this whole Argument with a Letter of a known Conformijl, and active Promorer of our Defection, and Relapfing into the Engtifb Popijh Ceremonies. The Letter is moft memorable ; tor therein 'tis evidently con- fefled, that both Epifcopacy and Ceremonies were Innovations intruded upon, and Wounds given unto the Church of Scotland. The Author is Mr. William Strutberr. 'Tis Written to the Earl of Airtby in the Year 1650. and is preferved in Sir James Balfour 's Annals MS. as follows. " I vifit your Lordfhip with this Letter* and that 4 for the end I (poke of more largely in Confe- € rence, ever for the Peace of this poor Kirk, * which is rent fo grievoufly fpr Ceremonies. € There are alfofomefurmifes of further Novation, cof Organ?, Liturgies and fuch like, which c gready augments the Grief of the People: But c the Wifer fort allure themfelves of hisMajcfties c Royal Wifdom and Moderation, that his ,cMajefty would impofe no sew thing',* if his c Majefty weretimeoufly informed of thefe or the *]ike Reafons. Firft, Becaufe King James of * happy Memory made the Marquels ci Hamilton € promife in his Majefties Name to all the Eflates ' ot this Land folemnly in Face of the Parlia- c menr, that the Church fhould not be urged * wich any more Novations, than thefe five * Articles that then were prefenced to the Par- 1 liament, Chap. III. CjpriAmf Ifotimau 32 £ liament; upon which Promife the Parliament refted, and gave way the more cheerfully, that the!e Articles would p Is in A& of Parliament. 2. Next, bccaufe the Motion chat is { -nd to be made to his Majefty of thefe Novarions is made by and beiide the Knowledge and Confcience of the Kirk of this Land, who are highly rfif- pleafed with that Motion, and more becaufe ic is alledged to have been in their Name* who know nothing thereof but by report. ;. Be- caufe our Cburch lyes groaning under two Wounds,- the firft of Eredion of Bifhcps, the other of Geniw*u!ation ; But if a third be infli- &ed, there is no appearance but of a Diffipation of the Church. In the firft, People were only onlookes on Biiliops State ,• the fecond toucned them more in Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, but yet left Arbitrary to them; but this thkd will be greater, becaufe,in the whole Body of the pub.ick Worrtiip, they fliali be forced to fuffer Novelriss 4. Bscaufe the Biiliops are aheady fubUci odii Vt8m4i and born down with contempt, wnd that Vexation is intolerable, when they Depole any Brother for not Conformity, *hcy fcarcely can find 911 Expectant to fill the place tr^at is empty, and that becaule they b^c^me fo odious to the Flock, that they cau do no good in thuir Miniftery: But if any further Novation be brought in, tne Bifliops will find ten for one to be De poled, and tnat of thefe who have already given Obedience to the ? Articles^who will ra;her choolc to foifake their places, than to enter in a new fire of Combuftion. y. and X z daftly, 324 Cyprtinus IJotlmns. Chip. III. c laftly, becaufe it is obferved by^ ftch as are % Judicious3 that the former Schiims have fhaken c the Hearts of the People inReligiari, .an^^a?h c produced Oilum Vasinianum among Brethren: 9 Pcpery is increafed in the" Land, and iPany c farther come in, it will be feen that univer/ally ^Peoplewillbe made fufceptible of any Religion, * and turn Atheifts in grofs. Your Lordfhip c knows that lam not one oi thefe whoftandout c againft Order, but do fuffer for mine Obedi- c ence? and therefore I the more boldly fuggeft * thefe Reafons unto your Lordfhip : I dwelt in c the mod eminent Part of this Land, and fo € have the Dccailpn to fee what is the fruit of a c Schifm. I profefs an unfpeakable Grief, to fee * any thing done that may trouble the Peace of * the Church of this Kingdom, and divide the € Hearts of a good and loving People from fo * good a King. Our fire is fo great already that cit hath more need of Water to quench it, than I Oyl to augment it. Edinb. Jan. 28. 1630s In thisLetter not only the Novelty and Grie- voufnefs of Epifcopacy and Ceremonies, but alfo diverle other things of considerable Moment, add good Ufe in the prefent Controverfie, as will be obvious to every Reader, are by even this feduious Advancer of the Thraldom of Dur Church, and Conformity with England moft plainly acknowledged. jJV V I. And i,ow I return to the proper ment of this Chapter, and /hall evince the y of this his Tenet, That the 3^ Age had fome Chap III* ° Cffriauui Ifotimus. 325 fonje infallible Prefervative againfl even the poflibilitypf -^ufing che Suppofition, that a thing at a 150 Years diftance, might be known j which JPrefervative was wanting to later Ages. To me he feem's to alledge fo much ( c ) : c* It*was (faith be ) an Age that afforded no Se- c cular Temptations to afpire to the Epifcopal % Preheniinence. An Age very far from being f apt to cherifli Ambition, or the Affedation of < any undue or unwarrantable heights in any c Profeffors of Chriftianity ; An Age in which € the being an eminent Governor of the ? Church, was the expofing of che Perfon, who- € ever he was, to the firft Brunt of the fiery r Trial. But the Queftion is not, if there were Temptations to Ambition ; but if Ambition it fel£ or the like Vices, got then any Harbour in Church-men, whatever might be the Tempta- tions thereto. They were indeed lefs and fewer than in after times, yet Temptations there were ; and (mall Temptations, GOD permitting it to be fo, will ferve to kindle Mens Corruption, The Apoftle warns the Ephfans* that grievous Wolves were fhortly to enter, that would not fpare the Flock ; that is, they would be Ty^ rants : He intimates alio in his Epifties to 77- motby znd Titus, chat Covetoufnefs, and the like Vices were even then getting place in Church- men, and that there was feme Temptation thereto. And I am fure, Diotrefhes was faffici- ently Ambitious and Arrogant, whatever might be his Temptation ; With this I am nothing (c ) Chap* i. §; jo. X 1 con- §26 CfPriduH* lfotimts. Chap. II!. concerned • 'tis enough for me, if fuch Vices had then got inco Church-mms Breafts : And if rhey had, in the hi ft Century, then doubtlefs they were not expelled, but increrife/i in the Third, the Cyprianic Age. The Myftery of Ini- quity which began during the firft Age, in which furely there were moe Diotrtfbefes than one, grew with time, ( for the Spiritual, like the Lite- ral Babylon^ was not built in a day J as appears even in the firft Ages, The fecond produces a remarkable Inftance of it, in the Contention a« bouc Ea\hr ; where not only Vitiorf Bifhop of Rome, with hisPa tifans* on the one fide, butalfo Volycrates of Efhejut, on the other> clearly appear to be of dn Arrogant, Innovant, and Ambitious Spirit. N »r was any other thing than Ambiti- on the chief Caufe of the Herefies in not only the lubft quent, but even in the very Firft Cen- tury : The Defign of Ctrinthm and Bafiliits, thsfe great Sed-vlafters, was. hat themiVlves might be count-. d great Apoftles ( d j. The iame Love of Preeminence moved U>ntanUf^ in the becond, to broach his Herefie ( e ,. Noi ;^all you readily deprenend any Arch*>criimaricKor Heretick ot tnefe times, to whom, as the Writ- ers of thefe Ages record, the mifling ot the P/eheminenee gave not the Occailon of their Herefie. And, doubtlefs, otners, who were more happy in getting the Primacy, were no lets Am- bitious, and, had they mils'd ic, had been as ready to turn wild, as did tneie Arch-Hereticks, when they fail'd of their purpofe. Samojatenus is ( J) Eufeh Hift: Ecclef: Lib: I: Op: 18: & Lib: 4: Cap,- 7; ( ') ttftfc Hift; Jcclcf; Lib; 5; Op: 16. 3 Chap, f II. Cjprittms Ifotlmui. 33 y a notable Inftance of the Ambitious Afpiring that was in the Third Century ,• and yet 1 doubt not, but that he fliould have been reprefented to us as a Man no lefs Humble than his fellow Bi- (hops, had not his Herefie occafion'd the Record- ing of his Ambition. Wich Sarnofatenus his Qua* lities, Pride, and Envy, tho' not with his Here- fie, was Demetrius of Alexandria tainted; which appears in his Malicious Grudging at che Succefs and Fame of Origtn ( f '). How Ambitioufly and Fraudulently ( as both Cornelius* his Adver- faryj and Cyprian relate ) foughr Novatus to get into the Roman chair ? Nor did Felicifftwus feek lefs Ambitioufly to Out tyfrian, ma get into that of Carthage* or, at lead, to procure it for one of his Complic s. Cyprian, as is colligible from the Harangue his Deacon Vontim wrote in his Praife? was brought in to be Bifhop mainly by thePower of the People,in Oppofition to the major part of the presbyters, fome of whom aim'd at the Place for themfelves. Hence proceeded perpe- tual Jarrs between him and them, and at length an open Rupture. Now, did all thefe|fo Ambi- tioufly covet the Bifhop's Chair for nothing i No: The Peoples Liberality was thtn very great, and the Bifhop had the greateft (hare, as alfo the Diftribution of all the Charitable Contribu- tions* and withal the greateft Honour. The greateft Butt of Ambition, the Honour of all Church-men, was then, if ever, great, but chiefly of thefe who had the chiefeft Places. And how much Gain andHonfcur ( which fuf- fice to animate Men for encountering the great- ( / ) BsT* Hift: Ecclef; Lib; ft Cap; 8, eft §28 Cyprianus Ifotitmu. Chap* III, eft of Dangers ) were coveted by the Clergy men, Cyprian himielf clearly unfolds (g), who; reckon- ing up the Sins, for which GOD fent a heavy Ptrfecution on the Church, exprefly fays, That there was no Religion ner Devotion in the ?rie(ls, and no Faith nor Integrity in the ^eaccnt. And, €C Ve- * ry many Bifliops ( faith he ) who ought to € have been Exhorters of, and Examples to the * reft, defpifing the Charge GOD had entrufted * them with, became Admimftrators of Seen- Mar Affairs, having lefc their Pulpits, fprfak- f en their Parishes, wandering through ftrange ' Countrey*, they fought after Mercys, where € they might have gainful Merchandizing, did *notfuccour their' hungry Brethren in the * Church, coveted to have very much Moaey, c got themfelves Poffeffions by Snares and De- ' ceits, eppreffed Men by heavy Ufury. What ' did we not deferve to foffer for fuch Sins f Thus Cyprian, as I cap tranflate him, who makes evident, how Ambitious, Covetous, and every way Irreligious, mod .'of 'em were, who had leap'd into the Biinops Chairs ; as alfo, how final 1 and mean Baits would be able enough to catch them. And that even baits tempting e- ( t ) De Lapf- P. 123. Non in Sacerdotibus Religio de- vota, non in Miniftris Fides integra. nrrrm — ■* Epif- copi plurimi, qucs & Hor.tamento tffe oponet ceteris & Exeniplo, Divina Procuratione cor>ttmpta, Procurators Rerum Secularium fieri, dereli£l& Cathedra, Plebt defeita, peralienasiJfovincias oberrantes, Negotiatiouis Quseftuofee Ntindinas aucupari. Efurientibus in £cclc(i£ Fratribus ncn fubvenire, ha^eie Argcntum largiier velie, Fundos iniidioils Fraudibus raperc, Ufuris multiplicantibus Foenus augere. Quid aon perpeti tales pro Peccatis ejufmcdi mc: feiejxitir ? nough Chap. IH. CypUnus Ifotimus. 329 pough for fuch Spirits were not wanting* is al- ready mide manifest; and is yet further cleared in the Scory of Natate, a Famous Confeffor and Sufferer for CHRIST, wtiQm> notwithftanding, the Love of a Btfhopruk, and 1 jo Denarii for his Monethly Stipend, brought over to theHerefy o£ Artemon ; and he ha,d continued there, if he had nov been Miraculoufly Reclaimed ( h ). Origen, Cyprians Contemporary, oftner than once lalhes the Church- men for thefe fame Vices. on much better grounds* * weep oyer the Church, which was built, to c the end, that it might be a Houfe of Prayer, c and yet is, through the fiitay Ufury of fbme, J and I wirti thefe were not even the Princesof the c People ( the Bi(hops and Presbyters J, made a ■ Den of Thieves, ry+mmm But 1 think, that * that which is' written concerning the Sellers of * Doves, doth agree to thefe who commie the c Churches to Greedy, Tyrranrncal, Unlearned* c and irreligious Biftiops, P,resbyc£rs an4 $ea- c cons. And, Commenting on Mattb. 20. where the Mother of James and J$bn petitioqates our Saviour for a Prerogative to her Sons. " We ( h) Eufeb. Hift. Ecclef Ub, 5- Cap 28, (/' ) Jom- 16. in M*th. pig. 441. £) uahhiv yiitnti? ivh'oyM %KK&vf*y9 vii h^ahn^y ivhoyprtpr *A#u(fa7ct£ *?i t*v «M^w£ff» li^^un^li^iy^v hx Qfx.*r TptfiVfrnt m7 yt'/QWAf 3 Jlta rhv 0i%t)wfei*v 7y Tpvffo Ttyoy, etM' *ii$i y,n $ rap %)yw&mv 7b A*£ fr^/Act/Of AiJf CM. - j^VO/JLl^a £fub£$i9 70V tf«e»< 76)v Tta^Zww 7«U *zejL?tp${ *lyop 7oi< vto&Pifist (faith 330 Cypiannslfotitmi. Chap; IIF. {faith he ( k ) ) " are fuch, as that wefometimes * in Pride go beyond even the Wickedeft of Vrin- ' ces of the Gentiles, and are juft ar the point of 'Purchafing to our felves Guardfmen, as if we * were Kings, making it our Study, moreover, c to be a Terror to others, and giving them, ' chit fly if they be Poor, very uneafie Accefs : * We are to them* when they come, and feek « any thing from us, more Cruel than are even f Tyrants,or the Crueileft of Princes to their Sup- « plicants. And you may fee,in even the moft part * of Lawfully Gonftitured Churches, efpecially «thefe of greater Cities, how the Princes of 'GOD's People (tbeBifhops and Presbyters) fuffer * none, tho' they were even the chiefeft of. 'CHRIST'S Difciples, to be equal with them* 4 felves. More might be brought from the fame Author, but I will not cloy my Reader. Eufebius, concerning the fame Century, writes after the fame manner. " But when { faith be (I ) thro' ( k ) Pag. 420. T'i«roi itpsv £>s mo7* x} ih tup kcmZc JfXovrav w Tclf^i&tSfiv vv$p@dfau>t7vfr&fn]Ai9n xj i&Tif&v, *H;i?auT*f. &siH ItTtf&vvot. £ a,uco7$en i $ ix, 7m cm fctti* EXlfc&fitf?, bm ^cu/rirnTA ij faftificLf t* na£% i)i^^f^7nhhk77t7o. irC\oji «?Af7$ Action- pwm K) Ktiffim d$str* $ i«f tfp*tftfir am ^*A*K#f tool K&Kl&S XfO'UffK- - V< merit a better Character, the he flourifh'd before any of thefe now named, even about the middle of the Second Century. $. IX. About the end of the Second, and beginning of this Third Age flouriflvd TertuBian: How much he was addicted to Dreams and Vifions, chiefly after he fell into the Error of Montanus, no Body is ignorant Cyprian C as Jerom ( u ) informs us J was his Difctpie, and fo devoted to him, that he pafled no D^y without Reading pare o( him ,• and calling for the Book. ufed thefe words. Give me my A4a(iery and ac- coidingly follo^'d him, ^s appears in ftore of places thro' his Works, in this his unwarrantable doting after Exftafies and Revelations: He gives a luculoac Specimen of this in his 66 Epiftie to Florentius Pnpianus ; where he nor only clearly infinuaces and inculcate* falfe Docftrine, that a Paftor couid not be an ill Man. or an ill Man a lawful Paftor, bat profelFes, that he lean'd on thefe Dreams and Revelations, and that except ( t ) Diff. 4. in Cjpr. N. 16. ( u ) De Script. Ecckf. he Ghap. III. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 355 he were by them allowed, he would never be at peace with Pupianus. This Pupianus was> as is clear in this fame Epifile, alfo a Bifhop and a famous Sufferer and Confeffor ; he had heard fome bad reports of Cyprian, and was too credu- lous of them, perhaps, not wichltanding €yprian7s Tragical Exaggerations, all he either heard or faid concerned only his dealing by Ftlicijfimus and his Adherents, which Florentius judg'd to be Unjuft and Unchriftian. I fay not, it wa* fo ; but fure I am, that the whole tenor of that Epiftle, the mofl: falfe Principles, the reafonlefs Reafonings, the indefenfible heat, and contempt of him to wnom he Writes, would peri wade any Man, that there was either in Cyprian too great want of Wit, or of a good Caufe. This Flo- rentius, as may be juftiy prefum'd, would be as ready, if calTu to it, to lay down his Life for Chrift as was the oiher , only he wanted a Pontius to gather his Works, and make his Funeral Sermon. ff. X. Into how many, and how doleful Delufions thefe fuppoied Divine Dreams and Revelations brought even the greateft Men of the Eourth Age ( and I know no ptomife that fecured the Church of the id Century from thefe Impoftures, more than that of the follow- ing ) can be denyed by none that has read Arnhrofe, Ba(il} Nazianzen, Ny(fen9 and other fuch their Contemporaries, who were doubtleft the greateft Men of the 4th Age, wherein they lived. By thele D^ams^ Exitalies, and Revel- ations, firft, Saint- worfhip, dud afterward other Amichriftian Errors creep'd into the Church, To § 3 6 Cyprianns lfaimt, Chap. IIL To this purpofe moft applicable are the faords of the moft famous Mr- MeJe, in his moft admirable Difcourfe : I mean, the Apcftacy of the latter times f x ). " Some of the Ancients, though * otherwite holy Men, yet cannot be acquitted c from foma of the imputations here mentioned € (i fim. 4. 2, 5. 4.)3 nor altogether excufed from * having a ha*id accidentally through the Fate of * the Times wherein they Lived, in laying the c Ground- work whereon by others the Great € Apoflafie wasbuilded. And again ( y ) proving, that in the Fourth Age the Worfoip of Saints and their Reliques was brought in, and promoted by the Hypocrijie of Liars, or by Lying Miracles, |C It began, j(W*8 be, to appear in the Church c prefently after the Death of Julian t ■ e Apoftate, * who was the iaft Ethnical Emperor : The * grounds and occafions whereof were moft 5 ftrange reports of Wonders (hewed upon thofe *wh© approached the Shrines of Marty rs> and c Prayed at their Memories and Sepuichres ; c Devils charmed, Dlfeafes cured, the Blind faw5 'the Lame walked, vea the Dead revived, and c other the like: Which the Doctors of thofe € times for the moft part avouched to be done by * the Power and Prayers of the glorified Mar- € 'tyrs, and by the notice. they took of Mens c Devotions at their Sepulchres 1 though ac the € beginning thofe Devotions were directed to c GOD alone, and tuch places only chofen for ' the ftirring up of Zeal and Fervor by the € Memory of thofe Blefied and Glorious Cham- f pions of Chrift. But whiles the World flood (x) Pare 2. Chap. 2. {) ) Chap. }. € in Chap. III. CjtpriattHs Ifotimui. 337 c in Admiration, and the moft efteemed of € thefe Wonders as of the glorious Beams of the c Triumph of Chnft; they werefoon perfwaded * to call upon them z* Patrons and Mediators , € whofe Power wichGOD, and notice of things € done upon Earth, they chough* that thefe Signs c and Miracles approved. Thus the Relives of € Martyrs beginning to be efteemed above the c rlcheft Jewels, for the fuppofed vertue even of c the very air of them, were wonderfully fought € after as fome Divine Elixir foveraign boch to c Body and Soul. Whereupon another Scene of c Wonders entred, namely, of Vifions and Reve- * lations, wonderful and admirablef for the ' difcovery of the Sepulchres and Afhes of Mar- c tyrs which were quite forgotten, yea of fome f whofe Names and Memories till then no Man f had ever heard of ,• as S. Ambrofe's Gtrvafius and € Frotafius. Thu< in every corner of the Chrir € ftian World were new Martyrs Bones ever and * anon difcoyered, whofe verity again miraculous € effects and cures feemed to approve ; and c therefore were dtverfly difperfed, and glorioufly € Templed and Enfhrined. - " ■ -\ Babylas € his Bones were the firft, tha- all my fearch caa c find, which charmed the Devil of Daphne, c Apollo Daphnaus, when Julian the Appftate € offered fo many Sacrifices to make him fpeak ; * and being asked why he was fo mute, forfooth f the Corps of Babylas the Martyr, buried near * the Temple in Ddpime' (topped his Wind-pipe, > I fear, I fear here was fome Hyppcrifie in this $ bufinefs, and the Devil had fome feat to play : I The very name of Baby Us is enough to breed i Y •jealoufie, 358 Gyfrianus lfotimut. Chap. IIU * jealoufie, it i5 an ominous Name, the Name * Babylas : Yea and this happened too at Antiocb, * where Babylas was Bifliop and Martyr in the € Ptrfecution of Deems. Would it not do the ' Devil good, there to begin his Myftery\, where ' theChrifti&t Name was firft given to the followers c of Chrift ? 'Tis clear then, that even the beft Men in the 4th Age were piung'd in fhowers of Lying Wonders, talfe Miracles, ialfe Revela- tions, whereby were ufn^r'd into the World falfe and Hellifh Dodrines.1 Now, 3s i^ faid3 might there not in the %d Age fall down fome fmaller Rain ? For the Apo'flafie came by degrees, as a preamble to that more pernicious Tempeft that raged in the fourth and fubfequent Ages. ^ §. XL But befide this their doting after Dreams> Revelations, and Miracles) there is none of that Age, of whom ought is come to our hands that is not juftly acculed of notorious Errors. Ic were loft time to relate thefe of Origen, tho' without doubt the greatefl Man, yea the very Oracle of the ; or fuche as we may reads to c have bin in S. Augujlins tyme, with tnofe that c we no we reteine in thisChurchet and you can-' c not but acknowledge, that therein wc are c come to a far greater Perfection. - ■ ■■ ■ Great c Contention there was among the Bilhops in € the Councell of Nice y intomuch that even in c the prefence of the Emperour, they ceafed not c to Libel one againft an other. What Bitter- • neffe aiid Carfmg was there betwixt Epipbtni- 4 m 346 Cyprianus Ifottmuf. Chap. TIL *m and Chryfoftome > Wha* affe&ionate cDealvng of Theophilus againfl the;, fame c Chryfoflome ? What Jarring betwixt Hiel € rome and Attgufiine ? » Bifhops fliall not € now need to live by Pilling and Polling, as it c feemed they did inCy/>nWs tyme, for he com* c plaineth thereof, Ser. de Lapfis. Nor as fqmc c did in Amhrofe or Auguftins. And now, by this time, I know, my Chriftian and Judicious Reader fees, that all they ever have brought, or can bring from Cyprian and his Contemporaries, or from any fuch Fathers, for proving the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, is ftark nought, Scuff alto*, gether uncogent and inconcludent : He fees, that, tho* thefe Fathers had been never fo pofr tive for it, this camrt amount to fo much, as even a real Swafion or Probability: He fees, that tho* they fhould write. Books on this Subject, - not only as big as J. S'sVindic at Un, but even as big as A^mnas% Summy or all Augufiins Tomes, their Defign, if they know what they are doing, as is that of the Papifts in this and the like Cafes, can only be to amufe the People, and draw them from the Rock of GOD's Word into thefe Sandy foundations, on which they themfelves yield, that there is not one Inch of firm Footing: He fees, finally, that J. S. and his Aflbciates are moft clearly,moft fully convided and condemn'd by th§ir own chisfeft Fathers and Brethren; and if not alfo by theinown Confcience, provid- ed it be not quite feared, I leave toGOD,whofe D* puce it is, his Judgment and Determination. jj\ XIV. I find it, ere I period this. Chapter, rcquifke to latisfy anObje&ionj not an Objecti- on Chap* IIF. . CjprUuHs lfotimtu. 347 on of the Prelatifts ; for they are equally with us concern'd to loofe it. 'Tis this, That if the greateft Men, yea or whole Churches of the Third and Fourth Age were either thus fadly cheated with Phantafticfc Dreams, Falfe Revela- tions and Falfe Miracles, or impioufly forged .them, and that moftly to the end, that Falfe Do&rine and Falfe Worflbip might be introdue'd; How then could fuch Men be the fpecial Props and Lights of the Church, and Defenders of the true Catholick Faith, or that Church be the only true Gatholick Church? Or elfe> on the other hand, if it be admitted, which I own to be a certain Truth, that the Church, in which thefe furprizing things fell out> Was the true Gacholick Church* and they who are recorded to have had thefe Dreams and Revelations, and either to have wrought or firmly believed thefe Miracles, the choiceft Lights and Pillars thereof; Muft not then the Do&rine of keeping Vafcb and fuch An- niverfary Days, and the Vigils of their Ave*, and that of Enfhrining and Worf hipping of Saints Relijues, and other fuch odd Opinions and Pra- ctices, to the Introduction whereof moft of thefe Miracles tended, alfo be received ? The ArtUm urge this Obje&ion as to its former part, the Fa? pi/is as to the latter, and the common Enemies of Chriftianity urge it againft Chriftianity it felf. The Arrians% as faith Ambrofe in his 92 Sermon that he made concerning the Invention of the Bodies of St. Gervafius and St. ¥rothafius% which, as Augufiine Ci) fays, were discovered to him in a Viiion, laugh'd ac him and other Catholicks,. ( * j Confeff, Lih#7. Cap. 9 De Civit. D^ Lib. 22. Cap. 8. yhtn 348 Cyprianus Ifotimusl Chap. 111. When they alledg 'd> that a Blind Man was Cured, and Devils Eje&ed by the Miraculous Vertues of the Bodies of thefe their new found Saiptsj For they faid, that they were no true Miracles, but Forgeries and illufions : And in all this they (aid nothing but Truth, A later Arrian (k*) alfoob- jeds, that the Fathers, of the Council of Nice had many Diffentions among themfelves, and alfo forbade the Clergy * to Marry : And feeing ( faith the Arrian ) Paul, i Tim. 4. calls Prohibi- tion of Marriage tbi Do&rine of Devils, which was to be brought in by Anticbrift j who doth not ob* fervet that Anticbrift was t be Lawgiver in this Conn" ciU and brought in Defection from the Fait b and Dom Urine of Cbri/i, even as the Holy Gboft foretold by the Mouth of Paul ? But, f(uU tuhrit Cracchos ? Who- ever in this Cafe fpeak, the Arrians ought to be filentj fince they were5at leaft,no lefs guilty of all this Defe#ion?than were the Gatholicks j a clear Token whereof is, that, as their own Pbiloftorgi- us ( / ) relates, they wor (hipped Cbri$, whom yet they acknowledged not to be God j Nor was be the onm ly Saint they worshipped > and of whom they made Le- gends. For the fame Thihftorgius writes C m )3 that Helen, Conftantin' s Mother^ whom heinfinu- ates to have been Arriambuilt a City at the Streigbts tf the Bay of Nicomedia, and that (lie delighted in that place for this Caufc alone, that the Body of Luci- an the Martyr, whom he alio gives out to have been an Arrian, was carry d thither on a Deiphinv back. And ( n ) he tells us, that the Arrian Em- perour Conftandus brought the Reliques of Andrew ( * ) ApiH Zanch, Tom. 8. Col, 921. (/) Lib. 3. P«g'477» (*») Lib.*, pag, 474; ( n) Libs, pag 47*; the Chap. III. Cjprianus lfotmns. 349 the Apoftle, from Achaia to the Church of the Apojl/es in Conftantinople, and placed them befide his Fa- ther's Sepulchre ; and that he brought alfo the Body of Luke from Achaia, and the ^.ody of the Afoflle Ti- mothy from Ephefus into tb*t Famous and Venerable Church, &e moreover fills his Hiftory with the Legends of Revelations and Vifions that Tbeo- fhilus Indus, Aetius% and other his Arrian Saints received, and of the Miracles and Prodigies that they wrought. And he places it among the great Commendations of 'his Theophilus Indus, that he chotsd a Monaftick Life. He fays ( 0 ), that the Fa(i of the Fourth and Sixth Feria con/ifls not in fole Abflinence from Flejh • But the Canons decree, thai nothing at all be eaten till the Evening: And he highly commends Eud§xus3 an Arrian Presbyter, for fuch Fafting. Nor fails he to re- late ( p ) how diligent his Arrians were in the Sumptuous Adorning and Dedicating of Chur- ches ; which may alio be learn'd from Eufebius ( q ) and others. Fhiloflorgius narrates moreover the great and frequent Schifms that were among the Arrians themfelves : He tells us alfo ( r ) of their fraudulent Dealings in the Council of Nice, where Eufebius Nicomediewjis, and many other Diffembling and Heart ATrtans fate and fublcrib- ed to the Nicene Creed* which yet they believed not j and tho', without the leaft hazard, they might have oppofed the New Law, as Socrates calls it, about Prohibiting of Clergy-men to Marry, yet it was only oppofed, or rather qua* lifted, by Paphnutius a Catholic Confeffor : And, (•) Lib. n. pag. ~5atf. (?)i't>. 3« (?)DcVita Confi, Lib ,4. (r ) Lib, i» 35° CjprUnus lfotitnut. • Chap. Itf. for ought we can learn, thefe Anions might be the great P-romovers of that Law; fince thev were fufficiently addided to Monkery, who in all the Councils or Conventicles which they pro cur'd or fway'd, did, nolefs, at leaft,than any o- thers, carry on and promote all the Ingred/ents of that Corruption, which at length made up the whole Mafs of Romanifm. As for their Objeai- on from Ae'rius, who, as they fay, was Arrian and yet oppos'd Epifcopacy and the like Drofs* 'tis elfewhere (/) fully diffolvU The Truth is, thefe Enormous Corruptions, which after- ward refolv'd into Romanifm, were Epidemic and common (a few being excepted J to all Places, all Sorts, Seds, and Denominations of Chriftians. $. XV. The Strength of the Objection, as it is manag'd by the Papifts, lyes here, That it feems incongruous to GOD's Providence, to let even the moft Pious Men, and the Leaders of his Church be fo carry'd away with falfe Mi- racles, Dreams, and Revelations/ f^ut tho' this may feem hard, yet it is fufficiently far from being Infoluble : For as there is no Promife in Scripture, our only Guide in Exponing of Pro- vidence, that GOD will preferve even the beft of Men from fuch Lapfes and Errors as are not Fundamental and Inconfiftent with Salvation ,• fo neither is there any Promife to preferve them from being affaulted, yea or overcome by any certain kind of Inducements thereunto, especi- ally fuch Men as culpably negle&the duePoring into, and Search of the Scriptures, and begin to if) Nax. Quer. p3g, i. $.*. Ctiap. III. CflrUnus Ifotmus. ^5 1 dote afcer Unwritten Traditions* Dreams and Revelations. Of this no light Fault the Gene- rality of the Chriftians of thefe Ages were really guilty ; and the moft Pious of thefe Fathers and Do dors were carry'd away in the Croud and Stream of Declining Chriftians, while yet the fame Fathers did ftill believe and affirm, that the Holy Scripture is a moft full and fufficient Rule of our Faich and Pradice. In the mean while, the Scripture muft be fulfilled, the Do&i ine of Devils muft be Unfenfibly, Slyly andDeviliftly, or by the Operation of Devils, introduc'd into the Church : The Do&rine of Devils, I fay, or rather the Docftrine of D^Mons, that is, the Wor- ship of Saints departed ; as the admirable Jofepb Medt has moft irrefragably demonftrated: That, together with the Prohibition of Meats, and of Marriage, and other Abominations, that were to make up the Grand Apoftafie, and conftitute the Laws of that Lawlefs One, i &v%y.*t, the Man of Sin, and Signal Antichrift, mult all in the Later Times be fent upon the Lukewarm and Truth-negleding World : Except all this had come upon the Church, the Scriptures could not have been accomplifhed, nor GOD's Veraciry falved. Now it was requifire, that Antichrift fhould not dire&ly deny or impugn the grand pofitive Heads and Fundamentals of Christiani- ty : If he had done (o, his Coming had not been after the Working of Sathan, Subtile and Se- cret, and the Grand Apoftafy a Myftery of Ini- quity; nor could the Woman have been prefer v- ed alive in the Wildernels; For, this Wildernefs .Condition. bsing for the molt part nothing, fa've the 352 Cffrianus lfotimns. Chap. HI. the Churches Latent State, while (he yet re- main'd -among, and unfeparated from the De- clining and Antichriftianizing Chriftians ; She muft of necefficy have been poifoned* if thefe poficive Fundamentals had been lubverted. As then this Myftery of Iniquity and Defe&ion be- gan early to Work, fo the Preamble, or Begin- nings of that ftrong Delufion, whereby Men were indued to believe a pernicious Lve, the Confequsnce whereof was certain Damnation, were no lels maturely fent by GOD, whereof thefe Chriftians in the Third and Fourth Ages Tafted or Supped, but never Drank,- they were then notwithstanding faved, yet fo as by Fire. In fhort, whoever pryes, with a Chriftian Curi- ofity, into the Scripture Prophefies concerning Antichrift, and the My ftery of Iniquity, andin- *to Ditine Providence manifefted in the Hiftory of the feveral Ages, cannot fail to fee in the Pa- pacy the cxa&eft Accomplifoment of thefe Pro- phefies ; which at once compleatly fatisfies the Obje&ion, as urged by either Papifts or Pagans. And thus the way is opened to my other Af- fertion, That Cyprian and ! is Contemporaries be- lieved Presbytery to be of Divine Right,- which, if it can be proved, is of immenfe moment: For tho', as is proved, it will by no means follow, upon their falfly fuppoied Belief of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, that it really was fo,- yec, on the other hand, confidering how much even then they were addicted to their own Inventions^ to the dividing of things that GOD had con- joy n'd ,• and, in fpecial, to the Imitation of the Secular Government and Grandeur* to the Tower* ' ■ Chap. IV. Cfprianut lfotimus. 953 Towering up of Paftors over Paftors, and Dea- cons over Deacons, to their fetting up of Church Officers, that confeffedly are not of CHRIST'S Appointment: If chefe I fry, really be!iev'd the Divine Right of Presbytery ; We muft ofne- ceflicy own, that hereia their Faith was altoge- ther and flawlefly found, and their fo Believing is a matchlefs and inconquerableDemonftmion, that their Belief was Orthodox, and Presbytery of Divine Inftitution. CHAP. IV. That not Epifcopacy^ but its Contrary, Pref- bytery, was Believd by Cyprian and hk Contemporaries, to be of Divine Right. j $*• I. ~JT S. having unjuftly ( a J, as all, who 1 look on the Paragraph fertoufly, muft L own, accufed Mr. Rule of Rough Lan* guage> and (caret fair Dealing y very heartily thanks bimf ror giving him fuchPjovowtiwtQejlabtiflifuch (*) Chap, i'o % r. Z a 354 Cypriums Ifotimus. Chap. IV. a c-wfiderable Principle of fkCyprianic Age, \\zlhat EpilcopJcy was believed by &t% Cyprian and his Con' temporaries to be of Divine Right. A:id,for my part,I will not be behind with him ; I as heartily thank him for giving me, I (hall not fay Provocation, ban juft and fair Occafion to manifeft, that no fuch Principle of that Age ever was, ever fhall, ever can be eftablifhcd. But, which is more, the fequel* as I truft, of this Difcourfe will evi- dently (hew, that the Chriftians of the Cyprianic Age held the very contrary Principle, and Be* liev'd, that Presbytery, or Parity among all Pa- llors of CHRIST's Inftirution, was of Divine Right: More yet,* (hife as I judge, may be fuffi- ciently evinced from theie very places, from which % S. endeavours to conclude their Belief of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy: I am there- fore impartially to Examine J. S's X. Chapter, the Tide whereof is, Epijcopacy was believed by St. Cyprian and his Contemporaries to be of Divine Right i as alfo feveral other places of his Book, wnich, as he judges, prove the fame Conclufion. The firft of thefe Arguments he pretends ( b ) to be contained in Cyprians Third Epiftle written to Rogatian, a Biiftop who had ask'd his Counfel how to handle an Offending Deacon, Cyprian's Words, as J. S. has cranflated them, are thefe : that B*- fljops and Rulersy in this place of Cyprian, altoge* ther fignify one and the lame thing. From all which it unavoidably follows, that Cyprian be- lievd the Presbyteiace, as diftingui(Vd from the Epifcopate, to have no Warrant inGOD's Word, and, by infallible Confequence, that he believ- ed not the Divine Right of Epilcopacy; yea on the contrary* that he believed the Divine Right of Presbytery, or of Church Government by Pa- itors a&ing in Parity : And fo J. Ss great Ord- nance is turned on himfelf. ff. IL Nor can they juftly repone, that fince Cyprian ( c ) fays, The Presbyters are honoured with the Divine Priefthood, and obliged to Jer*ve at the Al- tar j and ( d y They are conjoynd in Sacerdotal Ho- nour with the ®ifhop ; and ( e )y The Bijhop has the Sublime Top of the Priefthood ; he aiierts the Divine Inftitution of them, and that as Diftind trora, and Inferiour to Bifhops : For, Gyprian, and thefe that lived in and about his time, tho' they well knew and believed, that CHRiST, in his Teftament, had appointed only Two Orders of Officers, Biihops, or Presbyters, with Equal Power and Honour, and Deacons, whom he plac'd alfo in a compleat Parity among themfelves, judg'd,rtotwithftanding,ihat the Church was en- cruiied with Power to divide either of thefe Or^ ders into diverfe Degrees or Sub-orders, and al- low the U(e of that Power, which equally be- long'd to all of the Order, to iome feledtperfons thereof, that ihould be aliened to fignal places ; which they believed to be very profitable and (O Epift.i. (d) Epift.tfi P (O Eplft. ss, Pag. 103. , l needi Chap. IV. CypriMus lfotimus. 357 needful for good Order and Concord in che Churcht This, if true, quite takes off the Ex- ception, and real'y fatishes the far greater and choifer pare of J. S's Arguments : And that 'tis moft true is above (/)> where *tw%s rtiew'd, ho^ they divided into diverfe Claffes the Bi- ftaops, and yec ftill afferted all Biiliops to be £- qual by Divine Right, put beyond Scruple.* Nor is this Truth let's evident from thuir divid- ing inco Two Degrees, or SuKorders, che Or- der of Deacons, cho?, fo far as I know, none of the Hierarchies has pretended to any Scnpture Warrant for this Divifion. When, or how ear- ly this Divifion of the Second Order into Dea- cons and Sub*deacons, was m^de, I know not \ Only, I am furef Cornelius, Biihop of Rome, and Cyprian* Contemporary (g) fpeafcs of it as a Pradice of no lefs Duration in the Church, than was that of dividing the Order of Bi(hops into Bifhops and Presbycers : And there is fiequent mention of ic in the Works of Cyprian (b ) , and that wich no other Air, no lefs AiTuiance of its Warrantablenefs, than if it had been moft clear- ly and expreily Inftiruted in theNewTeftarntnt. Soon after,they brought in Arch-deacons, and fo turn'd the Divifion into a Triparricion 3 and at length, fome of thefe Servers of Tables and of Widows t as Jerom calls them, could eafilv, for Splendor and Riches, vye with the greateft Nobles and Princes. Moft memorable to th's effect is the ingenuous Confeflion of Riga/tint, (f) Chap. 2. §. 9, & teq- (g) Apud Eufeb. Lib 6J Cip. 43. ( h) Epifi S, 9, 29, Sc alibi. Z 3 itlO* §5^ Cyprianm Ifotimus. Chap. IV. tho' a Papift (* ) ; W» (faith he, fpeaking of this Divifion, or diftin&ion of the Deacons, that obtained in Cyprians Time ) by little and little, and from fmaU beginnings . a Kngdom, and Love of Domination entered into the Church. In the Am po(lces Time, there were only Deacons. Cyprian's Age admitted Sub* deacons , the following^ Arch deacons • and then Arch bijhops and Patriarchs. The Bifhop of Oxford ( k ) contends, that all this of Domk nation beginning to creep into the Church in Cyprians Time, is nothing but a fi&ionof RigaU tim, as if a burning Love of Preherninency had not been vifibie among Church-men/ even be- fore €yPrian was born. He contends alfo, that all the Bifijps of Africa, Numidia, and Maurita- nia were under th Government of one &i(hop Cypri- an. And ffbitgifte is of the fame Mind ( / ), Wherein I fhali not oppofe 'hem ; at ieaft, I am fure, there were then, or about that time, Ca- nons for iuch an Archiepifcopacy : And fo, farewel to J. S's Principle of Unity. The fame Truth is alfo really contained in thefe very Words ottyprian, that they mainly urge to prove him to be4ieve the Divine Right of E- pifcopacy : For, fpeaking of Cornelias, his Pro- motion {m)y He (faith Cyprian) came not hajlily (i) Qbfervaf. ad Epift. a. Cvbr. S;c paulatim, a*que ab minimis, intravir in Ecclelum Rsgnum, 8c Dominand? Li- bido^ ApoQoli Oiaconos cantum dixeranc JEz&s Cyprisni Subdiaconos admiflr. Stquens Archidiaccnos. Ac dein- ceps Archiepifcopos & Pauarchas. ( k ) Annot. ad Epift, S. qux Rigaltto 2 da eft, Caufatur Kigahius, &c. ( / ) Def. Jp. 340. 3 - 5 . (m) Epift ^5 Pag. 103. Non ifte ad £pifco- patum fLbiro pervenit, fed per omnia Ecclefiaftica Officia promorus & in Divinis Adminiftrationibus Dciiiinum iarpc prcmericiis, ad Sacerdotii iublirne Faftigium cunitis Reii- g!Onii Gradbus aftsndic, t§ Ghap; IV. Cypriavus Ifotmus. 359 to the Epijcopa'e, but having faffed through all the Ec- clefiaflic Offices, and having frequently pka/ed the Lord in the Divine AdrninHhaiimt, afctndedky all the Degrees of Religion 1 3 the [ublimt lop of the Prie/bocd. Now, 1 chink, our prefcnt Adverfa>~ies foould own, that he was only for the Divine InfHtutiori of Three Offices ; but here are who knows how many, fure moe than Three, And by this time I am confident, that nothing needs be brighter than 'tis now made, that the Church Rulers in, and about rhe Cypriomc Age, judg'd themfsives fufficiently impowered, ss they {aw convenient for the Peace and concord of the Church, to di- vide into Two Orders, or Sub-o ders, that which Chrilt, in his Teftament, had mudt One Order aione, and to fever into various Degrees, and higher and lower Rank$,(uch an Office as he had equally, and without Diiiin&ion., confen'd on ail and every one of them, on whom he be- ftoA/'dic In (liort^they belicv^tha^tho' there was no luch thing,as any Diftinction among Deacons, in the New Teftament, but all of 'em compleatly Equal, yet they were at Liberty, for Anfwering, as they thought, the Neceflides of the Church, to m<*ks not only one, butdiverfe not only fmailg but fignal Diftin&ions and Degrees in that Office; and, as is now maimed, they judg'd themfcives free to deal afcer the fame manner by the other Order, the biihops. Which one Obfervation, were there no more, not only takes off the Ext ception, but alio prevents and overthrows the ve- ry Flower and choice of all the Arguments J. S. brought to prove, that Cyprian and his Contem- poraries beiieved the Divine Right of £pifcopa- cy. 3 6o Cyprianus Ijollmus. Cbap. I W cy. Fortho', a s^. S. con tends («)> they prove, that Cyprian, Pontius, and other Contemporaries believ'd the Divine /jpprobation of Efifcopacy ( fuch an Epifcopacy as then obtained ; for far enough were they from believing the Divine Approbation of the Modern Hierarchic Leviathan J, yet J. &$ Confequence is utterly inconfequent. And I hope ( faith he ) G. R. will not deny^ but the Confe- quence is juft> from the Belief of Divine approbation to the belief of Divine Inftituthn* This Confc* quence, I fay, en never be admitted, fo long as the preceedingDilcourfe ftandsunftiaken, which has evine'd, that they never believed this Infe- rence, tho* indeed they cughr to have believ'd it. §. III. But this to Rcgatian is not the only place where Cyprian redly and on the matter lays, th&tjimple Presbyters were none of the Infti* tutions of CHRIST, that there w ere onl> 7^0 Or- ders, Bijhofs and Deacons ; and (o afferts the Re* piprocal identiry of Bifhop and Presbyter: For not pnlyhes but other 36 Bilhops with him, in their Synpdical Epiftle ( 0 ) to two Spanish Churches, Li'gioznd Emsrita, whofeBiflbops had lapled and been depoied, and yet ftruggi'd againft the Mind of thefe Churches to recover their Chairs, make it as plain as tne patheft way, that they believ'd Bifl)vpszn& Deacons Only to be of Chrift's In- ftuuticn: They there make it their Bufinefs to prove, that no Bifhop or Paftor ought to be Ad- mitted without the Confent of the People; and to this tflFe flood up in the rnidft c of the Difciples, the multitude being together, c And we perceive that the Apofties did not c obferve this only in the Ordinations of Bilhops 'and Priefts, but alfo in the Ordinations of c Deacons, concerning which very thing he * ( Luke ) in the hBs fairh. Then the Twelve c called the multitude of the Difciples unto them, c and faid untothem, Which thingi the whoie ' People being called together, wasfo diligently ' and cautioufly managed, to the end that no € unworthy Perfon might creep into tne Service € of the Altar, or place of the Priefthood. Thus the Synod : In which Difcourfe the following particulars are unquestionably comprehended. lft. That Chrift in his Teftament appointed for the perpetual fervice of his Church, only Two Orders of Officers, Priefts and Deacons. ily% That all Priefts really do, and that equally Succeed the (f ) Quod poftea fecundum divina Magiftena obferva- tur in Attis Apoftolorwm ; qusndo d*Qfdir,kndo in locum Juti* Apoftolo Petru* ad pk&em loquitur : Surrexir, inquir, Petrus ia nudio difcentium, mit autem turba in una Nee hue in Epifcoporum tancum & Saeerdotum, iVi in Diaconorurn ordinationibus obfervaiTc Appfrol s animad* vertimus, de quo & ipfo in Aftis e^rum Scriptum -ft. Et convociverunt, inquic, illi du^decim totam pkbem Difci- puloruni, 8c dixerune eis. Qu-d ut-qjc icchco ram diiigenter Sc caute convocata p'ebetora gerebatur, ne qins ad Altaris Mioifcerium, vel a j Saceidoukm locum indignu* obrepere\ 9 > Apoftles, 362 CyprUnus IfotlntHL Chap. IV* Apoftles, juft as all Deacons equally Succeed to the Seven. And therefore, g/y, That Bifhopt and Priefts are Reciprocally one and the fame, the Terms no lefs fynonymous than with Pontius, Cyprians Deacon, are thefe two Phrafes, w«w the Office of a Priefthooi, and the Degree of a bi(h&p ; which two J. S. ( f ) allows, as I alfo do, to fignifv both one thing; and that the word Sacerdotum ( Priefts ) is only exegetick and expli- cative of the word Evifcoperum ( Biihops ), At a word, Btfhops and Priefts are here fo clearly Identifi'd, yea and Reciprocated, and theSuccef- fion of both of them fo clearly and equally derived from the Apoftles, that they muft be wilfully blind who do not perceive ic. §. IV. But did Cyprian C may you enquire ) no whece affert the Divine Inftitution of Simple Presbyters, as diftinguifhed from Bifhops ? Did be no where alledge or point at the Scriptures wherein he thought fuch a thing was contained ? Or, did he no where, on the other hand, affert the Divine inftkucion of Bijhopss as diftinguifh'd from Presbyters, or other Priefts, as they fpake f Did he no where produce Sciipture for this? To which I Anfwer, that tho' he had done either^ or both, he had only thereby, as is now evident, involved himfelf in a fignal Self contra- di&ion. But again, I Affirm, he hath really no where done either : And as to the former ; fo far was he from founding the Inftitution of Simple Presbyters on I Tim. j. i. & 19. ( Rebuke ?t§t an Elder. And, Againft an Elder receive not an AccufatUn ) as Epiphanius fanfied; that he never (q) Chap. 10, §, 47, once Chap" IV. Cypriavus IfotintHs. %6% once dream'd of any fuch Inference from thefe Texts: As far was he from Founding it on our Lord's Million of the 72 Difciples men- tion d Luk 10. This even J. % himfdf is compelled to grant ( r \ It is impofjible (faith he) tomakc itapp 57,33,43,54. & alibi, nife 5^4 Cyprianuslfotlmnf. Chap; IV, nifeft from GOD's Word his Epifcopal Superio- rity : But nothing of this kind did he : He never once mentioned the Superioiity and Power the Apufties are feign'd to have had over the LXX Nor the fictitious Epifcopacy of timothy and Titus, nor that of the Afian An^els^ the chief, if not the only Scriptural Arguments of our Hierarchies. Now, can it be doubted, that we fhould have met with thefe Arguments almoft in every Leaf of tjprian\ Works, if he had be- lieved them to have but the leaft degree of fo- lidity, yea or plaufibility ? ( For almoft every where he raifes what he can the Epifcopal Honour. ) Or tho' no where elfe, yet certain- ly in thefe places, where he fo ftudioufly% and of let purpofe magnifies the Epifcopal Office, in oppofuion to Presbyters, and fnatches at all- colours to render molt black and Criminal even the meaneft degree of their Difobedience to their Bifhops ? But that I diffemble nothing that may feem to make for our Adverfaries, Cyprian indeed fays ( u ), that thefe Presbyters were unmindful of the Gijpel. Which, with fome other Phrafes of the fame import, would make one think, thzzCyprian judged, he could prove the Epifcopal Superiority our of the Bib?e. But what tho' he had alledged thefe very Texts that the Prelatifts now ufe to bring ? It would only have hence followed^ if you remember what is already addue'd, that he loudly Contradicted himfeif, by no means that he believed the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. Bur, as I laid, he ( the like may be laid of his > («) Epift, 16. Con- Ghap IV* Cyf nanus Ifotirnus. 565 Contemporaries ) alledged none of them, but others, his allegation whereof demonftntes that he firmly believed Epifcopacy not to be of Di- vine Right. For, writing againft che Schifm Novatus, the Antibiftiop, and Adverfary of Cornelius, raifed at Rome, he thus Reafons ( x )» " Who therefore is fo wicked and perfidious, c who isfo furious with the madnefs of Difcord, € that he fliould believe the Unity of God, the 'Garment of the Lord, the Church of Chrift € can be rent, or can be fo bold as to rent it I € He himfelf doth admonifti us in his own Gofpef, c and Teacheth, faying, And there Jh all be Ont € Flock, and One Shepherd. And doth any Body € think, that there can be in one place either € many Shepherds or moe Flocks ? Like wife the c Apoftle Paul, intimating to us the fame Unity, c doth befeech and exhort, faying, Ibefeecb you, c Brethren, faith he, by the Name of our Lord Jefifs c Gbrift, that all ef you fay the fame things and that ' there be no Schifms among ycu ; but that you be € joynd together in the [am t mind, and in the lame * judgment. And again he faith, Forbearing one 4 another in hove, endeavouring to keep the Unity of c the Spirit in the bond of Peace. Do you tfunk, that c he that departs from the Church, and builds to 1 himfelf other habitations and diverle dwellings, € can ftand and iive ? When it was faid to c Rabab, in whom the Church was prefigured, ' Thou flialt bring thy Father and Mother, and thy € Brethren, and all thy Father s Houfhold home unto € tbze, and it Jhall be, that wbofoever (ball go out of * the doors of thy Houje inty the Street , his Blood (hall ( x ) De Uojjatc Ecckfoe, pag< 1 1®. %66 Cyfrianus Jjotlmus. Chap. IV. be on his own head. So the Sacrament of the VaUhal doth conrain no othei thing in the Law reco> d^d in Exodus, than *hat the Lamb which is kiii'd for a Type of Chnft, fhould be eaten in one Houle. The Lord doch fpeak, faying . It (haU be eaten in one Houfe, thou (halt not carry forth Ou^ht of th< fitfh abroad out of the Hmfe. The Fldh of Chrift, and the Holy thing of the Lord cannot be caft out. neither is there any other Houfe to thofe that believe, but One Church. The Holy Ghoft in the VJalms dochi defign and point forth this Houfe, this Lodging of Unanimiry ; faying, It is God who makes tbefe that are Uni-edto dwell in a Houfe. And again (y \ 1* God is One, and Chrift is One, and there is Oae Church, and One Chair founded on 'Peter by the Voice of the Lord. Another Altar cannot be fet up, and there cannot be a new Priefthood, except One Altar, and Ont Priefthood. Aiid ( z, ), " And the Lord intimating to us the Unity of the Church, which comes by Divine Authority, faith, I and the Father are One. He alledgeth alfo (a) Dcut. 17. 12. Numb. 16. 1 Sam. tf. 7. Ecclef..7.i9.jift. 23.4. 5". Matih. 8. 4. Job. iS. 22, 23. He has in other places much more to the fame purpofe ( b j. After the fame manner alfo Reafoned his Contemporary, Cornelius ( c ). And, We are not ignorant ( fay the penitent Schiimaticks, being to leave Novatian, and return to the Communion (y ) Epift. 4;. pag. 83. (*)Epift. «9 ( * ) Epift- j. 66. & alibi, (b ) Epift. 69* & alibi. ( c ) Apud Eifb. Lib. 6. Cap. 43. 01 Chap. IV. Cypriams lfotimus. ^67 of Cornelius ) that there is One God, that there is One Chrill , the Lord, whim we have confej]edy One Holy Gb'tft9 that there Ought tj be One Bijhop in a Catholic Church ( d ). Thefe Scriptures, and thele Scriptural Arguings, if they ckferve to be fo termed, and others like them, not one white more cogent, did Cyprian and his Contemporaries ufe, to perfwade Men, that there ought to be only One Bifhop in a City, or Church, who by all within it fhould be honoured and obeyed. Hence J. S, concludes, that they bdiev d the Divine Right of Epifcopacy ( e ) : Which is all one as if he had concluded, that they were quite out of their Wits, which I allow, they were not ; and therefore am fure, fome are ; if not { which is little better ) out of* their Confcience. For, was it poffible, that any Mortal bruiking even the leaft fpunk of Reafon could Infer J. S\ Conclufion from thefe Pre- mifes* Could he ever conclude from them, that there fhould be but One Bifhop in a City, rather than that there fhould be but One in a Nation, or on the other hand, do not fome of thefe Sophifms, e. gr. There is One God, &c. palpably tend to the fetting up of One Bifhop, not over One City, not over one Nation, but over the Whole Church of God ? Is there in any of thefe Scriptures even the leaft hint, colour or imaginable appearance of Chnft his Inftitut- ing a Superiour and Inferioar Order or Degree of Dilpenfers of the Word and Sacraments i No : Thefe their very Arguings demonftrate ( d ) Inter Epift. Cyprian. 49. ( t ) Cfcap io. §. 3. Cfcsp, * § * 3. *4, 17* 33> 3*> 3^ **< Chap. ig. §. 27, 28, 5c>. to I 368 Cjprianuf lfotitoHsl Chap. IV to all who hoodwink not themfelves* that they believed no fuch thing, but the very contiary j tho* they thought, they might, for the Churches good* confine to One Man Alone the ufe of that Power which equally belong'd to all the Paftors of the whole College or Presbytery • And therefore,they ufed ail fuch Reafonings and Arts as might draw People into an acquiefcing in that Confinement of the Power, while in the mean time they themlelves were fufficiently confcious of the Infolidity and Impertinency of thefe their Arguings. For, their urging of Obedience to the Biftiop from Deut. 17 izm Numb. 16. EccUfiaftic. j. 29. and other fuch Texts, where Obedience to the Priefts is enjoy aed, and Rebellion againft Mojes and Aarun is puniflied, will no more prove them to have believed, that the Inftitution of Epifcopacy is contained in the Inftitution of the High Priefts Office, than ic wiii prove them to have believed, that ic is con- tain'd in Samuel's being Infticuted chief Civil Governour of IJraeU fince Cyprian Infers the hazard of Difobeying the Bifhop from the Sin of Ifrael, in their Rejecting Samuefs Government, no lefs than from the Sin of the Levires in Ufur- ping the Priefts Office. Moreover, moft of theie Scriptures, ( and it is enough if any of them do ic ) rdpt£t only rhe Priefts in common, not at all the High Prieft in oppofuion to the reft, nor fpeak of the Obedience which belongs to him from them. Laftly, Cyprian and his Contempo- raries believe, that the Gofpel Miniftry took its Rife from the Apoftles in Chiift's Inftitution Qi chat Office, but nevzr$ that ic took it from Aaron ; Chap. IV. Cyprianus Ifotmut. 369 Aaron ; They notwithftanding, fince both they, and the People thought fhar the Epif- copacy which then obtained was ufefull, and fo Lawful, ufed thefe and the like Scriptures with enough of both plaufiblenefs and effica- cy. j$\ VI. Come we now more particularly to confider J. SJs grand Argument : It is drawn from Cyprian , Epift. ?;. Take the Words as J. S. has Scottifcd them (/J, " Our Lord, ' whofe Commands we ought to dread and obey, c inftituting the Honour of a Bilhoji and the € Order of the Church* fays thus to Peter in the € Gofpel : I fay untof thee, Thou art Peter, and * upon this Rock wiU I build my Church, and the ' Gates of Hell jhall nop prevail againft it : Anal € will give to thee the Key< of the Kingdom of Heaven j c and whatfoever thou Jhalt Iwfe on Earth Jhall t>e € looftdin Heaven, From hence, by the turns of * Times and Succeffions, the Ordination off € Bifhopsi and the Older of a Church is fo han- cded down, as that the Church is built upon the 'Bifhops* and all the Adminiftration of the c Church is managed by the feme Rulers ; Seeing, c therefore, this is founded in the Divine Law, € it is marvellous to me/ that, with fuch a bold c Temerity, fome of you fhould have thus written f to me in the Name of a Church ; whereas, a € Church confifts of a Bifhop, and Clergy, and € Faithful or Uniapfing Chriftians. God forbid 1 that ever the Pity and the Power of Our Lord * fhould fuffer fuch a Reproach, as that a Number * of Lapfers Ihould be called a Church. And (/) Chap. 10. §. 15. A a now A 370 Cjpriannt Ifolintus. Chap, IV. vow J. S thinks he has found his main Conclu^ fioti; and I acknowledge that the Unthinking or Pre/udic'd Reader may chance to think fo, but none elfe: For tho' all J. S's Confe#aries be juft and folid, and Cyprian has intimated, that Epif- copacy is of Divine Right, and concluded fo much from the Scnprure he here cites, Mattb. 16. 18, 19. yet I affirm, that this very thing, his concluding of ic from that Scripture, is an ocular D-monitration, that he never believ'd it ♦ For, could a Perfon of fo penetrating a Reafon ( they are J Sys wo-dsf^ ); and I allow him to have been nimble enough at true Reafoning, where his purpofe admirced it, and at excogitating pretexts and colours, where it did not ) ever believe, that our Saviour, in thefe Words to Tetery did inftitute the Order or Degree of Diocefan Bifhops over other Paftors ? Did ever a Skin of the Prelatifts, at leaft till Dodwell ftarted up, ever pretend to prove from thence the Divine Rig k of Diocefan Epifcopacy ? No: They were Wifer chan fo to expole themfelves. For it is undenyahle, and Do^uelJ yields it < h )9 that he gives no more Power here to the Bifhop over the Presbyters than he gives to Peter over the reft of the Apoftles ; but he never believed that Peter had any Power over them, but the very contrary. Buc was there nothing you wiil fay, of So'idity in this his Realoning ? Nothing at all j as has been ownd hy the moft earneft and LearnTd of Prelatifts. Nor did Cyprian himfelf ever believe,thac there was a grain of S' liduy in it, or, whicn isaiione, that Peter had any Power (i) Chap. 10, §. 6< (h) Cjpr. DiiT. §. xj. 5*C Chap. IV. CyptidHHs Ifotimus. 371 at all over the reft of the Apoftles. That the Fathers^ and Cyprian in particular, were wontro ufe A^uments which thev themfeives knew to be meer Sophrfms and talfe pretexts, U roundly affirmed by Jeroit ( i ) : And wno can doubt of his dealing fo in his Reafoning now under con- fideration } His Matter TertuBian £ )4 vhonrc in this matter he doubtlsfs never really deferred, makes thefe Words of our Lord co contain only a Perfonal Priviledge of Peter, and that fuch an one as gives him not one grain of Power over the reft of the Apoftles: It is, that he firfi in Cbrifls Baptifm optned the way of the Kingdom of Heaven. Origen alfo, another of Cyprians Contemporaries ( / )9 fo gloftes the Wordsi as that he gives not Peter a hair of Power over the reft, buc fets them all in a level with him; $. VII. What if Cyprian himfelf acknowledge fo much, and plainly own, chat all the reft of the Apoftles were to a hair Equal to Peter ? Wha<: if he do k in thai very place and in cnelc very Words, which J. S. if we may believe him, takes for a matchlefs and unconquerable Argument of his Belief of the Divine Right of Epifcopacy i Hear how terribly he threatens to overwhelm us with their weight ( m ). " Neither ( faith he j is c it in this 35^ Epiftle only that he infills on this € Reafoning from our Lord's Words to Peter, € for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. He has c it over again in his 73^ Epiftle, to Jubaianns* as ( r) Tom. tit. Fol. 36. Epift. ad Psmmscb. ( k ) Da Pudicit. Cap 21, (/) Comment. & liomil. 1. in b.l. (m) Chap. 10. §, ij. A a z 'hath 372 Cj/priams Ifotimusl Chap. IV. € hath already been accounted. He has it like- r wife in his excellent Difcourfe ot the Unity of c the Gbvrcb ; where, his Defign is to fliew the c horrid Impiety of rebelling againft the duely € and canonically Ele&ed and Ordain'd and 'Orthodox Bifhop of any Particular Church; c or feparating from him ; or letting up as an * Anti-bifhop in Oppofition to him : And his € firft and chiefeft Argument is that which hath * been already infilled on> w£. that oar Lord 1 founded his Church on St. Peter, and thereby * inftkuted Epifcopal Government ; and laid an c Indifpenfable Obligation on all the Members c of every Particular Church to maintain One * Communion* by living in a dutiful Subje&ion to * and Dependance on the One Bijhop, who to € his own Particular Church is the Principle of * Unity. The Reafoning is fo full, that it is too * long to be tranferibed ; indeed it is needlefs cto tranferibe k, for you have already the € Subftance of it tranferibed from Epift 33. By your favour. Sir ; not for this Reafon did you forbear to bring it in, but becaufe it con- tains the utter and irreparable Ruine of your Caufe, and therefore you were fo Wife as to fupprefs k. " Oply f proceeds be ) one thing I 'obferve about it, namely, the Aflurance where- € with our Martyr addrefles to it : He brings *kin with an Air, importing, that it is both an c obvious and unconquerable Argument. On the coatrary, I Affirm, that there is in it borh an obvious and an unconquerable Argument,that Cyprian believed the Divine Inftkution of Pref- bytery or Parity of Paitors ; And fince both of Chap. IV* Cypriams Ifotivwi. 373 of us arc equally confident, and the paflagenow to be produced will, if ferioufly considered, afford great Light, I befeech my Reader nar- rowly to Examine whether of us it favours. The Words, as I can Scettijh them, are as fol- low ( n ). " This comes to pafs ( faith hey € dehorting font the Scbifm ^/"Novatian ) becaufe * Men return not to the Original of Truth, feek c not the Head, and ohferve not the Do&rine of c our Heavenly Matter. Which if we confider € and ponder, there is need of no long Difcourfe c nor Arguments ; there is a fhort and eafy way € to come to the perfwafion of the Truth : . The ' Lord fpeaks to Veter, I (ay to thee, faith he, c that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build c my Church, and the Gates c/HtUjhatt net prevail (n) Hoc ( if. Ecsltfssm fcindi ) eo fit, F- D. dum ad Veritatis originem non reditur, nee caput quaeritur, nee Magiftri Cceleftis Do&rina fervatur. Quse fi quisconfiderec & examinet, tra&aru longo atq; argumentis opus non eft. Prbbatio eft ad fidem facilis compendio veritatis. Loqui- tur Domfnus ad Petrum; Eg$ tiki diet, inquit. quia tu et Pecrus, & fuper ifiam Petram adificabo EcdejUtn meant, & port* Inferdrum non Vincent earn. Et tiki dah claves Regni Calorum, & qu£ ligaverit fnfer Terrain, eruntligata& inCaltiz & quscunqut ftlven'j fuftr Tcrram, trunt faluta & in Catlu. Et icerum eidem poft Refarre£rionem fuarn dicit : Pafce ovesmesf. Super tJnum aedificat Ecclefiam fuara. Etquamvis Apoftolis omnikns Pareai Potcftatem ttjbwit, & dicat : SiWmifit mt Pater , & Eg* mitt$ «/#/, sccipite Spiritum Ssnclum, Si cui remiftritis peecata, rtmittentur illi • fmttnutritU, tene- kuntur : Tamen ut Unitatem manifeftaret, Unitatis ejufdea* originem ab Uno ineipienrem fua au&oritate difpofuit : Hoc crant utique & cseteri Apoftoli, quod fuit Prfr**, pari confortio prfcditi & Honoris & Poteftatis, fed exor- dium ab Unirate proficifcitur, utEcclcftt Uaamonfcretur. Dt Uflitttclcclejtd, pag. ioj, &c. A a 3 [agafaft 374 CyprUnus Ifotimui. Chap. IV. € again ft it : And wiU give to thee the Keys of the * Kingdom of Heaven ; and whatfoever thou [halt € kind on Ear+h (hatl be bound in Heaven^ and what* * joevr thou (halt loofe on Earth Jhail be loofed in ' Heaven, And he fdith to thf* fame Man, after c his Rt-furre&ion, Feed my Sbetp. He buildett) c his Church upon One. And altho- he give to c all the Apoftles Alike Power, and faith, As the € Father hath fent me, even fo lend I you, receive the € Holy Ghcft : Whn\efoever Stns you remit they are remitted unto them*, and whofefoever Sins you retain 3 € they are retained: Nevertbslels, that he might c manifeft Unity! he ordered by his Authority, * that the Original of the fime Unity ihould take r its Beginning from One. For furely the reft of cthe Apoftles were the S?me that Peter was, all c of them being endued with Equal Honour and c Power : But the beginning arifesfromUnity3 € that the Church might be declared to be cOne. Thus Cyprian, as I can render him : In which place are undenyabiy contain'd, i(i. That Bifhops and Presbyters are equally the Succeffors of the Apofiles ; and accordingly, ily. That Bifhops have no more Power over the Presbyters than Veter had over the Apoftles. This, as I faid, is yielded by DodweU* for even Stubbomnefs it fell cannot deny a matter fo brightly heremai*ifefted. It is enough ( fairh he ) to our purpo/e, that at lea/l Cyprian hud that Primacy over the Presbyters, which he ascribes to Peter over the reft of the Apoftles ( o )> %ly That Peter had not one grain of Power and (b) DifT. 7.§.f^ Quinquam noftrumbftituium quod tttinct, abunde fufficic ut cum faltem ©btinutrit Primttum q^cm §, Fttr$ tribuic in reliqtjos Appftolos. Honov Chap. IV. Cyprianus lfotimut. 375 Honour over or above the reft of the Apo- files. JT. VIII. Mr. DoJweP, efpying this mortal Wound Cyprian has given their Caufe, uifd Ms utmoft Art to prepare a Salve ; but in vain : For the fhift he advances is fo wretch'd that I am afliam'd to relate ic. It is# that Peter was the Type of the Bifbop ; and he infinu^ts, thac the reft of the Apoftles were the Types of the Pref- byters, and fo reckoned privat Men in refpect of Teter the One Guide and Steward of ail the Jpofttes, who were Chrift's Family. But what ground for this in all the Gofpel ? The Grounds Mr. Dodwell has adduc'd, if they have any fenfe at all, are nothing fave Airv and fcarce intelligible Triffles Cp)i as has already appeared ( q). I am fure, there is always a congruous Hkenefs be* tween the Tvpe and Antirype ; fo that, if Peter had been the Type of the Biftiop, and the reft of the Apoftles, of the Presbyters, he fhou'd of neceffity have exerced, under fome defignation, at fome time, in fome place, fuch Power over the reft, as the Bifhop, in the Judgment of the Hierarchies, may lawfully exsree over the Presbyters ,• which is no fmall meafure of Power: But 'tis moft certain, that under no defignation he had any Power over the reft ,• he never claim'd any fuch thingrnor fuppofed that he had it : As little did the reft of the Apoftles fuppcfe or acknowledge, that Peter had, under any De- nomination or Refped whatfoever, any Domi- nion or Power over them,* yea they ftill fuppofed the quite contrary ; as the whole feries of their ( f) Vidtfis Diff. 7. S. 3«, &'* ( J ) Chap, 2 §. 6. t Adions 37<5 Cyprianus Ifotimus. jEhap. IV. A&ions, conduit and deportment makemanifeft. Nor can ir be faid, that the Queftion is not, if this matter be to be found in Scripture really, but if Cyprian believed that it is : For Do dwell undertook, and did his utmoft to prove, that he juftly fo believed, and that his Reafonings were Solid. And fmce he never founded the Subje- <&ion of Presbyters to Bifhops on any other Scripture, cznDodivetl reap any folid Advantage from his Teftimony ? Is it not a great matter to bring forth Cyprian, or any other Father, faying, when they are in an Erroneous Dream, that Epifcbpacy was of Divine Right ? But the Truth is, as is now proved, Cyprian never believ'd it. Moreover, had he fo done, being a Man fo jealous and tfender of his Epifcopal Power and Honour, could he have failed ( while againft fome Presbyters/ whom he judged Unduciful, he was deyifing all the Arguments he could for magnifying it; to have cited the Scriptures where the other Apoftles are faid or intimated to have carried two Perfons or Relations, in the former Whereof they were Equal to Peter, in the latter his Subjeds and Underlings ? Yea, if he had thought, that there had been any fuch thing, the (hadow of any fuch thing, he had roundly told it, and eloquently dilated upon it. And fo, both Cyprian* N)vho made the reft of the Apoftles, without exception of any refpeft or formality* Equal in Honour and Power to Peter, and the Scriptures themfelves fully Out and diflodge Vodivelloi this his Hold, fte yields moreover, which can be deny'd by none who Candidly perufe this his jtb Diftertation, that Cyfrian be- ■••- ;i- ■■ '» . r "' I : lievfd Chap. IV. Cfprianus Jfotimus. 377 lievd that all Paftors of the New Teftament fucceed to the Apoftles only and accordingly, that only the Apoftles aud their Succeiiors, and no other lower Order or pegree of Paftors is of Divine Inftitution. This Mr. Dodwelliaw well enough to be the Mind of both the Scrip- tures and Cyprian ; and therefore betook him- fclf to the defperate Subterfuge now expofed ; which is nothing, but ftellarmins abfurd Dream, that you have above, Chap. 2. §. 9- and °* which the Learn'd Sutlivius juftiy lays ( r )9 That it is rather the Dream of a Dotard, than the Defence of a Disputant. §. IX. If you enquire, what Cyprian mean'd by this Reafoning, which he ufes in the forecic* ed places, and others (J); the Learn'd Hierar- chic Barrow has anfwered, that there is no So- lidity in it ; and if fo> it would be but needlef? pains to pry into it. Jf I might make a Conje- dure in the Cafe, I fhould judge, that he thought Teter was ordinarily Prafes or Moderator among his Co- Apoftles in their Presbytery. If it was fo, or if Cyprian thought fo, concerns not me in the leaft : The great Matter here, and which merits moft accurate Obfervation3 is the moft bright, iliuftrious and irrefragable Teftimony he affords us, of his Belief ©f Parity among Paftors* which equally deftroys both Diocefan and Uni- verfal Epifcopacy. Surely this is the Finger of GOD, the LORD's Doing, and marvellous in our Eyes j that even, by the very, the only Scrip* ( r ) De Pont. Lib. a. Cap. a. Sed htec nihil aliud funt, qnam Somaia Dtlirantiusi potius quam Firmimenta Dif« f utantiuna. ( / ) Epift. 43 , 73 , & ilibi, ture, 37 3 Cyprianus Jfotitnus. Chap. IV tute, on which Cyprian ( I may add Cornelius and other Contemporaries ) may, to the fuperficial or prejudiced Reader, feem to found Epilcopa- cy, he really, evidently, and utterly overthrows it. $. X. But to go on: There are yet,befide the Evidences already advanced, diverfe other fig* nal places in Cyprians Works, which invincibly prove, that, in his and his Contemporaries Mind, Chrift never inftituted zny Jimple Presby- ters, any Second Order or Degree of Paftors, but left the Whole and SolePaftoral Power to his A- poftles, and their Succefiors,Bifhops Alone. I ftall tranflate one ortwoof'em for Examples fake. Jefus Chrift ( faith Fertunatu* a Tbuchalrcri, in the Council of Carthage, where Cyprian Pxefided ) cur Lord and our God, the Son of God the Father and the Creator, built his Church upon a Rock> not upon Herefy • and gave thzPower of Baptizing to Bi- fhepsy not to Hereticks ( t ). Manifefi ( {aid another, Clarus d Mufcula, at the fame Council (u) ) is the Sentence of cur Lord J ending forth his ApofHes^ and giving to them Alome the Power that was given him of the Father ; to whom we have fucceedej, Governing the Lord's Chunh with the fame Power , Baptizing the Faith of 'Believers. This place J. Sm unies ( * ) to prove, that, hy the then common (t) Patt. *. Pag. 233. Iefus Chriftus Dominus & Deus ncfter, Dei'Patris & deatoris Filius, fuper Perram ardifi- cav.t Ecclefiam fuam, non fuper H*refim ; & Pnreirattm Baptzandj Epifcopis dcdir, non Hsrcticis* ( u } Pag.241. Man f ita eft Sententia Domini noftri Iefu Chrifti Apofto- Jos iuos raitfcntis, & ipiis Soli* Potefotem a Parre fibi da- tarn periarteritis, quibus nos fucccflimus eadem Poteftate Ecciefiam Domini Gtroernantes, & Crcdcntium Fid em i Baptixantes, ( * ) Chap. 6, $ 69. p ' Chap. IV. Cypridftut Ifotmut. 579 Princifles, Hifhfip had the Soveraign Power of Bcy- tifim. But that he complain not of (crimp Deal- ing, I will give him more than he fecks, and al- low, that they had not only the Soveraign, but she Sole Power of Baptifm, and, by Confe- rence, of all Paftoral A&ions ,• fmcc nocning is more certain, nothing is more plain, than that, in their Judgment, our Lord gave the Whole and Sole Power of Baprifm, and therefore of all other Paftoral Performances, to his Apofties A- lone, and their Succeffors, the Bilhops ,• and, by infallible Conlequence, never infticuced any fimple Presbvters, any fecond Order or De- gree ofPaftors, to whom the Power of Baptifm, pr other Mimfteriai Duties fhouid be deputed according to the Biihcp's Arbitriment. This is only a Fiction of J. S* wherewith he hopes co ao his Caufe notable Service, which was r ever thought on by any of that Council, or that Age. They thought indeed, ?sis now made out, they might, when it was for the churches Service, confine the Ufe of that Power, which, of Di- vine Inftitution, equally belong'd co all the Pa- ftors in any particular Colledge of Bilhops or Presbyters, unto One of the Number : But that Chrift did ever Appoint fucn a Reftricti- on, or Infticute any Order or Degree of Priefts (to ufe their (language J below that oiSiJhops, they never believed, or lb much as once dream- ed ; Yea, they believed the very contrary, as, were chere no m-re, thele very two Suffrages irrefragably evince. §, XI, This Principle, than which nothing more tiue# I add, and nothing more Presbyteri- an! 3 So Cyprianus lfotmut. Chap. IV. an, being firmly rooted in the Hearjts of all Chriftians, Clergy and People, effedually re* ftrained them, when they pretended to prove from Scripture, that there ought to be but One Bifhop in a City or Church, and Presbyters, as well as others, ought to be fubjecft to him, from ufing any Te^ts but fuch as feem ( for none re- ally do it ) to fet one Apoftle over the reft ; and fo they only ufed thefe Words of our Lord to Teter, Mattb. 16. 18, 19. Thou art Peter, &c. tho', in the mean while, and with the fame Breath, they acknowledged their Colle&ion to bsfalfe andSophiftical, while they plainly own- ed, that all the reft of the Apoftles were equal to Peter, both in Power and Honour : They, however, to ufe Narrows Expreffion, frequently harped on this String. For it was not Cyprian, nor fome African Bifhops with him, that ufed this Topick ,- but alfo Cornelius Bifhop of Rome, in his Inve&ive againft Novatus, his Competitor (j)> The Vindicator of the Go/pel ( faith he ) 'was ignorant, that there ought to be but One ^i(hof in a Catholic Chunk. Where he, doubtlcfs, eyes, if any at all, thefe Words of our Lord to Peter. Ifea on this very place, as Origen witneffeth '&), the Bifliops generally ufed to tbund their Prero- gative ; the Church then, in and about thefe times^ having gathered, as may feem probable, from thefe Words, thou art Peter, &c. that Titer was priviledged with the Moderatorfliip in the Presbytery of the Apoftles, thought it rca- ionable, that, in every College of Bifhops or \f) Eujib, Lib. 6. Dp. 43. (*) Toa« It. in Mattb. Prcf- Chap. IV. Cyprianus Ifotimux] 381 Presbyters, the Apoftles Succeftors, th&it ftoutd alfo be a Fixed Moderator 1 but without the leaft Harm to Parity. §% XII. in the next place, as is above made clear, the Churches Guides thought it their Ad- vantage to confine the greater part of the Pafto* ral Power, together with the Name of *ifhop9 to this Modtratdr of the College or Presbytery ; and this once done, they appropriated to thefe Moderators all the Paftoral Priviledges, Honour and Rights; all that belong to Paftors in com- mon, was by them enhanfed and applyed to themfelves alone, as H there had been no other Paftors in the World befide : And this they car- ry'd the more eafily, becaufe indeed they per* formed ntoft oi the proper Paftoral Work. If they fpake of Presbyters, which they did but rarely, they fometimes infinuated, that they fcarce could be called Paftors, or be held to be of Divine Right ; Or fometimes, that they were both Paftors, and of Divine Right, but forbore to fpecify it, or to tell where was their Inftituti- on, or to whom *hey Succeeded ; Or, laftly, they told k indeed v yet not plainly, but couch- edly; really, however* and intelligibly to any intelligent and unprejudiced Mind. The reafon of this their doing is clear ,• for they knew well enough, that Presbyters muft have the fame In- ftitucion with the Bifliops, or none at all : Some- times therefore, when they fpake of 'em, they infinuated the former, and fometimes the latter. Ail this, which, if true, overthrows Epifcspxacy, y«a eftabiiChes Parity, 1 don't diftruft to make svidentr not only from C}fri buc, which is 382 Cyprianut lfotimusl Chap. IV. yet more, even from thefe places of him, which J. S. fele&ed as the choifeft Arguments to prove, that he and his Contemporaries believed the Di- vine Right of Epifcopacy. " Let us return unto Africa, (faith J. S. (a) ) € and cry if there we can find any more Witncffes c depofing for the Divine Right of Prelacy. c And indeed, nothing piainer than the Suffrages * of Fortanatu* I Tbuchabori and Confejjor Venantins * d fini/a, who fays exprrfly, that our Lord c left the Care of hjs Spoufe to the Bifhops : * And Gonfefior Clams d Mufcula9 in the often- c mentioned Council of 6artbage% holden Anno € z$6> Ic is farther collrgible fiom divers other * Suffrages of that venerable Council* when tak* € en by the right Handle, It is not to be doubt* c ed. but it was the common Belief all the 87 'Bifliops. For 'tis mod reafonable to believe all "the reft were of the fame Faith with St. Cyprian € their tr*fet, and thole other Three jult now c named. Thus he. And as I well know, fo nothing pleafes me better, than that all the 87 were of the fame Faith,- fince I have made un- denyable, from the clear Teftimonies of Cyprian their Pr*/**, and the other Suffrages he here cites, that they believed Chrift never Iuftituted any Jimple Presbyters, or (econd Order of Pajtors, He only Inftirured immediatly his Apoftles, and mediatiy their Succeffors> the BHbop?. The fame is alfo the Senle of Fenantius's Suffrage. *l If ( faith be) a Husband going abroad fhou!d f commit his Wife to be k^ y Sis Friend, he * would keep her en vafted co him with as much { * ) Chap. 10. $* 24. !Care Chap. IV. Cyfriamts Ifotimuf. 383 * Care as poffible he could » left her Chaftity and c ban&ity ftiould by any be Adulterated : c Chrift, our Lord and God, going to his * Father, did commit hisSpoufe unto us; whe- c ther (hall we keep her uncorrupt and unviolar- * ed, or betray her Integrity and Chaftity to € Whores and Corruprers ? He who makes the c Baptifm of the Church Gommon with Here- c ticks betrays the Spoufe of Chrift to AduU € terers. Where it is uncontrovertibly clear, that, in Venantius's Mind, Chrift never Infti- tuted any Paftors for the Catholic Churchy fave after his Refurre#ion and before his Afcenfion 5 and, by Confequence, that he Infticuted the Apoftles, and their Succeflbrs alone, and that they, and they alone are Paftors, and that no other Order or Degree of Paftors are of Divine Inftitution, or have one Grain of the Power of Baptifm, or of any thing elfe proper to Chrift'* Paftors. The fame Truth is alfo very colligible from Cy:rians Words at the Opening of that Council, where he gives the Whole and Sole Pa- ftoral Power to Biihops; on this ground, doubt- lefs, becaule he btlieved> that Chrift never Inftituted any paftors except his XiL Apoftles and their Succeflbrs. And indeed, that Cyprian fo believed, is alfo manifeft from a hundred places elfe of his Works, and from J. S's own Confeflion (b ). It is to be pre fumed ( faith he ), that one of his 'Cyprian*) Abilities and Diligence in (earching the Evangelical Records, could hardly have mijjed to obftrve that which is fo cbvioufly objervable in them; I mean, that the CbriSian Church was ( • ) Chap. 6 §. s. f?ot0 384 Cfprlanus lfotimHs. Chap. IV. not , could not be founded till our Lord was rifen% fee* tnz it wa* to be founded on his Re/urrefti$n. Where- fore the NoorrSun was never brighter than ic is* that, according to the Faith of the Fathers of this Council, all the Paftors of Chrift's InftkutU on were to Aft in a compleat Parity, all Equal in Power and Honour. And now let J. 5. take the Suffrages of this Council, by the righteft Handle he can light on, he (hall however have a Wolf by the Ears. §o XIII. In the mean while, it is certain, were there no more, from the very Conduct of Cyprian and the other Biihops at this Council, that, as they had got into their hands moft of the Power of their refpe&ive Colleges, and the Name of TBifhof made peculiar to them, fo they ftill endeavoured to perfwade Men, that them- felves alone were the Apoftles Succeflbrs, and had the Whole and Stole Paftoral Power and Ho* nour. This they were ordinarily wont to in- sinuate and give out : Thus are the Words of Cyprian at the opening of the Council to be un- derftood* Neither (faith- he) doth any of us make himfelf Bifbop of Bifliofs, or compel their Colleges to the necejfity of Obedience through Tyrannical Terror ; feing every Bishop bath, according U his Ab\olute Li± berty and C0wer% his own proper pliafure ; and as he can be judged by none, ft) can he judge none. Where, ccubtlefs, he likes to be understood as fpeaking of the VrefcBs of the Colleges/ fuch as he was of that of Carthage, not at all of the reft of the Members of the Colleges, who had then only the Name ot Presbyters. And, no doubt, the rcn of that Council, when they fpeak of Bifhops, are Ghap. IV. CjfridMHf Ifititovsl 385- are content to be underftood the lame way ; and accordingly only thefe Bifhops or Prefers of the Colleges, for ought I can learn, had Deci- five Votes in that Council. Yea thefe Arts took fo with th6 Presbyters alfo, that they fcarca look'd on themfelves as Paftors, as is evident from the Epiftle of the Rornau Clergy to the C/er- gy of Carthage (a), during their want of a Bi- fhop. It is incumbent on us ( fay they) wfo feem to be Rulers to keep the Flock in (lead of the?afior% Blondel ( d ) adduces thefe Words,to prove, that they believed the Identity of Bifhop and Presby- ter : Bur, indead, they rather declare, how con- fufed Idea's of Presbyters Men had then ordinari- ly in their Minds. In the fequel of this Epiftle they infmuate, that they are Paftors ; but, in the mean while, the whole Clergy, both Pref- byters and Deacons fpeak ; and they give no lefs Power ( if they give any to either ) to the latter than to the former. The Deceit lay in this, ifl9 That they univerfally,and moft foundly too, believed, that Ghrift appointed only his Apoftles, and their Succeffors, all true Bifhops, to be Paftors of the Catholic Church : And, 2dly, They faw the Moderators of the Colleges poffefs'd of moft of the power, and them alone honoured with the Name of Bishop. By this true Principle and this deceitful Practice blended together, was ingendred in Mens minds this moft falfe and noxious Conclufion, that they moft inadvertently look'd on thefe Prefers as the only paftors Chrift had appointed in the Church; and fo when they look'd onBKhopsas Supericui* ( c ) Inter Cjpr. 8. ( d ) Apolog. Pa J. 40. Bb to g 86 Cyprianus IJotimusl Chap, IV# to Presbyters, they deny'd the Divine Inftituti- on of the latter, and when they allow'd the Din viae Infticution of Presbyters, they at the fame rime, and with the fame Breath, made them E- qual to, or the fame with Biflbops. Whetherfo« ever of theie ways they went, it was a plain and full Declaration of their Belief of the Divine Right of Presbytery, or Parity among Paltors. And now, I allure my felf, that I have given a true, tho' {hort account of the Rife of Epifcopa* cy, evinced, that Cyprian and his Contemporaries- believed the Divine Right of Presbytery, and really dilpelled and prevented all that either J. S. or any Man elfe faid, or can fay for the con- trary. $. XIV. However I mind not to leave fo wich J. S. who is now vifiung fome African Sy- nodss wherein Til keep him Company. And that fo much the mere ( continues he ( e ), when it is conjidered, that it is clearly attefted by divers other African Synods ( convocated in that A%e) as appears from their Synodical Epiftles. Thus, that which is the j 7th among St. Cypi ianV, is a Synodical Epifth written by 40 Bifhops, hcfides St. Cyprian, An. ay 2. And therein we have as clear an account of their Faith as can be dffirtd; They look upon themm /elves as Chris's Lieutenant-Genecals, as it were, having Commifjion from Heavtn, to Arm and Ani- mate bis Souldiers, under their Command : Andt as the *Pa(lors to whom the Shtep are entrujiedby the chief Shepherd. But, this Synod is fo far from Avert- ing the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, that their whole 57n&Epiftleis another firmDenionftracion ( 9 ) Chap. It, §. 24, 25, OI Chap. IV. Cypriatms Ifotimus. 3 87 of what is already proved, that they believed al* Paftors who are of Divine Inftitution to be true Bifliops ; for, Bijhop and Paftor run thro' the whole Epiftle as Convertible Terms : And if they fpeak of both as applicable to themfelves alone who were the Moderators of the Presby- teries, it is a further Confirmation of the Truth I promifed to provej that, together with the Power, they reftri&ed alfo the Name of both Paftor and Bifhop to the Moderators of the Pref- by teries.. The Words brought out of this Epiftle into his Margent, are (/). Let us with our Ex* bortations prepare the People entrufted to Ui by ^Divine Vouch fafement, and gather within the Lord's Camps ail the Souldi rs of Chriji, who di fire Arms and rf quire BaffeU And ( g ), Shall not either (Inhful Negii* genet or Cruel Hardnefs be ajcribed to us in the Day of Judgment, that we ( Paftors ) h*vt nn Governed in Time of Peace, nor Armed in Time of War, the Sheep entrusted and committed unto us. Now, how 3F. S. by thefe Words can prove, that they be- lieved the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, believ- ed that Chrift inftituced Paftors of Pa/tors, Lieu* tenant-Generals, and Subaltern Officers, Simple Pres- byters, I profefs I cannot learn. The 6 ift. Epiftle ( proceeds he ) feems to have been another Synodi- cal EpiSle, Congratulatory, upon Lucius'* Return to the See of Rome : And the^e we have Bifhops of Di- vine Ordination. Buc this Epiftle is lo far from making Biihops to be of Divine Ordination, that, on the contrary, ic is a ftrong Confirmation of what I juft now faid : For, thro* the whole cf it, Lucius is fpoken of, as if he had been the on- {/) Epift.57. r*g. i*y. (g) Pag. 118, B b z ly 588 Cypriantis lfo\imns\ Ghap. IV, ly Paftor and Difpenfer of the Word and Sacra- ments in Rome. But, be it, that in-thefe Words and the like, One %'ijbop Elefted by Divine Ordina- tion, they appear to intimate, that the Diftindi- on of Biftiop and Presbyter is founded in the Scripture ; we have Ihewed whereon that Age pretended to found it, viz,, the Primacy of Peter over the reft of the Apofties, which they them* felves acknowledge co be none at all. the 67th Epi/lle C continues he ) is ordered by 57 Bijhops met in Synod, and giving their Resolution tf the Cafe propofed to them, concerning Martialis and Bafiiides, two Lapfog Spaniih Bifhops. Now the Divine Right of Epifcopacy runs through the whole Series of this Epiftle. They call the Epifcopal Office, Sacer- dotium Dei, God's Priefthood ; and they (as%llcf thofe times ) were very far from thinking, that Men, of their own Heads}might ereB a Prieft-hood to God. They affirm, that God's Law doth not allow, that Bafiiides and Martialis fliould any longer hold their tijhopricks : They fay, that God's Law allows none to he Bijhops ) hut fucb as are without Blemi[h9 and Men of Integrity : They fay, that by the Divine Law, the People are bound to Jeparate from Lapftng Bifieps : They affirmed mofi plainly, that it defcends from Di- vine Authority, that a Bifhep Jhould be cho/en in the Prejence of the People. ' And particularly, concerning Martialis, they prove from Tit. 1. 7. that he can no longer bold a ^ifjno^rick. But this whole Difccurfe is eicher untrue or impertinent. I have proved ( b ) from this very fame Epiftle, that they real- ly and in Confcience believed, that Chrift never inftituted a higher and lower foi t of Paltois ; (*)§-3. and Ghap IV. Cyfrianus Ifolimus. 389 and moreover ( i ), that they made no bones in dividing that very Office into Two Ranks or Degrees, whereof Chrift had made only One, and that in their fo doing they never adverted to this, that they were making a new PriefthooJ, fo to fpeak • or Degret of Priejihood which Chrift never inftituted. The Truth is, the Divine Right of the Parity of Pa (tors runs through the whole of that Epiftle: Nor is it lefs certain, that all the things that belong to Paftors in common are by that Synod appiy'd to the Moderators of Pref- byteries, that had, together with the moft of the Power, got the Tide of Bifoop appropriated to themfelves. It is certain, that God\ Law al- low^not, that any fuch Lapfed Paftors /houid hold their Office ; that none fhould be Paftors, but fuch as are Blamelefs, and Men of Integri- ty,- that by the Divine Law People are bound to feparate from Lapfing Paftors ,• that every Paftor fhould be chofen in the Prefence cf the People ,• and, finally, that lit. 1. 7. equally con- cerns all Paftors of Chrift's Appointment ; Yea this very Text, as is elfewhere ( k ) proved, de- monftrates, that Ghrift never inftituted any high* er and lower Rank of Paftors. The Seventieth ( he goes on ) is another Synodical Epiftle, fignd by %zBijhops, wherein Epifcopacy is not only far ly found- ed on our Saviours DifcQurfe to St. Peter, the Argu- ment fo frequently in fiftzd on by St. Cyprian- as hath been cbferved ; but alfo it is exprejly affirmed by them% that it was b) the Divine Vouchf-.temenc, that they adminiflrated God's Prieflhood in his Church. Which very Words make another clear Proof, (')§•*. ( * ) Naz. Qucr. Fart, 2, Sett, &. B b 3 that, 39<> CypriamislfotiwHs. Chap. IV that, even when they fo fpoke of the Honour and Power that are common to all Pallors, as if, together with the Name of Bijhop, they had been peculiar to the Moderators of the Presbyteries, cyfrian, and with him a whole Synod, believed, that Chrilt never appointed a Pallor fave the Apoftles and their Succeffors, that the Biihops had no more Power over the Presbyters than Vete? had over the reft of the Apoltles,- which, as is now demonftrated, they believed to be none at all. And thus, in ftead of proving that Synod to have believ'd the Divine Right otEpif- copacy, J. S. proves them to believe the very contrary, Another Synodical Epiftle there is ( faith J S. ) the 72d in number , written ^Stephen, Bi- fijip fl/Rome, wherein it is exprcfly affirmed, that the Epifcopat Authority is of Divine Appointment ; And that the One Altar ( viz*, the BiJhop'j Com- munion; &c. ) is Divine; and the jetting up of other Altars in Oppvfuion to it, or Independent on ity is to Counteract a Divine Ordinance : Jhan which, what plainer De?nonj}ration can be defired of their Be- Jiefofthe Divine Right of Epifcopacy ( / ) ? No fuch thing, fay I, as any fuchDemonltracion, yea or lnfinu'.cion is in that Epiftle : They fpeak indeed of a Sacerdotal, that is a Paftoral Authority, as being a Divine Ordinance, and of One Altar as being Divine ,• but thnt this can be no Proof of their Belief oi the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, nor of ought elfe, but what I undertook to make out, that they fo jumbled things as to adapt pe- culiarly to the Vreftcis of the Colleges thefe things which they knew andconfeffed to belong, (/ ) Ch. io. §, 25-, by Chip. IV. Cypria»us lfotimus. 391 by Chrift's Infticution, to Paftors in Common, is fufficiemly clear from the foregoing Dif- courfe : And thefe their general and fhufRing Phrafes confirm it. §. XV. There is yet, before I leave Cyprian 3 one place that is above others proper for my pur- pole ; and therefore I will not omit ir. The Words are (m)9 Christ fays to his Apo files, and thereby to all Rulers that Jucceed to tie Apo files hy a Vicarious Ordination, He that hearech you hear- cth me, &c. Luk. 10. 16. From which place hlondel ( n ), wich whom Mr . £«/* feems to joy a ( 0 ), gathers, (hat fince thefe Words were fpok- en by our Saviour, not to the XII. but co the LXX. to whom the Hierarchies make Presbyters to fucceed, Cyprian believed the LXX. to be Equal to the XII ; and therefore Presbyters to be all • one with Bifhops. J. S. (p ) to mifs the dine of the Argument, irreparably overthrows his Bre- threns main Argument for Epifcopacy, proving, as we have heard ( j$\ 4. ) that the 70 bad nei- ther {landing Office nor Succeftbrs, and that Cyprian was alfo of this Judgment ; and then enquires, How tan this prove a folid Advantage to Mr Rule ? But what tho' we fnouid iofe'one place of Cyprian ? What do we lofe C to ufe the Words of Selim after his Lofs at Lepanto J but a Hair of our Beard ,• whereas, on the other hand, they lofe a Limb, yea Life ic felf ; fince, as J. S. has truly demonftratsd, femple Presbyters fucceed to no Body : And he knows, that :he Death of his Caufe is the Life of ours. And ( m ) Epift. 66. ( n ) Apolog. Pag. 43. ( 0 ) Cjp, B. Exam, Pag Sh (?) Chap* 6. §. 5* &c. now 392 Cyprianus Ifotimus. €hap. IV. poar judge, whether of us has the greater and more folid Advantage. He enquires moreover, if Mr. Rule will allow of fuch an Imparity between Bishop and Presbyters, as there muft needs be, if Bi+ shops (ucceed to the XII \ and Presbyters only to tbeLXX* I anfwer, he might, without any Hurt to his Caufe, have allowed it, fince it was nothing at all : They Jhali never be able to prove, that the XII. had any Power over the LXX. or any jrtore Power than the LXX, enjoy 'd. Hear Dr. Whitby on the place. cc Whereas fome ( \aith ' be ) compare the Bishops to the Apoftles, the € Seventy to the Presbyters of the Church, and * thence conclude* that divers Orders in the ■ Miniftry were inftituted by Gbrifi himfelf : * It muft be granted, that the Ancients did be# *lieve cheie Two to be divers Orders, and that ' thole of the Seventy were inferiour to the Order € of the Jpcftles ; and fometimes they make the * Companion .here mentioned ; but then it * muft be alio granted, that this Comparifon € will, not ftridly hold ,• for the Seventy receiv- * ed not their Miffion as Presbyters do, from hi- 4 sbtps, but immediatly from the Lord Christ as 1 well as the Apoft/es, and in their firft Miffion ' were plainly lent on the fame Errand and with c the tame Power. But to return to the 66th Epiftle, take this Paffage together with fome more of it, as J. S. has turned it ( q ). " Neither do I lay (Jaith he) * tl efe things boaftingly but with an affiled * Heart, feing thou conftituteft thy felf a Judg I of God and of Chrift, who fays to his Apoftles, ( q ) Chap, t. §.7. t ; 'and Chap. IV* Cyprlanus Ifotimus. 393 * and thereby to all Vrapofiti, Bifhops, who € Succeed to the Apoftles by a Vicarious Ordina- ctioni He that heareth you, htareth me, &c. For c hence have Schifms and Herefies hitherto c fprung> and do dayly fpring, That the Bifhop, € who is One, and is fet over the Church, is * contemned by the proud Preemption of feme, c and the Man whom God hath honoured is * reputed unworthy by Men. For what fweiling c of Pride> what Arrogance of Spirirc what f Haughtinefs of Mind is this, that thoufhouldeft * arraign Birtiops before thy Tribunal ! And if c we are not purged by thee, and abfolved by € thy Sentence, Lo ! Now theie Six Years, the c Brotherhood has had no Bifliop, the People no * Ruler, the Flock no Paftor, the Church no c Governoun Chrift no Prelate, and God no c ho Prieft, Take alfo the following words, as I can turn them, out of the fame 66tb Epiftle. 'Peter there ( Job. 6, 68,) fpeaks upon whom € the Church was built, teaching and (hewing, 1 in the Name of the Church, that tho' the con- tumacious, proud and difobedient Multitude * depart, yet the Church doth not depart from c Chrift ; andthefe ONLT are the Church, viz. € the People joyn'd to their Prieft and the Flock 'adhering to their Paftor : Whence thou fhould'ft ' know, that the Bilhop is in the Church, and c the Church in the Bifhop. Where Gyprian, ift. plainly infinuats, that all the Prerogative of Bi(hops was founded oil that of Peter over the reft of the Apoftles ; which yet he himfelf believed to be none a: all. zly. He moft manifeftly Identifies, yea Reciprocates Bifhop and Paftor, proclaiming 394 Cypriannslfotlmnf. Chap. IV;, proclaiming, that he believed, that Chrift never inftituted any Paftors fave the Apofiles and their Succeffors, Bijhsps. ;/y. Mixing and fouldering together this Truth wich the then obtaining Practice of giving, together with the Name of a Bifhop, the far greater part of the Power and Honour to the Moderators of the Presbyteries, Unbiihops and Unpaftors all the reft of the Members of the Colleges and Presbyteries, 3nd evidently gives out, that they have no Divine Inltitution. Nothing of this will, I know, be deny'd by any Candid and Senfible Man ,• and it is the very thing I undertopk to prove, and proves invincibly, that cyprian really and in Confcience believed the Vivine Right of?resbyteryt or, which is all one3 Parity among all the Paftors of Chrift's Inftitution : Wherefore Cyprians laying, that Difebedient Presbyters 'were unmindful §f the Go§el ( r ), that a Bifhop is chofen by Divine Ordination (/ ), that he that believes not God making* a Bifhop, fhall believe the Devil profcribing a Bi- fhop ( t ), and other like Speeches of no more cogency, can never by any means prove the thing for which J. 5. ( u ) adduces them ,• viz,. that Cyprian believed, the Divine Right ofEpifco- pacy. The Cyfrianic Bifliops indeed exercifed more Power, yea fignally more over Presbyters, than do the Moderators of our Presbyteries : This is undenyable i nor did I ever, fince my firft perufal of Cyprian, doubt of it; and therefore Mr. Rule ( which yet is not at all to be imputed to his want of Candor ) fhould not have deny'd a matter fo eafily to be proved. (r) Eplft. i6t 17. (/) Epift. 59' (t) Epift. M- (u) Ch«r|>, 19. §. J3j j*. $. XVI. Chap~ IV. Cjprlanus Ifotmns. 395 §. X V I At length J. S. C# ) mutters his African Troops, who flood up for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. May we not ( faith he ), without exceeding the Bounds of a mode (I Computation, reckon upon an hundred Witness in Africa, when all tbefe Synods art laid together ? From which words I gather, f for I was nor ac pains to count all thefe Witnefles ) that I have, to a Man, juft as many Africans Witneffing for the "Divine Right of Prefc bytery, or Parity among all Pafto*s of Chrift's Inftitation ; only with this Difference, thathis are Imaginary, mine Real. He has yet behind an odd African Witnels ( Numero Dtut Imparl gaudet J Pontius, Cyprian's Deacon. Now, I do not at all deny it to be fufficiently colligible from Pontius, that then it fatlo there was a fignal Dif- ference between Bifhop and Presbyter ,• nor do I deny, that Pontius allowed of it, yea or thought it to be of Divine Approbation : But the Confe» quence J. 5. hence infers, that therefore he believ'd it to be of Divine Institution, I have (y ), on grounds that I take to be immoveable, deny- ed To prove, that he was for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, jf, S. ( z, ) faithi Who can imagine ( tho we had no more ) that Pontius the Deacon did not believe as St. Cyprian bis beloved Bijhop belie- ved ? Of the Truth of thefe words I doubt not, but infer from them the quite contrary Conclu- fion. And tho' he gave to Cyprian, after he had railed him to the Epifcopai Chair, great and fwelling Names* Gods Bijhop, that Sijbop of God, God's Prieft, GoXs Prelate, God and Chriffs Prince, &c. All this is nothing \ he only takes fome ( x ) Chap. jo. §,26' (y)§. iff (*)§. 54- Naaies %$6 Cypriamtlfotimus. Chap. IV. Names that equally belong to all Paftors, others that belong to no Paftors, and* as the Luxuri- ant Eloquence of thefe Times, and his own in particular prompted him, heaped them all on his Mafter : It never will, it never can be proved, that Pontim believed, that BIJh ps Succeeded to the Apo files, fo as to have any Paftors appointed by Chrift in Scripture to ferve under them, other- wife than he believed, that Peter had, by Ch rift's Appointment, the reft of the Apoftles to ierve under him ,• which lam fatisfi'd, that he believ'd as little as did Cyprian, who believed no fuch thing. jT. XVII From Africa Propria, or Roman , pafs we to Africa more laxly taken, that we may impartially Examine, if that Learnd Egyptian, Origen, be our Friend or Foe. " I am now to € fliew (Jaith J. S. {a) ), that he Jepofes plainly 1 for the Divine Right of Prelacy, He does it in c his Commentaries on St. Matthew, he produces € Texts of Scriptures, not only againft the fecond c Marriages of Deacons and of Presbyters ,• but c alfo, of Bi(heps, as contradiftinguiftied from the € other Orders: Peculiar Texts of Scripture, I *mean, befides thofe, he adduces againft the c fecond Marriages of the other two Orders. f And in the fame Commentaries, he fays, that 9 St. Paul defining what Biihops ought to be, c fays, They wujl not be Litigious nor Strikers* but € Meek and of good behaviour ; having all thofe * good Qualifications, which thofe Stewards ought * to have whom our Lord Jets over his Family ; as J St. Luke has it. Thus J. S. And that Orige* ( a ) Chap. xo. §. a*. produces Ghap. IV.: CjpridHUf Ifotimui. 397 produces Texts againft the Second Marriage of Bifhops no lefs than againft that of Deacons> yea fo produces them, as that he aflures us, that he believed the Divine Inftitution of both, is moft certain: But that he fo produces Texts againft the Second Marriage of Bifhops, as to affure us, that he believed the Divine Inftitution of them, as a Higher Order of Paftors, an Order by Ghrift fet over other Faftors, is moft uncertain, and ( I crave pardon for the Expreffion ; for I can- not find a milder ) moft Untrue : ?Tis mod untrue, that Origen produces any Texts of Scrip* ture againft the Second Marriage of Presbyters, Simple Presbyters, I fay, fo as once to intimate, that ever he believed fuch an Officer to be of Divine Inftitution : And indeed he never be- lieved any fuch thing. The Truth of what I fay is pretty clear even from what J. S. here fays : For who can doubt, if Origen believed, that all Paftors of Chrift's Inftitution mu(l not be Litigious nor Strikers, but Meek, &c. Paul's Biftiop therefore isi in Or/je^ smind5Reeiprocally one and the fame with the Paftor of Chrift's Inftitution, and contradiftingui&ed from Pauls Presbyter no otherwile than is GUJim from Enjis ; and from the Prdatic and Simple Presbyter, whom Origen fufficiently knew to have had no Beeing in Paufs Time, no otherwife than is Ens from Nihil. However, fince not only J. S. but alfo B. Pcarfon ( b ) intimate, that Origen produces Tex s of Scripture againft the fecond Marriage of chefe Simple Presbyters 5 take Origen s own ( b ) Vindi Ignat. Pm I, Cap, i©. words 39^ Cyprhuuf lfotlmus. Chap. IV. words ,• who, having produced agsinft the fecond Marriage of Bifliops and Deacons the %J. Chap, of the i to Tim. and the $th. againft the fecond Marriage of Widows^ thus continues; The words that the Apoftle fubjoyns, be utter dtbem as belonging to the fecond or third place of Dignity ( c ). And this is all they can ailedge for Origeris Believing the Divine In(titution of Simple Presbyters, and the Divine Right of Epifcopuy $ for thefe two ftand and fall togerher. But this needs not trouble us ,• feing Origen admitted for the Definition of a Bifhp that which he never did, no Man in Confcience can deny to agree to every Paftor of Chrift's Inftiturion, and feing he and other Ancients could well enough accommo- date Scriptures to thefe Offices and things which they fufficiently knew were not in the times of the Apoftles, or were never appointed to con- tinue : Doubtlefs, if they had got occafion, they would readily have brought fome Scripture or other for the Diftin&ion of Deacon and Sub-deacon, and the peculiar Duties of both of them ; tho' they were not ignoranr, that no fuch DiftincHon was ever made by the Infpir'd Apoftles, orcontain'd in Scripture, i know not if any, at leait any Proteftant, will dare to fay, that the dncients really believed the Exorciji to have been appoinced in God's Word, as a Per- petual Church Officer ; and yet Ambroje or Hilary ( d) finds Scripture for it : 2 be teachers (OComtn* 'n M*^- Tom. F4. pag. 362. Kai [JLtTCL TAvri prttfi T<* CCTrpffSuiya, d{ t£t* JiVTitf. )y Toilet. ( d ) In EpbeJ. 4. li. Magilin vti6 Exorcifiae fuuc, quia in Eccldia ipli compdcuiu & verbcunt inquiercs. ( faith Chap. IV. Cffrianus Ifolimus. 39^ ( faith he ) are the Exorcifts bscaufe in the Church they bridle and chaftife the turbulent. And J-efom, whom all C as is proved eifewhere (■*)), ^aYC fuch as have a Jefuited Confcience, own to have been fufficiently pofitive for the Scriptural Iden- tity of Bifhop and Presbyter, ufing the Dialed of his Age, has feveral Phrafes, which either the unwarry or uncandid Reader may no lefs abufe to the deceiving of therafelves and others, , than this of Origen: E. gr. in his Epiftle to Heliodorus : If a Man ( faith Jerom ) defire the Office of a Bifhop* he defires a good Work i Ihefe things we know ; But add what follows, A Bifhop then muft be. blamelefs, &c. £nd having exprejpd the reft of the things which thene follow concerning a Hifhop, the Afoflle ufes no lefs diligence in jetting forth the Duties of the Third Degree, faying, Likewife let the Deacons be grave, &c. Diver fe fuch expreffions are to be met with in ]erom. In a word, fcarce has J. S. yea or even Bifliop Pearfon himfelf brought any one PafTage out of Origen to which Jerom has not a parallel. But this is not all ; for if Vearfon eyed thefe words of Origen, then, doubtlefs, in his mind, Origen took the 17. verm [ The Elders that Rule weti &c» ] to mean fimple Presbyters • but he does not at ail intimate any fuch thing ; it belongs not to the Queftion he was Handling, which was, Why the Apoftie requires that ail, who who have any Dignity in the Church, keep from fecond Marriage ? And moreover, the Aii/'7S£$e /j 7f It* docs not at all concern tbe Orders or Degrees of Church Officers j but the Quali- fy) Naz Quer. Part 1. § iJr%& £ 7p(Ttf, and every other € Eufinefs to be but a matter of lefs moment, or c Concern, From all this it is clear, that if Vearfon eyed thele wordsj he quite miftook the fence of them ; I fay, if he ey'd them ,• for he feems as if he would hide himfelf in ambiguous generals ; however, he furely either ey'd them, or the words of Origen that follow, [ iv cPi 79 TpS; 7itw, 7«t« fM^i, %ifif% &c] "And in the ( /) Dialog* cum Tryfh. prope inicium. I Epiftle Chap. IV; Cyprianu* Ifotimtf* 40 1 * Epiftle to Titus, the Apoftle fays, For this caufe Meftlthee in 6rete? that thou mighHecii ^Ger * the things that are wanting and O dain ' Eiders in every City? as I had appointed thee. * If any be blamelefs, . the Husband of one * Wife, &c Then Origm concludes " That * every Bifiiop, every Presbyter, and every € Deacon ought to be the Husband of one Wife. Tearforiy perhaps* ( for what will not inveterate prejudice do ) thought, chit Origen really judg'd that this place to Titus comprehends fimple Presbyters j but if he thought fo, he is palpably miftaken : For, if Origen feems, through all his Works, on this place,; and this alone> to found fimple Presbyters; If it be confeftedly certains that this place to Titus, and 1 Tun. 3. which place Origen firmly believed to defcribe no fimple Presbyter, but a true and real Billiop, contain one and the fame Church Officer ; IfSyprian {g)% and %6 African Fathers with him, believed that thefe words of the Apoftle to titus Characterize atrueBifhop, no fipiple Presfeyterj if, fiaaliy, Origen himfelf ( h ) be*iev d, and clearly ex* prefFd, that a real Bifhop, no Presbyter as diftind from a Bhliop, is mean'd in this place to Titus J Then it muft be uncontrovertible that this his dealing and inlinuacing, as if chofe words to Ttiiiis were to be underftood of a Presbyter, who is no true Billiop, was an unjuftifiable weaknefs^ and compliance with the guife of his Time ; and (&) Quando Sc Apoftolus moneat, &dicat: Bpifco- pum oportct effb fine criuiint, quafi Dei Difpenfatorem, (*> ) Homily on hbtibm \i% & Contra 'Qil[umt pag. 1*0. 141. G c that,- r 402 Cyprtinus Ifctimus* Gfaap, IV* that, even when he fo gave out and infinuated>he firmly belie'/ed, that fimple Presbyters, Presbyters as Diftin& from Bishops, had no Warrant in God's Word, were never appointed by Chrift j and, finally, that Bifhop and Presbyter are com- pleatly and reciprocally one and the fame Officer, Nothing truer, nothing firmer than is this Antecedent in all its branches ,• the Confe- quence therefore is undenyable: You fhallfooner break the ftrongeft Bow of Steel, or maffieft flieaf of Arrows than overturn and diiTolve this Argument. ff. XVIII. And now to go on with jp- S. His next Argument C i) he brings from Origen s zpb Homily on Luke : The words are, If it be proper to /peak boldly the meaning of the Scriptures, in every €hurcb there are two TSiJhopsy the one Vifibley the other Invifible. This perhaps needs a Com- mentary ; let us he^r J. S's. His meaning ( fuhjoyns he ) is, that bejtde the Vifible Bifhop, fuch as Demetrius, or Heraclius or Dionyfiusuwe, in his time% in Alexandria ,• there was like-wife a Guardian Angel fet apart for the Epifcopacy of every particular Church : But that which I am con- cern d for, at pre[enty is only that Origen believed^ that both thdfe Bi(hops were to be found in Scripture. But now, lee us fuppofe, but not yield, that Origen s Belief of the V wine Right o£ Prelacy may be hence concluded ; yet J. S. at leaft B. Pear/on ( for Jm 8+ never faw the Book, but had all from him ) ought to have been afbam'd of this Allega- tion. Origen founds this his Doctrine on the Angels their Appearance and Difcourfe to the (i) Sc%a?t# Shepherd^ Chap. IV* Cyprianus Ifotimtif. 405 Shepherds, Luc.i. and concludes, that the Hter venly AngtU, no lefs than the Earthly Bijhops, ma v Sin agai-ift God ; and, to this end, detorts the Reproofs givcfi che Apocalyptic Angels. Now, Was not Origeti here in an erroneous and dattge- rous Dream I Out of which 'tis Charity to be- lieve, that he fome time or other awaked, ^nd r enounc d this Wild fancy in both its parts : For, is there any ground, any appearance of grou ,d, to conclude from that Angelic Vifion to the Shepherds, that every Churchy take the Word in what fehfe you will, ought to have for her Go- vernour one only Angeh Celeftial or Terreftrial ? Is there any thing, in fuch a deduction, of a Racional Animal ? And yet have you a Brow to Conclude hence.* that Origen, when fober, was for the Divine Right of Srdacy ? But again, let us fuppofe, he had been fober when he faid fo • who told J. 5, that Origen gave the Name of Church to no lefTer Cities or Places than Alexan- dria i If any Body did, they told liini an arrant untruth : He believed, that even in Paul's time there was an Organized Church in the fmall Town ofCencbrea the Port of Corinth} as we learn in his Commentary on the 16th to the Romans, iter. 1. Which place ( faith he ) tea^bes% that even Women wcie»y the Apoftles Authority cenflhutedin the Service of the Church : In whkb Office, in the. Church of Cenchrea, Phebe hang placed, is highly commended by the Apoftle ( k ). Thus Origen. He ( k ) Hlc locus Apoftolica Authorltate docec etiam fceifcinas in minifteno Ecclcii* coifticui. In quo officio ptfiitam Phceben apud Ecclefiam quae eft Ccnchris, Faulm QUtn laude magna & commeRdatione profefluisar. C c z doubt- 4°4 tjprhnui Ifotintus. Ghap. IV doubtlefs then allowed cenchrea a Bifhop. And the ficticious Apoftles in their Gonftitution ( / )3 fay, that Paul had made Lucius Bt[hop of Ccnchiez ; which is a fure proof, that when this Impoftor wrote, Qencbrea either had a Bi(hop5 or was b*2 lieved to have had one in elder and more Apofiolic times. And on v. 23, fpeaking of Gaius, *PauFs and the Churches Hofi, Origen fay*, that be was a Bo/pital Man, who did not only receive Paul and every particular chri(iian into his HouJe> but afforded al/o in his own Houfe a Meeting Place ( Univerfe Ecclefiae) to the WHOLE CHURGH (m). ?Tis clear then, that in Origen?s mind even a (ingle Congre- gation had its own proper Bilhop; which is the thing the Presbyterians plead for ; and is yet further confirmed from thefe very Homilies on Luke ( n ). Becauje ( faith 0> igen ) the Angels aft frefent in the Churchy to wit, in that Church only which is deferving% and belongs to Chrift • therefore it is injoynd to Women, that when they fray they have their Head covered, becauje of the Angels ; thefe Angels , to wit, who ajjift the Saints, and re Joyce in the Church, Where 'tis certain, that under the Name oi Church he underftands a fingle Congre- gation that meets for receiving oi the Word and Sacraments } and affigns Angels to all fuch (/) Lib. 7. Cap. 47. — — — vasVii TltCte Aw*i©* KiTxftar* > » ( r* ) Videtur indicare de co ( Gai$ ) quou Vir fuerit hofpitalis, quod non folum Ptulum ac fingulos quofque diverfant«s Cmnthi hofpitie reciperet, fed ECCLESLE UNIVERSE in Domo fua Cooventieulum ipfe praebueiir. (w) Horn. if. Et quia praefentes Angeli funt in Ecckiia, in ilia duntaxat quae meretur, & Chrifti eft, proprerea orationibus fceminis praecipitur, ut habeant vela- men fuper caput propter Angelas, titiq; illos qui afliftunt fan&is, & teuntm in Ecclefia, Ghurches Chap. IV. Cypianus Ifot'wms. 405 Churches. And ( 0 ) allegorizing the Parable of the Samaritan that had cornpaffion on the wounded Man ; under the name of the Samaritan he un- derftands Chrifiy and under the name of the Hofl with whom the Samaritan left the wounded Man, en/oyning him to take care of him, he under- stands ttu Angel otthz Church, to whom Chrift commits the Cure of Souls : And fo, doubtlefs, Angel of the Church and Vaflor are with Origen Equipollent Terms, cxprefling one and the fame thing : Nor, in his mind, can any Man be a Bifhop or Paftor of any Souls whom he himfelf docs not perfonally and conftantly Feed and Guide. Nothing clearer than all this from Origtrit Words : Take them, as I can turn them. cc This Samaritan bears ©ur Sins, and Sorrows for c us, he carries the half dead Mans brings him € into the Hofpital, that is into the Church, which € receives all, and denyes help to none, to which c Chrift exhorts all to come, faying ; Come to ' me all ye that labour and are laden, and I will ( 0 ) Homil. 34. Ifte SsmaritdnM peccata noftra portat, ic pro nobis dolet, portat femiaecem, inducic in Pando- , chion, id eft in Ecclefiam, quae omnes fufcipit, & nullt auxilium fiium denegat, ad quam cunQos provocat Jefus^ dicens : Venire ad me omnes qui laboratis, & onerati eftis, Sc ego reficiam vos. Ec poftqaam induxit eum nori ftatitn recedit, fed uno die in ftabulo cum feminece perfe- verat, & curat vulnera non folum in die, verumetiam in no&e, reliquam follicitudinem fuam & induftriam tribusns. Cumque vellet mane proficifci, de probato argento fuot de probata pecunia fua toliit duos denarios, & aaerae fiabularium, baud dubium quin Angelum Ecclefix, cui praecipit ut diligenter cuiet eum, & ad fanitatem ufque perducat9 quern pio anguftia ternporis ctiam ipfc curave. rat, C c 3 * refre& 406 Cyprianus Jfotimusl Gh?p. LY. f refrefh you. And after he had brought him in, * he does not prefendy leave him, but continues c a day with him in the Inn, and dreffes his f Wounds, not only in the Day time, bur alio in c the Night, beftowing on him tfre reft of his € care and induftry. And being in the Morning c to go away, takes two pence out of his current c Money, and charges rhe Hoft. the Angel of c the Church without doubt, to whom he enjoyns € that he diligently attend, and reftore to health c the Man whom he himlelf, for fo long time as € he could have, had attended. Where aU the pains, attention and care this Samanran* Chrift in Origen's Allegory, beftow'd on the wounded Man, was Perfonal, all perfornvri in his own proper Perfon, not at all by a Subiikute. Nor is left, or iefs perfonal care enjoy nd, and laid Upon the Hoft, the Angel of the Church. From all which places'cis certain, that Ortgen believed, as did Ambroje or Hilary, and others after him, that in Johns time there was either but one Con- gregation in each of the kfiatic Churches^ or elfe that under the Singular Number the Plural is to be underftood. One place of thefe Homi- lies yet remains ( p ). If Jefus Chrifi the Son of God ( fays Origen ) is JubjeSl to Jofeph *nd Mary, (hat not I be fubjefl to the Bifrip, who is of God Or- dain d to he my Father ? Shall not 1 be fuhjefit to the Tresbyter, who by the Divine foucbfafement is (tt over me ? Here ( fubjoyns J: S. ( and a fober Man before an unfober, « and a modeft Man before a Ids rnodeft ,• fo f he wills, that a Bi/hop orderly Conftimted, be c apt to teach, and able to convince the Gain- layers ( t) ThusOrigen, refuting Celfus his Calumny, that the Chriftians excluded from their Communion all Learned, Wife, and Prudent Men, ( u) And now judge, if Origen did not take ?aul\ Sijbop and Pajior of Chrifl's Inftitution, reciprocal- ly tor one and the fame thing. For let any Man go through the particulars, and then /*■/*? ffi KAKvyCivmv irmvvLQ**wv Atzytyqciv o IlsLuX©- omlw HVai ^p« r irmfK9ixov\ ?T*£e xj t fsfdLffMKjp' Mycof, £ r%xp in ohiyw wlwi/jop. lii{w. ( u ) He has a placs parallel to this, on Matthew., fiomil* 31. ever 4 to Cypriauuf lfotimu*. Ghap. IV. ever he fo difcours'd of thefe Words to Titus, as to intimate, that a fimple Presbyter, and not a Bifiiop, was therein defcribed, he did not at all believe that which he infmuated,* it was there- fore neither manly nor modeft in Bifhop Pearfon ( for Ignorance may here be fome kind of Ex- cnfe to jf* S. ) to pretend, that fuch an Infinua- tion proves Origen to have believ'd the Divine Right of Epifcopacy. Finally, Origen is adduced faying, " There is c a Debt peculiar to Widows maintained by the c Church, a Debt peculiar to Deacons, and an- c other peculiar to Presbyters: But of all thefe * peculiar Debts, that which is due by theBi/hop f is the greateft : It is exacted by the Saviour of ' the whole Church ,• and the Bifhop muft (mart c feverely for it, if it is not paid. As if Origen could not judge, that he to whom the Church had committed the chief Care of Affairs, were to account to God for more than were others. Might not the Ancients think, that the Arch* deacon was accountable for more than were the reft |? Did they therefore believe, that he, as contradiftinguifh'd from other Deacons, was of Divine Inftitution ? Now, that there was pret- ty early an Arch-deacon, who had a Power over the other Deacons, appears plain from Hier$ms Epiftle to Evagrius; and this he never doubted to be either Lawful or Expedient. And thus I have difcufs'd all he al ledges out of Origen ; which Citations, not having, as he tells us ( *), Origen s Works at hand, he took from Dr. Pearfon s Find, of Ignatiuis Epifties, Part, i, Cap. n. And Chup. IV, Cyprians Ifotimus. 411 J reckon it not a fault in J. S. to want Books* for to get them is not alwife in a Man's Power ; but for him to pretend to give a full and deter- minative account of the Churches Faith con- cerning the matter of Epifcopacy during the Cyprianic, or, which is the fame, the Orktnian Age, without accurate Reading, and that with an Eye to this Controverfv, of all, at ieaft the far greater pare of his Works, fince Qrigen made fo great a figure, and left us fo great, and fo illuftrious a part of the Writings which remain of that kge, is, in my Mind, a Fault indeed. JJ\ XXL Divers other places are alledged by B; Pearfon, which J. S. tranferibes not : But 'tis juftly to be prefum'd, he wou^d* if be had thought them patter, or even as pat as thsfe which he has borrowed. I (ball not therefore give a Detail of Pearfons Allegations; yea I am perfwaded* if juftly or not, let others judge, that I have not only made out, that none of the places transcribed by % S. help his Caufe ,• but alfo, that moft of 'em, if taken by the right Handle, mortally wound it, I have alfo fhew'd from di- vers other places of Origeny that he really believed all Pdfors of Chrift'slnftitution to be true 2?j- Jhop) and Bijhop and Presbyter in the Scripture Senfe to be reciprocally one and the fame. This may alfo be proved from many other places of the fame Author, yea even from fome of the rema- nent Allegations of Pearfon himfelf ; v. &* in his 6th Homiiy on lfaiab, tho* he names Bijhop and Presbyter ; yet, which is a clear Demonftration that he believed the Scriptural Identity of both, he makes;?, "Bijhop reciprocally one and the fame with 412 Cypriafius lfotimus. Chap. IV. with a Minifier of the Gofpel. Take his Words. *c Does Chrift therefore fay this, that the Bifhop € pouring Water into a Bafon, and laying afide f his Garments, and being girded with a Towel, * ftould wa(h my Feet ? Seing he fays, ye € ought to wafh the Feet of one another. If this c be the thing that is mean'd, none of you will c keep the Command : For none, whether Dea* € con, Presbyter or Bifhep, will take a Towel and c wafh the Feet of every one that comes. But € this is the true Senfe of our Saviour's Words, f that the Bifhops, who are truly bleffed, ferve c the Church, and pour Water out of the Scrip- f tures into the Bafon of the Soul, and endeavour € to waili the Feet of tfre Difciples, to wafh away € the Filth and caft it out. And fo the Biftiops 1 obferve this Command, and follow Chrift • c and fo do the Presbyters. Now, who fees not, that he here makes the Biflxop altogether one and the fame with Ghrift's Paftor, and mention* ing the Presbyter as diftinft from the bijhop, he does it faintly, for the fafhxon, and inmeercom* plyance with the then obtaining Cuftom: And fo ought he to be underftood in every place elfe, where he fpeaks o£Bi(hep andPresbyter ascontra- diftinguifha from one another. Finally, who can deny, unlefs the contrary were proved, which never fhall never can be done, that Qri- gen, like Cyprian and the reft of his Contempora- ries, believed, that Chrift never appointed any Paftors over his Church Catholic, fave the Apo- ftles only5 and their Succeffors i And fo much for Qrigen. $. XXII, Chap. IV. Cjprianus lfotimusl 4ig| $\ XXII. Before I can return to Europe, I mufttakea Trip to Afia, to try, if Firmilian% Schollar ofOrigen andliifhop of Cefarea in Cafpa- docia> was a Jure-Divint Hierarchic; J. 5. un- dertakes to prove ( y)% that he believed Epifcopacj to be of Divine Inftitution : And his chief Argu« ment is ( z, ), that Firmilian doth more than cnce3 in exprefs Terms, declart bimfelf to be of the fame principle, in every thing, with St. Cyprian : And I doubt not but he was, and fcruple not hence to conclude, that he was for the Divine Right of Presbytery ,* or, which is all one, the Divine Right of 'Parity among all &afiors of Chrift's hjiitution^ Firm\\i^n,uponthefame very Principles with Cyprian, has positively declared hit Belief to have been, that J&jhops were Succeffors to the kfoftles ( very true ; fay on ) in the fupreme Vower Eeclefia/lical ( not Supreme, but Sole5 as is above declared ) : He plainly founded the Epif copal Order on onr Lord** Words to St. Peter : Another good Proof, as is alfo already evi&ed, that he never believed the Divine Right of Epifcopacy, but of its contrary,Pre/^. bytery. And here ( a ) J. S, adds his Caution, which deferves notice. u Before I proceed far- ' therf let me interpofe one Caution ; It is, € that although I am very well fatisfied* that St. c Cyprian , Firmilian and whbfo^ver elfe, in thofe c dayes, reafoned from our Lord's "building his c Church on St. Peter, &c. for the Vivine InfiU € tution of Epijcopacy, did reafon folidly, and up- * on good and firm Principles, as hath been de* f monftrated moft fully and clearly by the ad- c mirable Mr. Dodwelly in his notable feventh 6/- £ prianic Dictation ( If they reafoned folidly, or 414 CjpridMis Jfotimui. Chap. I\TJ if DoJuset has demonftrated fo much, is already difcuffed) • " yet, if G. R. or any of his Bre- c thren fhall think fit to examine what I havd 'faid, they muft not think they have done e% f nough; wfyen they have rais'd Mills againft € fuch Reafonings as were ufed by thefc Fathers c for afterting the Divine Inftitmion of Epifcopacy. € They muft remember, I fay, that our prefent c Enquiry is, whether they believed fuch an him 'flitution? And not, whether the Arguments * were good which mord them to believe fo. And this I willingly admit, for the State of the Queftion : But feing, as I truft, 'tis fully clear- ed^ that thefe Words, Tim art Peter, &c. was the only Scripture whereon they pretended to found the Divine Inftitution of Epifcopacy ; which, if it do ought, lets up one Apoftie ovet the reft ; and that notwithftanding they pofr- lively and perpetually afferccd the compleat Equality of all the Apoftles, making all the reft equal in Power and Honour to peter ; I can jjuftly afficm> that thefe Fathers themfelves never believed this their Deduction, and have as clear- ly, as needs be, caueion'd us againft it : I fay, they never did, they never could, according td this their Principle, afterting the compIeatEquai lity of all Apoftles, believe that Pettr could havd one white more than the reft ; if it was not, perhaps, the Priviledge of being Moderator itt the Apoflolick Vresbytery. Oi)ce again, fuppofe we, which is yet moft falfe, that they never be- iiev'd the reft of the hftfles to be Equal to Peter in Power and Honour, and fo aded confcnant- ly to themfelves ia making the Bijhcps, in aH theii i Ghap. IV* Cyprlanus lfotmus. 415 their Power and Prerogatives over ^Presbyters, fucceed to Peter, and Presbyters, in all their Sub* legion and Inferiority to Bifhops, fucceed to the other Apoftles: Suppofe we, 1 fay, that they believed all this rnoft firmly, moft conftantly, and moft agreeably to themfelves • what could the Prelatilts gain thereby ? They ftiould gain, I acknowledge, the piefeftt Debate j but in the very interim, by the fame Labour, Pains and Sweat, demonftrate, that It is not worth the contending for ,• and evince, that theTeftimo- liy of the Fathers for Epifcopacy is not worth a flie ; fince* till Vodwelfs time, who can bring Quodlibet ex quolibet, not one of the huge number of the Zealous Advocate* for Prelacy was fo un- wife as to life, or once to mention this Scripture in Defence of Diocefan Epifcopacy ; but, on the Contrary, moft frequently profeffed, that all the reft of the Apoflles were in every thing, in every refped compleatly Equal to Peter. And here I judge it not amifs to give you Firmiliaris own Words, as I can Scotti(h them ( d ). " Now, ( d) Inter Cypr. 7$. Pag, a 25". Qualis vero Error fit, & quanta (it Caecitas ejus qui Remiflionem Peccatorum did* apud Synagogas Haereticdmm dari polfe, net permanent in Fundamento Uniu* Ecclcfiae quae ferael a Chriftb fupfa Pe- tram folidata eft: hinc intelligi poteft, quod foli Petro Chri- ftusdixerit : Quecunefue liguveris fuftrTerraw, erunt ligat* & in Calls . Et qusecuuque foiveris fuper Terr am, erunt f glut a & in Qmlti : & iterum in Evangelio quando in folos Apoftolos infufflavit Chriftus dicens, Acdpit* SpiHtutn StnButn : Si cujta rewiferitis Peccata, rernittentnr Mi : Ee f cujw vtnueritu, tenc* bun ur. Poteftas ergo Peccatorum reantten riorum Apoftolis data eft, & Ecclefiis quas illi a Chrifto mifli conftitueruat, ic Epifcopis qui eis Ordinatione Vicaria /ucceflcrunt. Ho- ftet autern unius Catholics Ecclefiae in qua n r fumus, & Adverfarii noftri quiApo'tulisfuccefliaiu , ^r^dona ifflli illicita contra nos vindicantes, & Alraria profane pomnres; quid aliud fuat quarn Chore & Dttbt* & Abmn. [ be # jj.t6 Cyprtanns Ifotiwuu Chap. IV. 1 how black his Error, how great his Blindnefs c ( he means Stephen Bifltop of Rome ) maft be^ * who f ays,that the Remiffion of Sin can be given € in the Synagogue of Hereticks* nor perfevcres c in the Foundation of that One Church, which * was once built by Chrift on the Rock ; may c be learned from hence, that Chrift faid to Peter € alone : Wbatfoever thou fhg.lt bind en Earth , (hall be * bound in Heaven : And whatfoever thou (hah loofe € on Earth, fliall be loofed in Heaven 2 And again, € when in the Gofpel he breathed on the Apoftles * alone,- faying. Receive ye the Holy Gho(l : J9bofe € JoeveT Sins ye remit , they are remitted unto them : * And whofe foever Sins ye retain, they are retained^ € The Power therefore of forgiving Sins was giv- c en to the Apoftles, and to the Churches which c they, being fent by Chrift, planted, and to the c Bilhops, who by a Vicarious Ordination fuci ' ceeded them. But the Enemies of the only Ca« c tholic Church in which we are, and the Adver- c faries of us who fuceeeded the Apoftles, feing € in oppofition to us they arrbgat to them- € felves an Unlawful Priefthood, and cred Pro- € fane Altars, what are they but Korah, Dathan * and Abiram. Thus Firmilian* And now let it be even as J. S. would have it, ihitFirmilian founded the Epis- copal Order on our Lord's Words to Peter ; be it, that he hence concluded, that Chrift made Peter the Head of the Order of Bifhops, and the o- ther dpo/lles of that oittc Presbyters* and gave no lefs Power and no fewer Prerogatives to Peter above the reft of the Apoflks than Bijjhofs claim over Presbyters ; What then J Since Firmilian% the Chap. IV. Cypriaftur Ifotimu's. 417 the lame FirmiUtth in the fame place, with the fame Beath, roundfy and with fuii Mouth in- forms us, that norhing of all thefe Infrrences is true ; while he cd!s us, that our Lord giv? to the reft ot the Apofiles thefe verv fame Privi- ledges that he gave to Peter ; and fo, as Cyprian fpeaksf made them all Equal to him, boct. in Tower and Honour. What, moreover, is clearer, than that, io Firmilian'% Mind ( which h p oved to be alfo the Mind of Cypri«n ), the Apoii/es and their Sucaflors had the whole Power of Binding and Loofing, fo that none elfe had the leaft Grain of it; and, by undoubtableConfequence5 are the only Paftors of Chrift's Inftitution, and the Hierarchies Jimple Presbyter s> Plants never planted by Chrifrs Heavenly Father ? And now judge, if Firmilidn was for the Divine Right of Epifcopacy* or if on the contrary, he was not foe the Divine Rigl>t of Parity among all Paftors of Dim vine Inftitution, and therefore for that of Presbyteryi Another Argument for Firmiliaris Belief oi the Divine Right of Epifcopacy J% S. delivers in* the following Words ( e )% " After he has moft Fe- verely and briskly chaftifed Stephen^ Bifhop of Rome, ( as has been already intimated ) for his unbrotherl v Behaviour towards fuch of hU C0/3 legists as diflfented from him ; he concludes with affiiming, that Jucb his Behaviour was [ contra SacrJmentum & Fidvm ] againft God's Ordinance, and the Laws of Gbri(tianity> from which the Confluence is io obvious, that to name it is enough, * cfCbriftianity. He fays then, it was a ^Divine Or- dinance, that Unity fhould be kept among Chrifti- ans j but, that it was a DivintOrdinance to keep it by the Intervention of Bifhops. as an Order Su- periour to other Pa(lors% he fays not here, he fays not any where. There is yet another place of this Epiftie that deferves our notice ( f ). Take J. S's Verfion (/) Pag 221. Sed & caetcriquiqucHaerctici, fife ab Ec« clcfiaDciieidcrint, nihilhabercPotelhtisaut Gratia? poflunt; quando omrns Potclhs & Gratia in Ecchfia conftituta fir, ubi prxuden raajores natu, qui & Baptizandi & Manual Impontndi & Ordinandi poffiaenc Peseftitein. of Chap. IV. Cyprianus IfotimuS. 419 of it. " No Hereticks who have cut themfelves c off from the Church of God can have any c Power or Grace, feeing all Power and Grace is 'confined to the Church, in which, fuch Elders * do prefide as have the Power of Baptifm* of c Impofing the Hand* and Ordination. Where, in my Mind, the Term [ Qui'] fhould have been rendered [ Who, ] and not [ Such as ] ,• feing thefe Words [ Such as ] may intimate* as if there were other Elders, who had no fuch Power ; which lam fure, the Original will not neceffarily bear: But on this I (hall not infift, nor on this Quefti-i on, which of all thefe Words [ npltdiltfU, Tipffo, Meteoric ] Firmilian ufed ? Buc this I maintain to be obvious in the Paffage, that Firmilian allows the Power of Baptifm to none but thefe who have the Power of Impofing the Hand, or of Confirmation t and of Ordination 5 and therefore no Man can Baptize, who is not a Bifhop ; and by unavoid-* able Confequence, Chrift never Inftituted aPa- itor but Bifhops only. If J. S. come in with his old Mumpfimus of the Supreme and Subordinate Power, who can help it ? it is fure, that Firmi- lian no more allows them to delegate the Power cf Baptifm than- that of Ordination ; which all the Hierarchies I can meet with affirm they can nor. In (hort, all the Thee Powers Firmilian fo menti- ons, as that he gives them equally, and altoge- ther after the fame manner to thefe his Elders. At a word, that the Government of the Churches of Afi* was, in the time oi Firmilian, like that of thofe of xhzWe(l %n& South % and that himfelf had divers Presbyters under him is true ; that he be- lieved our Lord to have inftituted different Ranks D 6 z Qt 420 Cypridnus Ifotttmts. Ghap. IV. or Degrees of Yajlors, is not at all fo • yea, as is now made out, he believ'd the very contrary, §. XXIII. I therefore return from Afta to Eu? rope5 and find J. S. at Rome (g)i Rome (fays he ) Orthodox and Uncorrupted, v>ho\e Bifhops, in thoje days, were Holy Martyrs, And 'tis true, fhe retained the Fundationsj but 'tis as true, that above 40 Years before that time (he endeavoured to Miftref* it over other Churches, and her Bi- fhop wasfetdng up his Crefts, and breathing out the beginnings of that Luciferian Pride, where- with his SuccefTors have fwelled ( h ). How- ever it be, he is highly confident of the Succours he has got there ,• and yet they are nothing but the Words of Cernelinsy thefe of the Lapfed Penitents already wrung out of his Hands, and fonie few elfe of the like im- port. The Roman Presbyters and Deacons fay , they can proceed no farther till God [hall give them a Bijhop. Asif,about orihortly after thefe times,the Dioctfans themfelves might not have readily faid as much of the Arch-bijhops, or Metropolitans, their Superi- ours, there being (everal things which, by the Laws then introduced, could not be done with- out them. And, They tell St. Cyprian, htw much bis Vigour and his Severity jo exactly agreeable to the Evangelical Difcipline, in the Aimimfi ration of his Epi/copacyy comfortedthem amidjt their great Prejjures. Bucthis his Argument is aifo ofcener than once Satisfied : They eyed our Lord's Words to peter, Matth. 16 19. 1 v; ill give unto thee ihe Keyts. &c. and io infinuated, that feter nad Prerogatives and (* ) * *7, drr. (h) Videfis ^J<*. Hilt. Ecclei. Lib. 5. Cap, a*. Power Ghap. IV. Cjprianuf Ifotimus. 421 Power over the other Apoftlesj altho* all Chri- fKansofthat Age, and amongft others, doubt- lefs, chefe fame Roman Presbyters and 'Deacons knew well enough, ahd firmly believed, that the other Apoftles were to a hair Equal to Peter both in Honour and Power. His other Argu- ment [ That in that Age it wasinccntejledly received^ that the Ttijhops of Rome were St. Peter'* SucceJJors ] can move none who knows, that when they lifted they made him alfo the Succejfir of St. Paul. But, let 'em e'en believe in this as feems good to J. S. there is no hazard ,• fince they believed likewifc the Roman Presbyters to fucceed to the Apofiles, or elfe to be none of Chrift's Paftors : Let him choofe whether he pleaies, he /hall ne- ver find a Third. jJY XXIV. His only remanent Argument is taken from hence, that, as he fays, they believ- ed, that Bifhops were Promoted by fyecial Divine De- Jignation, Vindicated and Protefied by a (fecial Di- vine Providence ; That God did honour Bifhops with extraordinary Revelations, for their DireBion and En- couragement in the Administration of the Epi/copal Offi.e C i ). But tho' we fuppofe that they believ- ed all this, yet, fince they might, as indeed they did believe, that it was profitable to the Church to diftinguifh into Higher and Lower Orders thofe Officers, of whom Chrift, in his Inftkution, had made only One Order or Rank 1 it can by no means follow, that they Believed the Divine In- (litution of Epifcopacy, but only its Divine Appro* bation ; And J. S. himfelf feems to gather no more from the Premifes (k > 1 am perfwaded, (0 Chap. io. §4. » $.11. (k) §. 9.^12. D d % that 4^2 CyprianuflfotitiMf. Chap. IV* that in, or near thefe times, they would have thought it confonant enough to God's Holinefs, Honour and Wifdom, to give Revelations to j4rcb*bi(hops or Metropolitans, dire&ing them in the Adminiftration of that which belong'd to them as fuch ,• and yet J. S. can neither in Truth, nor confidently with his own Principles* fay, that in their Mind, the Metropolitan or Arch-bifhop was of Divine Inftitution : And thus his Disjunctive Suppofition, that either they believ'd Epifcop&cy to be of Divine Inftitution, or elfe the Myftery of Iniquity, and a Govern- ment (imply Unlawful, appears evidently falfe. For tho' the Truth of all he fays be fuppofed, it follows not, that they believed either: They believed, that the Epifcopacy then obtaining was good and lawful, tho* not of Thrift's Inftitution : But had they feen Your Epifcopacy, they had roundly pronounced it both Unlawful and Anti- chriftian. But to go on,* 1*1 1 fuppofe, that there really was a Divine Providence exerced in the Promotion and Protection of thefe Bifttops, and that they were honoured with extraordinary Re- velations ; and yet I deny, that it will hence follow; that the Elevation of Bijbops over other Vaftors was either of Divine Inftitution or Approba* tion. Volygamit was not of Divine Inftitution, nor, I dare fay, of Divine Approbation ,• yet how many Cautions, Rules and Dire&ions find we in Scripcure about it ? But fomewhat more is to be faid in the prefentCafe : Thefe Bifhops had bur, in a manner, One Congregation, Per- formed the far greater part of the proper Paftoral Work, and were Ghofen and fee apart to be the Qrdi- Chap' IV* Cyprlanus Ifotitntts. 423 Ordinary, and well nigh the Only Difpenfers of the Word and Sacraments, in the whole Diftri&s over which they were (et ,• no wonder then, tho' God had much concern'd hitnfelf in th§ Pro- motion, Protection and Diredion of them, by whom chiefly the Gofpel was propagated ,- tho' there was fuch a Flaw in that Government, as laid a Foundation for Anrichriftian Tyranny. 'Tis not to be thought, that fuch Divine Difpen- fations free the Receivers of every Error : If fome of thefe Revelation?, as that tjftwti fays he had for making Numidkus a Presbyter, feem to import God's Approbation of the Diftinftion be- tween Bifhop and Presbyter • fo theje he gave to order and regulate Polygamy and Divorce feem no lefs to import his Approbation of thefe ; and yet both were quite contrary to the Primitive Inftitution of Marriage. And this quite houghs and ruines his Thumping and JchiUean Argu- ment. But Til go on with him, w As this Ar- c gument (faith he J is ftrong and nervous in it f felf, fo, it is of a peculiar Force againft our 4 Presbyterian Brethren, upon fuch Principles as * themfelves value very highly, and infift on very € confidently : With what Keennefs and Confi- 1 dence have fome of them l'r.fifted on this Argu- c ment for Presbytery, that God has fo frequent* € ly and obfervably ho/ioured its moft zealous c Abettors with Special Manifefiations of his Spirit, ( and Revelations of his Wft and Purpofes ? How * much is this infifted on in the Book, called, the c Fulfilling of the Scriptures > What elfe than this c Pretence to iuch Communications has fo much * recommended Mr, Rutherford's Letters? Now, M 424 CypvidHus IJolimus. Chap. IV. *Ifay, feeing our Presbyterian Brethren are fo f apt to ufe and infift on fuch Reasonings, upon € what Ground can thev rejedReafonings found-* c ed upon the fame: Principles? Upon the Com- € municjiions o\ Goas IjAind, and the Revelations of * his Purpofes in the Cypnanlc Age {I jf But we need not rejj-.d theig ; we can eafily reafon with him on Suppofrion of the Truth of them, tho' Suppofing be hoc Granting. W^ reii him then, that hib Retortion is lighter than V^uir) ; on this accounr, rhar the Pi ebbvceii. ins acknc^vA- {edg- ed, that they had rhefe Maviftflauon* given them dired:iy for their Support ajid rhroughbeariog in chcir Sufferings for Presbytery, in Opposition to thePerfecutiiigPrelatift$whobicrer P rfecut- ed them on this very Score* th*t the> ftuck to Presbytery. Now can J% S. fay, ttiar theic was fuch" a Prevalent and Perfecuting Fa&ion of Presbyterians in Cyprians time, that theft Mani- feftations were given him and hh Contemporaries to Comfort and bear them upin their Sultt : trigs inflicted on them by thele Presbyterian^ beexfe they fuftain'd the Divine Rigfo of Epi/copacy ? Were not thefe Presbyters, of whom Cjpri«n fo rauch- complains, as much Epifeopal as himielf i I confefs, had the Debate between J. S. and me been then in Agination, and Cyprian, for taking his Side of it, been hotly Perfecuted on that ac- count, by thefe that took mine, and held the T)ivine Right of Vrtsbytery ; and had he in thefe Sufferings really got fuch Manifefiations Confirm- ing and Comforting him under them, or really believed that he had fuch Revelations,- I confefs, (/)S.io. Chap IV. Cyfrianut tfotimts. 425 I fay- that then J* S- his Argument had been ner- vous and pungent indeed: Otherwife/cis fo Blunt, that ir cannot pierce even the tendereft Skin. Will they (ayy that fuch \eafonings cannot be Good or Solid? Why then do they uje them? ( But the huge Difparity is now manifefted ) Will they fay, that themfelves Reafon well in this matter, be- came they have a Good Caufe ,• but St. Cyprian and his Contemporaries Reajoned wron%, becauje it was for the Ajjertions of a Bad Caufe their Mani- feftations were pretended ? This he counts Ridi- culous : Wny pray ? For this is palpably to make the Aflercion jufli/y the Argument, and 'not the Argument the Aifertion. But, is ic noc granted on all hands that Revelations pretended to in favour of ought which croffes plain and univer- fally received meanings of Scrip ure cannot be from God ; and fo far che Affertion may be faid either to condemn or juftifie the Argument : Now, if the Goodnefs of our Caufe be fo evident from Scripture, that not only all the Reformed Churches, the greateft Lights, the greateft Biihops of England not excepted, clearly fee ic ; yea if Cyprian himfelf and his Contemporaries,as, I hope, is evinced, materially and really ownfd it,- then 'tis clear, that the Revelations given to thefe Eminent Presbyterian Sufferers may be good, and, if they were Judicious and Confcientious Men, muft be Good,* and, on the other hand, the Revelations brought by Cyprian and his Contempo- raries to prove che Divine Right of Epifcopacy,on fuppofition, that they pretended to them for this end, muft be bad. And 426 C) planus lfotimui. Ghap. IV: And now, from what is faid is maftifefted the falfenefs of thefe two Propofitions, into which all his enfuing Difcourfe on this Head refolves, viz. That, if they believed, that they had fuch Divine Revelations for the Adminiftration of the Epi/copal Office, they believed the Divine Right of Epifeopacy ; and, That 'tis more certain, that they had rfiem than that fome eminent Suffering Presbyterians had them. Nothing, I fay, more falfe than thefe Propofitions ,• as is raoft clear not only from what is now faid, but much more fully from the former Chapter,* at leaft as to the latter Propofition. That Cyprian, Origen, and other Doctors of that Age, were excellent Men, many of whom Suffered for Chrift, is undeny* able : But that thefe Presbyterians J. S, de- fpifes in comparifon of them, were far founder in Doftrine, and freer of odd whimfies and dangerous Dreams, is, I aver, the bulk ©f the Reformed Churches being made Umpires^ no lefs undenyable. Nor let J S. challenge this as a faucy piece of Boldnefs s Let him turn to my former Chapter, and fee what I brought E. gr. from his own Whitgift, and fay, if he dare, that he comes a whit fhort of all the Boldnefs I now life. Thefe very pretended Revelations were by many Chriftians, and,among them,fome Bilhops, taken for meer fancies and imaginations. So much Gyprian himfelf clearly tells, in his Inve- ntive ( m ) againft his fellow Bifliop and Sufferer, Tupianm ; having told him, that, becaufe he had credited fome falfe reports to his prejudice, he would never be at peace with him* until he got a C m ) Epift. 46. Re- Ghap. IV. Cjprianus Ifotimus. 427 Revelation from Heaven, allowing him to do it,' he adds, that he had got a Revelation Confirming the Authority of Priefts* and Threatning their Oppofers. Altho ( continues he ) / knoto* that fucb Revelations feem Ridiculous Dreams to f$me% but efcecially to thefe who incline rather to believe the evil that is (fioken of the Trieji, ( Biftiop, if J. S. pleafe) than to give credit to the Priefl : But no wonder, fince of Jofeph his Brethren (aidy Behold the Drea- mer. Thus I have gone through all J. S. adduced for Cyprian and his Contemporaries their Belief o\ the Divine Right of Epifcopdcy : I have balked nothing, diffembled nothing, mifreprefented nothing faid nothing but what* after the nar- roweft fcrutiny I could make, fatisfies mine own Confidence. I perfwade my felf, that I have really difcuffd and refuted all he has brought or can bring from the Authors he has ufed, cleared up, and fet matters in their true Light ; and, finally, as I promifed, made bright, as the Meridian Sunf that Gyprian and his Contempo- raries really and firmly believed^ that all Paftors of Gbrifis In(litution are* to an Ace, Equal in Tower and Homur ; . that is, they believed the Divine Right of Parity among ?a(lorsy or of Presbte* ry. §. XXV. There is yet belonging to the Cyprianic Age an Author or two untouched by J. S. who, I judge may bring fome Light to the prefent Controverfie ; and therefore require Confideration. The firft is Origen's Matter, Clemens Akxandrinm ; who, altho' he published moft, if not all in the Second Century, yet lived during ip8 CjpriatiHs Ifotimns. Chap. IV. during fome part of. the Thu^. His words are ( n ). " Thefe therefore ajfo who have ex- ercifed themfelves in the Lord's Commands, and who have lived according co Knowledge, and agreeably to the Gofpel, may be juiily ranked with the Chofen Apoftles. He is really a Presbyter of the Church, and a true Minifter of the Will of God> if he do and teach accor- ding to the Mind of the Lord : Not becaufe he is Ordained by Men, nor becaufe he has the repute of a true Presbyter ; but becaufe he juftly obtained the Rank of a Presbyter ,• altho* he has not here on the Earth been honoured with the Chief Seat, he (hall fit on one of the 24 Thrones, Judging the People, as John writes in the Revelation. And having observed, that after the breaking down of the Partition Wall, and Joyning of the Jews and Gentiles into One Church, the Number of the Churches Rulers was doubled, and in ftead of the Twelve Patriarchs, or Princes of the Tribes, there were before the Throne Twenty ( n ) Stromat. Lib. 6. i&rtv *vf x) rSV r KvpUKalt &\l)Qr!t f <& pn four Chap. IV. Cyprlanus. lfotimus 429 four Elders • he goes on thus ( 0 ) : " For here c in the Church/ as I judge, the Degrees of Bifhips^ € Presbyters and Deacons are Refemblances of the € Angelic Glory, and of that O^conomy, Order c or Diftribution, which the Scriptures fay is to € be expe&ed by thefe, who, following the c footfteps of the Apoftles, lived according to the € Goipel, in the perfection of Righteoufnefs# * Of thefe the Apoftle writes, that being caught ' up into the Clouds, they (hall firft Officiat as c Deacons^ and afterward be admitted into the c Order of Presbyters, according to the Degree of € Glory which they rtiall obtain. And (?}: c< In c the Church the Presbyters confervethat part of 1 Worfhip or Difcipiine which Reforms Mens 1 Lives, and the Deacons that which is for Ser- 'vice ; In both thefe Miniftries the Angels c ferve God in the ordering of things that are on * Earth. From thefe Clemens his words natively, yea and unavoidably follows the following Con- ( 0 ) i<7ti x} a) l/ldv&a x&7& tW onuMtridP <&&wrdl Wifibirap nft*(Zv7ifa>v9 J\jmvav, yt,:yi.ty&7* ti^Ai t$ytHK*$ cT#4»i^, u£%m*t AtAuimf q7*, l*™ MZ**. (t) Llb 7. %*"•« M £ & 7& Mttfttft, 7lw ucni^7:*»r el fUxom, tavtas £tu9* lit 4 • clufion, 43° Cyprlanus Ifotimut. Chap. IV* clufion, That tho' Clemens admitted the Diftri- bution of the Clergy into Bi(bops, Presbyters and Deacons, which Cuftom had brought into the Church* he really notwithftanding denyed, that this Divifion was of Divine Inftitution, or brought in by the Apoftles. The Gonclufion is BlondeVs ( q J. B. Vearfon ( r ) fays, that it is moftfalfe : For (continues he )eljewhere Clemens writes plainly, that in the Holy Scriptures there are different Precepts or Rules given to BHhops, Pref- byters and Deacons. But this Chaff is above (/) far enough blown away : Nor (hall they ever find wherewith to fliield them from the dint of this Teftimony. For, firft, he evidently Identifies the Presbyters with the Apoftles Sue* ceffors, 2/y. And manifeftly mikes the Bench of Presbyters the higheft Dignity of Chrift's Infti- tution, while he makes it the greateft Honour to which any Man, who is furnifhed and fitted by God to the Miniftry, can arrive : For his plean meaning is, that whofoever is indued with Grace and fufficient Paftoral Gifts, does, in God's account, deferve all the Dignity and Honour that Chrift ever appointed for Paftors : And therefore, g/y, He plainly enough tells us, that all the Dignity of the Fir (I Seat, or the Epi(- copacy which then obtain'd, was only of Human Inftitution ( here on Earth, faith he) ; to which, in reality, and Chrift's Infticutioni any of the Bench of Presbyters is not a whit Inferiour. Yea, the Truth is, had he not made every true Presbyter exa&ly Equal, by Chrift's Inftitution, ( q ) Apolog. pag. 36, ( r ) Vind5 Ignit, Part. 1. Cap. to Ghap. IV. Cyprianus Ifotitmti. 431 to him that has the Chief Seat, his words would have been ftark Nonfenfe : For, what fenfe is it to fay, He is reaiy a Presbyter* &c. tho* he has not* here on the Earth, been honoured with the Chief Seat ; unlefs every one of the Bench of Presbyters be Equal in Honour and Power to him who enjoyes the Chief Seat ? 4/7. Gletriens, having made the three Degrees of Bijhop, Presbyter and 'Deacon, Refemblances of the Geconomy that is among the Angels, or fhall be among Juft Men made Periedi, divides thefe Angels and Juft Men only into tw& Ranks, Presbyters and Deacons ; than which what better Argument can we wifh, to prove, that Clemens makes the Degree of fiifhop and Presbyter altogether one and the fame, 5/7, In that Celeftial Oeconomy, to which, in his mind, the Order here in the Church muft exadly correfpond, he makes the Degree of Presbyter the Higheft that can be obtained. 6ly. Clemens in both Angelic and Ecclefuftic Osconomy makes only two Orders of Officer s% Presbyters andDeaconsi And 1 take it for granted, that in the Second Order, that of the Deacons, he believed, that Chrift in hisTeftamem had made no Diftinftion, no Higher and Lower Rank • h©w> therefore, can he be thought to have believed, that Chrift appointed any fuch Diftindtion among the Prel- byters ? Indeed, his Diftinguiihingof the Clergy into Presbyters and Deacons only, proclaims, chat, in his mind, Chrift never appointed in the Church any Rank, Order, or Degree Superiour to that of Presbyters, jfy. To all of this Higher Rank or Order of Church- Men Clemens Equally aifigns the fame Office or Fun#i«3j viz. by ?h?ir 43 2 Cyprianus Ifotimusl Chap. IV; their Life and Do&rine to Teach Men the Will of God, and to Reform their Lives. From all which 'tis moft certain and evident, that, in Clemens his Judgment, the Epifcofate, as oppofite unto and diftinguifh'd from the Presbyter ate > is none of God's Ordinances, none of Chrift's In- ftitutions. And chus Clemens at once, and with one Train quite blows up by the very foundati- on the whole Babel of the Hierarchies ,• but more efpecially the Do&rine of Hammond^ Dod- well, and fuch of them as make, the Terreft rial Church Oeconomy fo to be the E&ype of the Celeftial as that the Biihop reprefents God fitting on his Throne, and the Presbyters the Elders on their Seats, as it is Revel. 4. fmce Clemens, in his Comparifon of the Celeftial or Archetypal and Terreftrial or E&ypal Churches, does not at all include God, but clearly, on the contrary, tells us, that it is only the Oeconomy, Oder and Diftribution of Angels and Juft Men made Per- fect, which by the Oeconomy and Difiribution here ordain'd by God in the Church is refem- bled and reprefented. Clemens his mind is yet further cleared, and the fenfe we have given confirmed from his Narration ( t ) concerning the Young Man the Apoftle John committed to the Care of a Biftiop ot fc me certain Town : For there not only are Btjhop and Presbyter taken as Equipollent and Convertible Terms,- but alfo the Bilhopof that Place is no otherwife reprefented and exhibited to us than a Paitor of a fingle Con- gregation. ( t ) Eufeb. Hift.Eccicf. Lib, 3, Cap. 23. g% XXVI. <2hap* IV. C^rianUs Ifolimui. 455 §. XXVI. The fecond of the Authors I promifed to mention is even Cyprians Mailer, Tertutlian : He indeed ufes the then ulual Diftin- dUon oftener than once, Trichotomies the Clergy into Bijhops, Presbyters and Deacons, fays ( u )9 that the Bifhops ufed to enjovn to the People the Times of Falling, and terms the Bifhop the High Priefi ( x), without whole allowance nei# ther Presbyter, Deacton, nor Laic may Baptize : He allures us then, that Bifhops de fatto had a Power over Presbyters, and allow'd, doubtlefs, this Power to be Lawful and Ufeful ; but the Queftion is, If he founded it on Scripture and believed it to be of Chrift's Infticution I Which I deny. But, Dr. Parker, to prove it, fays (y ), that Tertullian f Prsefcrip. Cap, 52,^ has run m the Succtffion of Jingle Bi[hops in the mo/i eminent Churches u the Apoftles tbemfelves. But did he a!fo run up the Succeffion of Simple Presbyters, Presbyters as diftinguilh'd from Bifhops, to the Apoftles them- felves? Does he fay, as of the Bifhops, that ever any of them were Ordain'd by the Apoftles, or Instituted by Chrift ? Now, except they prove, which they never lhall nor can prove, that lertuUian was of chismind, their Caufe is for ever loft : For all that Parker has done, TertuHiax may be as much for the Scriptural Identiey of Bifhop and Presbyter as ever was Jerom or Aeriw; But again, fince it is proved, that thefe of the Qfprianic, or, which is the fame, the Tertulliank Age believed ao Pallor but the Apoftles and . (u) Adverf. Phyfic. Cap* 13. pag. 597; (*)De Bapcifmo Cap. (7. (>) AnAcCQUMPf the Gpvernmcnr, £ c cheir 434 Cyprianns Ifotimusl Ghap. IV. their SuccefTors to be of Ghrift's Inftitution • tho' he there fays, that Volycarp was by 7okn placed in Smyrna, and Clemens, by Peter, in Rome • nothing will hence follow* but that thefe were to thefe Churches the Sole Ordinary Pallors, or Difpenfers of the Word and Sacraments • or, that they were the meer Moderators of the Presbyteries, ftanding on a Level with the reft of the Presbyters or Bifhops of thefe Churches. If he can run up the Succeflion of Paftors unto the Apoftles, it made no lefs for his purpofe, which was, to run up the Succeflion of A- poftolic Doctrine, tho? the Paftor he named had twenty in the fame Gity Equal to him in Power and Honour, than if that Paftor had enjoyed a Superiority over all of them, ben** us ( z, )> ufmg the fame Argument againft the Valentinians, names not Clemens^ but Linm : Take Linus and Clemens as Paftors a&ing in Parity in Rome, and ycu reconcile Irenam and 7ertuUian ; which elfe can never be done. If you repone, that fmce lertuliian there fpeaks of the Order of Bifhops, and makes Po/ycarp the Firft of that Order in Smyrna, and Clemens the firft in Rome, he muft be underftood as fpeaking of fuch Bifhops as were in his own time, who had as fignal Superiority over Presbyters : I deny the Confequence,- andchat it is wholly Inconfequent, I thus evince : I fuppofe, that Athanafim, who was Arch-Bitbop of Alexandria, Difpucing againfli the Arrians, ufes Tertullian's Argument from the Succeflion of Biihops that held the Dotfrine he piopugn'd ,• I iuppofe again, that fome two oj (*) Lib. 3% Cap 3. thre< Ghap. IV. Cjprlanus Ifotimus. 435 three Centuries after Athan»fim% the Queftion, If Arch- bishop or Metropolitans be of Divine Infti* tut ion > is warmly debated ; and a Subaltern thereunto, If Atbanafim and thefe of his time did believe it? The Simple Bijhops plead earneftly for the Equality of all TBiJhopS) and judge Atbana- feus to have been of their mind ,- but a He<3or- ing Bully, fome of barkers Anceftors, runs them all down with Parker's Argument, tho' nothing is more falfe ; fince 'tis evident from the 6t& Canon of the Nicen Council, that the Power the Bifhopof Alexandria had over other Bifhopg w^s never given them by Chrift, but a Trick of theic own of later date, which they had learned from ' Rome. Let the Antient Cufloms ( they are the I words of the Canon ) be obferved, that the Bijhep I ^Alexandria have Power over all Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, ( N. B. ) becaufe tbe li\e Guftom has obtairid at Rome O). And now, to Parkers other Argument : Tertullian ( faith he J ajftrts ( de Monogam Cap, 1 r. ) tbe Vifiinffion of tha i fever al Orders in the Apoftles own time% as whtnht \ affirms that St. Paui*/ Precept for Monogamy equally concern d $ Ordefs in tbe Churcb, Bifhops, Presbyter s% \and Deacons. But his very Argument gores his Gaufe : For, could TtrtuHian be ignorant of that which all Men of all Times and Parties have [been, by the Force of thefe Texts ( 1 Tim. 3 J [7*7. 1, ), compelledt either in fo many words, or, at leaft, really, and on the matter* to acknowledge, ( a ) Tie €t p%ac7a i8n yjp&v&rv, r£ hs Kiy£m\(* £ Ai/ZJ* i*5 1 ri5»>T*Ti;^i cJV/t 7 op i* A'*§§*K/pi«a imtmcoirov rarraj E e 2 that L 436 Cyfrianns IfotmuK Ghap. IV, that the Apoftle fpeaks only of two Orders of Church-Men, Deacons, and fome other one Order , if Bifhops or Presbyters is forreign to the prefent matter, lertullian, therefore, while he intimates, that, by thefe Texts, both Biihops and Presbyters were debarred from Second Mar- riages, evidently (hews, that the Church had then divided into two Ranks or Orders thofe Church Officers who by Chrift's Inftitution and the Apoftolic Precepts made but only One Or- der or Degree. He infinuats alfo, in his Exhor- tation to Ghaftity ( h ), that by thefe Texts the Presbyters are excluded from Second Mar- riage ; and, by good and fair Confequence, that Bi&op and Presbyter are really and by Divine Inftitution one and the fame. This may alfo be concluded from his yh Chapter de Pteni- tentia : Where he makes it one of the Duties of the Penitents ( Presbyteris advohi, & Carts, or, Arii Dei adgeniculari, ) to froflrate tbemfeives before the Presbyters ( among whom, doubtlefs, he includes the Bi(hop)5 and kneel before the Darlings, or, at the Altars of God. The Bifliop, therefore>with jfertullian, is really no other thing than the Pref- byter, whatever Proftacy the Church, for her Honour, as the fame lertuilian fpeaks, might have conferred upon one of the Bench above 'the reft. Nor is he of another mind, when he faith ( c J9 What tbtn if a l^ijbopy if a Deacon, if a Widow % if a .Virgin, if a Doticr, or even if a\ Martyr jhould decline from the Rule, Jhall we there- fore think that Here fies are Truths? Now, what iscleaier, than that here 7ertHlli4n> while he ( * ) Op* 7. (O AdYcif. Hsrct, Capj, omitti Chap. IV* Cyprianu* lfotimm. 437 omits the Freshyter and names the Veacon imme- diatly after the Bifhop, as did the Apoftle, belie- ved, that thefe two Officers only were ofChrift's Inftitution, the Bifhop and Presbyter were Re- ciprocally one and the fame, and that, finally, when at other times he fpoke of them as two diftinft Officers, he then eyed his own time, noc at all the time of the Apoftles. If it be faid, that tho' he omits the Presbyter, he fubftitutes the Dotifor ; let them remember that the Spirit of God^while of the Bifhop and no other he requires that he be a*JW/*©- yea and EA«y*ri*©- too, a Vsftor, fo manifeftly makes Dottor the fame with Bijbop, that there is no reafon to fuppofe, lertuU iian otherwife believed. Befides, his ufing the word Doitor will no more prove, that of him he made a third Church Officer, than that his ufing the word Martyr v/ill prove, that of him he made a fourth. Evident therefore it is, that by Doftor he underftands the more Able and Learned of the Bifhops or Pallors, and no other Church Officer; as the whole period proclaims. And this I judge fufficienc to prove, that tertuiiian really believed the Identity of Bifhop and Vresbyter. Some Prelatifts, as Stillingfleet, are content to com- pound with us, and quite their intereft in Tertul* lian, provided we do the like ; bccaufe infome places ( d ) he appears as if he affign'd no other warrant for the Distinction of Church Officers from the People, but only the Churches Autho- rity : But the Bargain pieafes me not ,• forf altho* he at times rove, of which an account may bc^ given, yet I am fure, that at other times he fo ( d) De Bapufau?, Cap. 17. Sc alibi, E 5 Ik fpoke 45 8 Cyprianui Ifotimusl Gbap. IV, fpoke, as that his true Sentiments may be colle&ed From his words. §* XXVII. To Clement and Tertullian may be added the Aurhor of the Apoftelic Conftitutions, an Impoftor who perhaps belong'd to this Third Age ; who altho' he follows the guife of his time, and Trichotomizes the Clergy, yet in a multitude of places ( e ) fufficiendy declares^ that in his mind Chrift allowed a Biibopto every Congregation, and made Bijhop and Pajhr Reciprocally one and the fame. The Author of the Pfeudapoftolic Canons may be judged of this fame mind* if he be not the fame Man with the Author of thefe Conftitucions : He gives Power enough to Bifhops over Presbyters, asalfoto Metro* folitans over Simple^ijhops ; but whether he makes this to be of Humane or Divine Right not one fyllablc, not one hint, for ought that I can learn. Thus I have gone through all the Monuments, that, for ought I know, belong to the Cyprianic Age ; and tho' I am not fo vain, as to allege, that nothing is lett to the Diligence of others, yet, I truft3 I have fufficiendy performed what I undertook : I have evinced, that all the Fathers of the Cypriote yea and even upward to lrentMy really believed, that Parity among Paftors, or Presbytery was of Qhrifis Inftitution, or Divine Right. I have leven years ago demonftrated the fame to be the Judgment ot all the Fathers down ( e ) Lib. a. Cap. ro. i$. 17, 20. 22. 26 «8. jo. 42. 47. 44. 47. 57. 58. 59. & Lib. 3. Cap. 8. 15. & Lib, 8. Cap. 4. 5. 12. 34« 35. from Chap. IV. Cyfrianus Ifotimus. 439. from the Apoftles even to lrenaus, and diflblved all the Objections and Exceptions all the Hierar- chies I could meet with had advanced : I have there alfo,proved, that the prime and chiefeft Fathers of the 4th. yf&« and fubfequent Centuries were of the fame Judgment : I do not think therefore, that, before my Book had been re- futed, J.S. ought to have fpoken as follows ( f). It mufl be obvious to any Man of ordinary thinking, that it mufl be an Argument of mighty weight againft our Presbyterian Brethren, if it can be made to appear, that Epifcopacy was in the Cyprianic Age univer* (ally received as of Divine Right. All things confide* red, it mufc be an Argument of fo great weight, that the obfeure Difcourfes of Jerom and Hilary ( No doubt, they are obfeure and ambiguous ; too, a very Nofe of Wax and Lesbian Rule to the Prelatifts • as are the Scriptures to the Papifis ) ; , the mijiaken Compliment of Auguftin to jerom ; the ambiguous ExprejfionS of fome lejjer and later Fathers ; and the frequently unlearned, as well as alwije byafied fentiments of the Popijli School- men (Yes; who can doubt of it, that the Popifh Schoolmen were hugely byafs'd in favour of Presbytery, or Parity among Paftors ) ,• that all thefe, even in conjunction, mu(i be very light when put into %allance with it. In this his Dif- courfe there is too little of either Truth or Can- dor ; as is now noted : And befides, it fhould not be an Argument worth a ftraw, tho' he could ;prove, C which yet he neither has done, nor Jhall be ever able to do ) that Epifcopacy was then fo received. Moreover, I may boldly (/") Chap. 10. §. 2. Uver^ 440 Cfpriatjus Jfotimus. (Shap, IV. invert his Argument thus: If both the Vofi- cyprianic fathers, as alfo the Schoolmen have really and clearly determined againft the Hierarchy for the Divine Right of Parity or Vrtshytery ; then all the Cloudy Expreffions, fcarce imelligfbfe Niceties, and infolid Harpings ufed by Cyprian and his Contemporaries in favour of Epifcopaty, can never be a Solid Argument, that they believed its Divine Right ; Since the Hierarchies will not fay, that chefe Pofterior Fathers either uni. verfally mifunderftood Cyprian and his Contem- poraries, or minded to depart from their Pra&ice, 2nd abolifli Epifcopacy. I fay, I can eafily thus invert his Argument- fince i have fhew'd, that the more Chief and Eminent Fathers of the 4*£. and $tb. Centuries, and, in fpecial, thefehe jlamss, Ambrofe or Bitaryi Jeremy and Augu\\in% are clearly and earnettly for the Divine Infti* tut ion of Parity, and the Identity of Bifhop and Presbyter* This, I fay, I have evidently made out, and have brought the greateft Dodors that ever Drank of either Tiber or Thames exprefiy affirming and owning the Truth I maintain. §. XXVIII. To thefe, till more occur, let me add a Teftimony or two; the firft whereof is that of the great Bafii Bifhop of Cefarea; whofe Words are ( g ): cbrift fays, Loveft thou me, Veter, more than thele ? Feed my Sheep ; Tct/^/j miyLeM tcJ *&>ls*7* (aw. j£ vast fl rut iqi^nc x) t v7* cnufw, ri, Airpw ***nff jptfofj xj Ai/m anii Chap. IV. Cypriatitu Ifotimui. 441 and from theme be gave to all Pallors andDotforsEfual Power ; whereof this u a Token, that all of them, si did Peter, bind and loofe. This is fo plain, that it needs no Commentary. The other I promifed, is not the Teftimony of any one par- ticular Father, but of a whole Council, and that an African Council; and fo, if it be clear, con" tributes unexpreffibly much to the Determination of the prefent Queftion : 'Tis the 4th Council of Carthage ( h ), Let the Bifhop (fay thefe Fa- thers ) when he is in the Churchy and fitting in tbt Presbytery, he placed on a higher Seat ; but when be is ( intra domum ) in the Adanfe, or Hou/e where he and the Presbyters had their Ordinary Abode, let him acknowledge, that be is but their (SoUegue* What can be of greater Force and Efficacy to prove any thing, than is this Canon to prove,' that thefe Fathers believ'd that Bifhop and Presbyter, in Scripture, and by Chrift's Infticution, are reciprocally, and in every refpe&, one and the fame? And fo much J% S. feems to grant, provided this Reading of the Canon be genuine. But (faith he) Chamier /##£#/ the Wording of it 9 I fay, and thinks it reafonable to believe* that tbt Fathers, who made the Canon, u fed fome other Term; and that for this very reafon, that, to have made presbyters Gollegues to Bifbops, had been to leave no imparity of Power between them ( i ). He infi- nuates the fame of Salmafius and 9londelm But none of all the three gives him any Affiftance. ( h) Ctrranz, Sufflm. Cone. Can. ;?• Ut Epifcopus in Ecclefia in CoafcfTu Prcsbyterorum fublimior i'edeat ; In- tra Don um vcro Colleeam fc Prcsbyterorum cfo asnofcat. (i) Oup.6,1. ai,- The 44* CjprUuuf lfotivtus. Chap. IV, The Matter, infhort, is this : Chamier difproves tha Bi/hop oiRomes Supremacy by this Argument, that anciently all other Bifhops were both by themlelves and him owned to be his Collegues ; which Term imports a compleat Equality : Againft which Argument he brings in the Papifts Excepting! That not only thefe are called CoUeguesy l»ko *r* Equal in Power, as the two Confuls or two lfibuns9 but alfo thefe who belong to one and the fame College ; and accordingly in the ; $tb Canon of the 4tk Council of Carthage, the Bifbtps are called the CoVegues of the Presbyters ; therefore a Man may be the Sollegue of his Super iour, tho9 not in] that reffreB in which he is Superior. To which Cbamter \ k ) anfwers as follows. €C But all Men know, that, f in good Latinei thefe are Collegues, who are € in the fame Charge/ and enjoy the fame Office. c There indeed may be in the fame kind of Of- gfice divers Degrees of Dignity,- one of the c two Confuls was more illuftrious than the c other, and the Prttor Urbanus more eminent * than the reft of the Pmors ,- but in the fame * Office none can be fubjecft to another. Where- c fore, wherever one is fubjeft to another, thefe * cannot be Collegues. For as to what Pamelius ( k ) Tom. 2. Lib. 14. Cap. 14. N. 12.' » * Sed vcr^ tamen fie appelUri pottKrunt ; qui Humana magfs Confuetudine, quam Dominica DifpofiCione Epifcopis Tub- jicerentur. Itaque Canon diftinguit, quum Epifcopus eft in Ecclcfia > Confeffuquc Prcsbytcrorum : Turn enim fub- limiorem vult Epifcopum federe : Etquum eft inter priva- tes Parietes : Turn enim praecipit, ut memineric Epifcopus fe cflc Collegam reliquorum ; id eft Compresbyrcrum. Potuit igitur alludi ad primam Primigeniamque Inftitu- tionem ; quam induftus ufus corrupiffct* [ notes, Ghapi IV* Cfprianus Ifatimus. 4^ c note?, that in the Council of Carthage, the c Presbyters are called the Bifliops Collegues ; I c fay, firft, that I fufped the Latin Context : Be- 9 caufe it was not then the Cuftom of the Church c to term the Presbyters the Collegues of Bifliops. f But notwithftanding the Presbyters might be c truly fo termed ,• fince rather by Humane Cu- c ftom* than by Chrift'* Appointment, they were f fubje&ed to the Bifliops* Therefore the Canon € diftinguifhes, when the Bifhop is in the Church, € and on the Bench among the Presbyters,* then it f allows him to be placed on a higher Seat : And ' when he is within private Walls, it commands 1 him to mind that he is a Collegue of the Pref- 'byters,- that is, only their Compresbyter. The c Council therefore might eye the firft and Ori- € ginal Inftitution, which the Cuftome that was c afterward introduced had corrupted* Thus Chamier* And now what is clearer, than that his faying* be fujfceBed the Latin Context , &c. is only an Anfwer brought in by the By, that he never confided therein* that, finally* he himfelf fully refutes and overthrows the ground whereon he built it, and clearly explains how, notwith- ftanding the then introduced Diftindion of Pref- byter and Biftop, the Council could call the Bi- fliops the Collegues of Presbyters, and fo pro- nounce them intirely one and the fame with the Presbyters. And this his Explication agrees, to a hair, with that which he believed to be tne Mind of Jerom, yea and of the full Stream of the Fathers. Salmafius indeed fays (/), that after the ViflinEiion between Bi(hops and Presbyters was (/) W*l. MeJ}. Pag, 4**, +tfj. introduced, '444 Cjprlami Ifotimus* Chap. IV. introduced, Bifhops and Presbyters made diftinft Orders 9 and the former were not reckoned OoUegues to the latter: And Bhndel ( m ), that as foon as the Diftinfiien of Bifhops and Presbyters was made, the Bifhops and Presbyters made different Colleges. But, can all this make it in the leaft probable, that they believed not the Genuinenels of this Canon f Or, that they who firmly believed all the Fathers to havs willingly acknowledged the Identity of Scrips tural or Apoftolical Bifliop and Presbyter, could not believe, that thefe Carthaginian Fathers might readily, eying the Primitive Inftitution, own and allow, that in reality Bifhops were nothing elfe but the Collegues of Presbyters ? The lame Salmafius, (n) removing this Excepti- on which the Papifts bring from this Council of Gartbage, fays, that the Presbyters might have been termed Collegu$s to the Bifhops, as they were Prieftf, tsot as they were High Priefis : But, ( continues he) which makes more to the purpofe, anciently Bifhops and Presbyters were the fame* neither did they confli- tute different Orders ; fo that 'tis hence clear, that a JBi/hop differs from a Presbyter not by Divine Infiituti- on> but by the Churches Authority. As if he had faid, But indeed the Council, when they faid, that the Bifhops were but the Presbyters Gol- legues, had no fuch Quirkifli and groundlefs Di- ftin<5tion as I have here mentioned, in view,- neither considered they the^Cuftom obtaining in (m ) ApoJ. Pag, 162. (n ) De Prim. P. Pag* 94, 95 • PrZcerea,quod magis ad rem facit, iidemolim fuere Presby- tcii & Epifcopi,nec diveffum Ordinem conftituerunc, Uc jam hinc conftec non Difpofitione Divina, fed Auftoricitc Ecckfis alium efo Epifcepum afjejfcyccro. their Chap. IV. Cypttanus lfotimui. ^45 their Age, but Chrift's Inftitution. J. S's Argu- ment, therefore, ad bominem, dwindles into nothing • ad rem he has nothing : Nor is it poflibie, that he or any Man can have any thing: For,not only is the Word Colleguc in this Canon jas it is cited by Gratian ( 0 ), but alfo, for ought I know, where ever elfe it is alledged, and in all the Editions and Copies of this Council And indeed, except this or fome Word fully Equi- valent be there* the latter part of the Qanon can yield no clear Senfe ; for, the Word the Synod ufed muft import, that the Bifliop had got in the Presbytery a greater Elevation over the Presby» ters, than they were juftly obliged to yield him : Now, that which he had in the Presbytery was a Higher Scat ; what Word then, if they fpoke Senfe, could they ufe , but fuch a one as imports the Levelling of that Seat with the Seats of the Presbyters ; and fo the Identifying oi Bilhop and Presbyter ? And fuch a one is the Word Col- legue, even J. S, himielf being Judge : The fame Fathers in the fame Council decree ( p ), 7 bat the $iJhop (hall have a little Houfe befide the Church y ( q ) That be fhall have but coUrje Hou[hold Furniture, and a Johr Dyet, fr) *tbat be be perpe- tually employed *in Reading, Praying and freacbing. This I think is no bad Argument, that, in the Judgment of thefe Fathers, Chrift made all the Paftors he Inftituted, Equals and Collegues, and ( 0 ) Did* 9$. (?) Condi Csrtk. 4. Can, 14. Uc Epifco- pus non longe ab Ecclcia Hofpiciolum habear. ( q > Can. j 5. Uc Epifcopus Vilem Supellcftilem, 5c Msnfam ac Vi* £tum pauperem habeat. (r ) Can. so, Uc Le&ioai, & Ora; tioni, 5c V^jrbi Dei Pjsedicaaoni tancumraodo vacet. allowed 44^ Cjprianus lfotimui. Chap. lVw allowed none of 'em to Lord it over others. This, as I am perfwaded, was the Mind of the Fathers, not only of the Cypriote, but alfo of the lubfequent Ages . This was their Principle, tho', as in other things, their Praftices might fwerve far enough from it: And fince J, S. as tht Titles of both his Books feem to profefs, under- took to maintain, that it was their Principle, that Epifcopacy is of Divine Right, he does but little, tho' he ftiould prove, that, de Fafto> there was then an Epifcopacy, tho' never fo fignal and confpicuous: The maint the only thing whereby he can ferve himfelf, is the proving of this, That they really, and in Confcience held it to be of Divine Right. This, I am perfwaded, he fhall never do. lam perfwaded I have clear- ly proved the contrary : Yea, I dare (ay, that not only the more Moderate Bifhops, as Jewell9 Biftiop of Sarislwry, Matthew, Bishop of Tork, James, Bilhop of Durham* but even the Learn'd- eft of the High-Church Prelates and Prelati/?s9 as Tajlour, Bifhop of *Derry% and Dr. Hammond, were they alive, would freely affent to the Truth I maintain. CHAR Chap. V. Cyprianut lfitimtl 44' CHAP. V. 0 The vajl Difcrepaticy between the Cyprianic and Hierarchic Bi/hops unfolded. H $. I. 4Jf m^[ Aving, in the preceeding Chap* ten, ruined J. S's Book, as to its main Scope and Defign, and its far greater part, yea^ its principal and effential parts 4 I (hall now 8raw an Antiparailel of many branches, or Differences between the Cyprianic and Hierarchic Biihop j even one of wbich> much more all of them together, will make evident, that there is, by far, a greater Confanguinity between the Cyprianic Bjthop, and our Vresbyteri* an Bifhop or Paftor, than is between him, and the Hierarchic Prelate, In this Antiparailel, I /hall overthrow the re- manent parts of J. S's Book * and aifo, as I truft, affoord confiderable Light to the prefent Con- tr.overfie, as 'tis managd from Antiquity. Arid, iff. 'Tis r44# Cypriatovt Ijotlmus? Chap. W ijf, 'Tis certain, that each Scotti[h BiQjop had moe presbyteries than one, yea fome, as the Bi- (hop of Gtafgoivy had near to a dozen ; as for the Englifh Biftiops, they have not (o much as the ' lead Shadow or Image of a Presbytery : But an- * ciently, in and about the Cyprianic Age, it was not fo : Any Birfiop who had any Presbyters, had but one only Presbytery. This isftillfup. pofed and insinuated in their Ignatius; as alfo in both Canons and Conftitutiom, which are falfely called df$ft$lic} and in the Vfeitd-Areopagite. But, if you require WicnelTes of better Authority, then turn to the Monuments of the Cyprianic dlgei For, Cornelius Biftiop of Rome^ the greateft in the World, was the Moderator of one only Pref- bytery. / thought meet ( faich he ( a ) ) to call together the Vresbytery. Read not only this his whole Epiftle, but alfo many of his Contempo- rary Cyprian ( h ), and you (hall find this Truth unqueftionably clear. This Presbytery of Ramtj indeed, was more numerous than one of ours, confifting of 46 Presbyters ( c) : Yet all thefe Labour'd only among the Chriftians of the City of Rome, or fuch as were near its Wails 5 and were not fo far fcatter'd, as the Members of fome of ours are s and fo might be pretty fre* quently, and eafity conveen d. But, if the Presbytery of Rome was great, that of Carthage was as fmall, coniifting only of 8 Presbyters > as may eafily be gathered from the 43 and 59 Epiftles of Cyprian ; and is acknow- (*) Epift. Cornel: inter Cyprianic. 49. Phcuit Presbytcn- um Contnhi. {b ) Epift. 8>f, 20, 30, 35, 3$, 4$, $9. (c) **/<*# Hiit, Ecckf. Lib. 6. Cap. «. lcdge# Chip. V. CypritWus Ifoiimus. 449 ledged by J. S. himfelt : ( d ) So far ( faith he ) as we can /earn, by (ucb Records as are Ext ant y alt the Presbyters of Carthage were but Eight in number. So that Five macie the Major part »f the Presbytery. And fo, ic is not likely, that any presbytery in the World came near to that of Rome ; Carthage being among thofe of the firft Rauk. But whe- ther the Presbytery was fmall or great, it is no great matter: 'Tisfrom the Wricings of Cyprian, and his Contemporaries demonftrably fure, that then every Bifhop was the Vrefident of ojae only Presbytery; This is plainly infinuated by Bifliop Jjfher in his Reduction. '• Of the many Elders/ faith he) who c in common thus ru'ed the Church of Ephejus% c there was one Prefident, whom our Saviour* in c his Epiftle unto this Church, in a peculiarman- c ner» ftileth the Angel of the Church of Ephefus ; € And Ignatius, in another Epiftle, written about f twelve Years after unto the fame Church, cal* * leth the Bi(hop thereof. Betwixt the Bifliop c and the Presbytery of that Church, what an f Harmonious Confent there was in the ordering c of the Church Government, the fame Ignatius cdoth fully there declare, by the Presbytery, • with St. Paul, underftanding the Community f of the reft of the Presbyters „ or Elders, who then f had a hand not only in the Delivery of the D and that to One particular Flock, which was his peculiar Charge: As in his Preaching upon pfalm 1 14. And in that concerning the Young Man in the Gofpel, And in that againft Drunkards, wherein he fays, cc The Evening-Shews excite me to fpeak,but the 1 Unfruitfulnefs of my former Labours blunts my * Fervour- and Vehemency ; for, the Husband- € Man, when the former Seeds he had fown, c grew not up, becomes more heartlefs again to * beftow Seed on the fame Ground* For , if in € fo many Exhortations, wherewith in former € times we ceafed not to warn you, and through c thefe feven Weeks of Fafting, we have, both c Night and Day, declared to you the Gofpel 1 of the Grace of God, no Profit appear'd ,• with c what hope can we think this Day to Preach to 4 you ? How many Nights have you watched € in vain ? &e. The like he has in his Sermon to the Youth, and in other Difcourfes. $. IV. Ambrofe is yet more full and home to this purpofe ; whom many of thefe 93 of his Sermons, which yet remain* unanfwerably prove to have been> not only a Conitant and Affidu- ous Preacher, but alfo to have had One Only \ Peculiar Congregation ; on which he, as the particular Paftor thereof, beftow'd his Perpetual and Ordinary Labours. For, " Ye your felves, Ff? {faith 454 Cypriamislfotmus. Chap. V. ( faith he ) ( g ) (o that I c am become to moft of you a pious Father, to c others a hard tYtafter or Teacher. And ( b ) €i I believe, that, on the former Lord's-Day, I ' have faid enough, and more than enough, &c. And ( i ) " Your Holynefs, Brethren, remem* * bers my former Preaching, &c. And ( k ) c* I, having been kept away from you for a few c Days, feem to i ave beei wanting, or to have c been out of my Duty unto your Congregation ; c and being caii'a ^way by the neceflity of ano- * ther Church, I feem as if I had negle&ed to c beftow upon you my wonted Pains. Thus he accounts to his Congregation for his abfence, tho5 but for a few Days, And ( I) i€ The for- € merLords-Day,explaining a Chapter of the Go* ' fpel, we went through a part of it, it remains € th u we go through that which follows. And ( m ) " You ought to remember, Beloved, that, * on the laft Lords-Day, I Preached this unto. * you. And ( n ) 4C If, Beloved Brethren* you 1 well remember, on the laft Lords-Day we € Preached, or Declared, that Chrift himfei£ by c his Fafting, Sandified the Holy Lent. And ( o ) u 1 believe I have faid enough, and more * than enough the laft Lords-Day, &c. And (p) Is Becaufe Yefterday we mentioned the Thief, (g) Serm. 5*. (h) Serm. i?. (i) Serm. 20. (k) Serm. 28. ( / ) Serm. 59. ( m ) Serm. 35. ( n ) Serm. 37* (1 ) Serm. 4i» (p) Serm. 44. ! let Chapi V. Cyprianus Ifotwns. 455 c let us now fee who this Thief is, &c. And ( cj ) " We proved the laft LorcTs^Day, that St. " Peter, &c. And ( r ), i: We told you Yefter- day, That the Oofs of Chrift brought Salvati- on to Mankind. And ( f) " We told you the laft Lord's-Day, when we asked Pardon for our Silence, that even, tho' the Priefts be filent, &c And ( t ) he tells his Congre- gation, that he had often thought of leaving cjf Preaching to them, becaufe he faw, thut his Preaching had little efcci among them • That they never kept in Memory f or Pratlice, the Vottrine he taught them, but they heard fuperficiatly, and took little with them. u How ' few among you ( faith he ) to day wi 1 c fay, We heard the Bifhop Preaching concerning c Alms^Giving, it was a profitable preaching, * let us fhew Mercy to the Poor ? He proved c alfo largely, that 'tis an accurfed thing to wor- • ftiip. Idols, let us therefore fearch, that there be 6 no Idols in our Bounds. And now, I take it for granted, that if, as I have, by thefc Examples proved, every Bifnop in the Fourth Age was conftantly employed in Preaching, as his Proper and Ordinary Work, and that to One Particular Flock ,• it was no otherways in the Third, the Cyprianic Age; feing the Proper Fun&jon, Ordinary and Con- ftant Duty of the Apoftolical Scriptural Bifhop was that ofDifpenfing the Word and Sacraments: And the Fourth Age ufed not to correct the Third, and come nearer to the Apoftoiic Sim- ( q ) Srem: 47- (r) Serin: S*. (0 Serm: 6$. ( t) Serm* So. plicity ; 45^ CypriannslfotiMur* Chap. V. plicity; but, on the contrary, depart farther from it, and ddd to the Declenfions that therein had been made. $. V. But, to return to the Cyprianlc Age : Ongen, a chief Writer therein, defcribes aBilhop no other way* than an Affiduousand Confcien- fous Mininer,of cheGofpel : For,in his 31 Ho- mily on Maubew, on thefe Words, Who is then a Faithful and Wife Servant^ &C. " It is evident {faith he ) w chat this Parable doth pertain to ■ the Apo(lles\ and to the reft of the Eijhops and * *DcEtors: Efpecially from this, that Yeter doth c ask in Luh, U\ ing Doeft thou fay this Parable c to us, or to ail ? But neverthekfs feeing there * are many Stewards, 'tis difficult to find one € both Faithful and Prudent. For which caufe, c the Apoftle faith, So let a Man think of us as * Minifitrs of Chrift, and Stewards of the Myfteries * ot God : And now it is a Queition, if there € be one Faithful among thefe Stewards. Every c Bifhop who doth not as a Servant Miniftrate to * his Feilow Servant, but Rules as a Lord| Sin- * nethagai« ft God. The like he has in his Commentaries on Matthew 18, comparing the Bifhop with refpedfc to his People, to a Nurfe with relpeit to her Children. Whether (faith he J he be an Apofile or tijhop, let him be like d Nttrje chtrifhing htr Chilm dren* And this was the Practice of Dionyfius Biftop pf Alexandria, another of Cjfriatfs Contempora- ries, who was perpetually exercis'd in Preachy ing, Hearing the Preachings of other*, D.iiTolv- ing the Scruples of Troubled Consciences, in Writ- €hap. V. Cjfrianus Ifotimuu 457 Writing ufeful Books, or Epiftles, for Eftablifli- ing and Comforting the Faithful, and in Spend- ing fometimes three days together in Reducing the Seduced- (u) §. VI. But, not to infift on others of that Age, I come clofe to Cyprian himfelf, whom his Deacon Pontius ( were there no more to prove it ) fufficientiy declares to have been conftantly taken up in Caring for the Poor, Prelerving of Difcipline, Reducing of the Lapfers. Confuting of Errors, and Preaching of the Gofpel. And Cyprian himfelf, in the £6 Epiftle, tells Pupianus% That he daily fervd the Brethren, and clearly inti- mates, that a part of his Ordinary Work was to Difpenfe the Sacraments, Baptifm, and the Lords Supper. And ( x ), He makes it the Ordinary Work of all Bifhopb, to Serve at the Altar , Offer up Divine Sacrifices, Pray for the Safety of the People, and to be the Stewards of God. And this, as we learn in his firft Epiftle, mud be the Conftant, and Only Work of both Bilhop and Presbyter. And, accordingly, divefe ot the Books and Trafts he pub!i(hed, are nothing elfe fave the Marrow of a few of thefe many Sermons which he had to the People. And himfelf fays ( y ), that he had fin the time of a Raging Peftilence) a Divine Revelation, commanding him djfiduoufly to reach, i. e. to go on in his Ordinary Fun&ion^ tho' others, for fear of the Plague, mighc defert theirs. His Great and Ordinary Work then, was Personally to Feed and Guide the People • ( u ) Eufeb. Hift. EccJcf: Lib: 6: Cap: 4o: 8c feqq: ad Cap: 76. Lib: 7ml- ( * ) Epift, 67. ( y ) De Morta- litate, Pag; 163. $. VII. And 45$ Cjprianus lfotimur. Chapu V, §. VII And that of One fingle Congregation, on which, as its peculiar Paftoiv.he beftowed his moft: frequent and ordinary Labours For,Pontius, in Cyprian s Life, having inform'd us, that the Tota P/tbs, all the Chriftians in Carthage, watch- ed the whole Night before the Prince's Houfe, where Cyprian was kept Prifoner, and on the Morrow accompanied him to his Suffering ,• and having fet down the Circumftances thereof, fubjoyns the following Words ( z, )> " O Bleffed * Church or People, who, both in their Tears, c and Groans, and, which was more, in their € open Burfting furth into Ourcryes, have fuf- € fered with their Bi/hop, who was fo excel* c lent a Man, and according as they were alwife c wont to hear him Preach, were in Gods Efti- c motion Crowned with him. From thefc Words I fear noc to conclude, that Cyprian be- ftow'd his moft frequent and ordinary Labours on One Particular Congregation, as being the Peculiar Paftor thereof, §. VIII. But Cyprian himfeif will oblidge us with moft Luculent Proofs of this truth : His 45 Epiftle is direded Univerf* Tkbi, to the whole People of Carthage ; wherein, cc Altho', 4 (faith hi (a) ) Dear Brethren, The Presbyters, ('£) Pag'- io: O Beatum Ecclefias Populum, qui Eplfco- po fuo tali, & Oculis parirer & St nfibus, & quod eft am* plius. Publicata Voc$ cempaffus eft, & ficut ipfo traftan- te femper audierat, Deo Judice Coronatus eft. (s) Plenam vobis y> 7t entis fiix Diligentiam praebeant, &Exhoitariot nibus ifliuuis finguios corroborare, fed & Lapforum men- tes ConiViiis falubribus regcre & Rsformare non definanr, carrsen & ego quantum pofTum admogCOj & quo modo poffum vifito vosliteiis meis, * Britius] Chap. V. Cfpridnus. lfotimus 459 c Britius, NxmiJicus, and Rogatianus, as alfo the c Deacon?, with other Officers who are prefent € with you, Labour diligently among you, and c ceafe not with frequent Exhortations to eftab- € blifh you all one by one, and with wholfome c Counfel, reform the minds of the Lapfed • c yqt^asmuch as I can, 1 admonifh you, and as * 1 can, I vific you with my Lerters. Clearly infinuacing, that, had he been at home, there would have been a moll frequent Congrefs, and perfonal Communion between him, and all thefe to whom he Writes, ( viz. ) the Whole Church of Carthage ; and that he would have been daily beftowing his Labours among them, in Correcting, Directing, and Strengthening all and every one of them, according to neceffity, as did now thefe Presbyrers, and Deacons in his abfence : And having bitterly inveigh'd againft fome malicious Presbyters, who had impeded his Return to ins Flock, he proceeds thus {b). "How great a pantfhment is it to me, moft Dear Brethren, that I my felf cannot come unto you, that I my felf cannot now deal with every one of you in particular, and that I my (elf cannot, according to the commands of our Lord, and his Gofl>el9 exhort you ? My three years banifhment did not fatisfie them, nor my dooSful feparation from feeing your Faces; nor my perpetual grief and groaning, which, becaufe I am alone, and without you, torments ( b ) Quas nunc Poenas patior, Fritre* Canflimi, quod ipfe ad vos imprxffcntiarum venire non poffum ; ipfe fin- gulos aggredi, ipfe vos fecundum Domini & Evangelii ejus Mugifteriurn cohortari ? &c. ' me 460 Cypriatws Ifotmusi Chap. V. c me with continual Lamentation, as do my c Tears which flow down Day and Night, be- ccaufe hitherto I can by no means, tho' I be c your Prieft or Paftor, whom with lo great f Love, and Affe&ion you choofed, either falute *you, or give and take mutually your Em» c braces. Had this People or Flock been ought, but One only Congregation, which received from him the Word and Sacraments, and had Ordinary Perfonal Communion and Acquain- tance with him, this Difcourfe of Cyprian had been moft unworthy of any honeft Man. The Truth is, it proclaims him, to all that flop not their Ears, to have had no moe in his whole Diocels, than he could Infped, and Feed after the fame way and manner, as a Paftor of a particular Parifh is bound to Infpeft* and Feed that particular Flock or Congregation : As do his Epi(t. 66, wherein, he intimates, that the Church is a People adjoyrid unto its VrU9y and a Flock adhering to their Paftor, That is, their Bifhop : And the 67. Wherein he, and a whole Synod with him, not only make the Bilhop an ordinary Difpenfer of the Word and Sacraments, but alfo insinuate, that all under his Charge, all that had anyintereft in Calling or Receiving of him, were ordinarily Fed by, and Received the Communi- on from him. And indeed, both this 67 Epiftle, and Pontius his account of Cyprians Life, affoord luculent Demonftrations of this Truth ,• they make it clear as Light, that all and every one in the Diocefs or Parifh were concerned in the Calling of the Bifhop ,• and that all of them were Fed and Guided by him, as their Ordinary Paftor. Chap V. Cyfriannt Tfotitnus. 461 Paftor. And in Epiftle 8 i,which he direð to the Presbyters and Deacons, and Vlebi Univerf*, the whole People, and wherein he Exhorts them, that at the time of his Martyrdom, which he then every Hour expe&ed, none of them fhould, out of ra(h Zeal, run. and offer them- felves to the Judge, he thus Dehorts them, ( c ) cf And now, mod Dear Brethren, as you have € been alwife inftru&ed by me outof the Lords € Commands, and according to that which you € have moft frequently learned when I was € Preaching unto you, contain your felves in € quietnefs. Were it not but from this one place, I doubt not to infer, That ail thefe to whom Cyprian Writes, all the Chriftians in Carthage, his whole Diocefs, met for ordinary in One Congregation, and had Cyprian himfelf for their Ordinary Paftor, and Teacher. And thus, while I proved, that Cyprian was a Conftant Labourer in the Word, Do&rine, and Difcip- line, and that he had a Particular Flock, or Congregation, on which, for ordinary, he be- flowed this his Labour ; I have, in the mean time, made appear, that this One Flock and Congregation made the whole Diocefs, which makes up a Fourth Difference, a Difference fo fignal, that 'tis even alone fufficunt to caft the Scales, and prove, that the Cyprianic Biihop is really ours. (c ) Vos aufem, Fratres Carifllmi, pro difc'plina qu»ra de mandatis Dominicis a me lemper accepifhs, & ftcun- dum quod me traftancc foe^iffimc didiciltis, quietem & tranquillitatem tenete. 462 Cyprians JJotimis. Chap. V. §i IX. Another evidence of the fame Truth is the Paucity, and other circumftances of C7- priaris Presbyters. Thefe were but Eight, at moft ,• and it is not likely that the Deacons ex» ceeded the number of Seven; for Rome it felf had no moe f d ) ; (o that, in many of our larger Parifhes in Scotland, the numbers of Presbyters and Deacons exceed theirs. 'Tis true* they were provided for by the Church (e ), and fo might have more time for Church Work, and had alfo Under-Officers to affift theminfome part of it; but then it is as certain, that a v ift deal of Work, required either by Neceflicy or Cuftom, lay on them, whereof nothing is incumbent on ours $ and not all, DcdweU himfelf being Judge ( f )9 but only fome part of them were Doctors or Preachers } and fo 'tis not to He judged, that, tho7 every one of thefe Presbyters had had a diftindt Church, there were beyond three or four, at moft, of Churches or Pariflies in all Cyprians Diocefs : But even thefe there could not be; fince a good number of Presbyters ufe to be alloted for one Church, whereof Nazian- x.en ( £ ) is a fufficicnt Witnefs, affercing, that Church Officers were fo muhiplyed, that they, almoil, in number, overcame thefe whom they Ruled, Nor can Nazianz,en$ Teftimony, with Reafon, be ;ejed^d • on the account, that he lived net in the Cyfriaxicy hut following Age • fince he does no- in the leait infinua*e, that mat fupeifiUGLS Multiplication of Church Ruiers, ( d ) Eufcb E, H, Lib. 6. Cap 43. ( r ) Cyfr. Epifc I- (•) Dliferc* C}?r, 6. N.4. 5, *, Kg ) ©rat. 1. had Chap'. V. Cyprianut Ifotimusl 463 had begun in the Century wherein he lived ; No; He clearly intimates, on the contrary, that it had a flow, and gradual growth; and* that in his time it was well grown, and that in time the Evil was likely fo to increafe, that every Man would be a Teacher, and none remain to be Taught. When any Man was admitted,in that Age,to the Degree of a Presbyter, there was no mention that the end thereof was either to fix him in a particular Cure for Difpenfing the Word and Sacraments there, or that he fhould be fent to Difpenfe them in this or that Parifh, as the Bifhop pleafed: No; He was to ftay/or the molt part, where the Bi(bop, and all the Faithful met • and to ferve, as it were, his Apprentice- fhip, havefome Title there, Affift the Bifhop in Counfel, concerning the Affairs of the Church; and, finally, give a competent Proof and Ex- periment of his Abilities before the Bifhop and Church • to the end it might appear, if he was fit to Succeed his own, or any other Bifhop, if called to it ,• or to be fent forth among the Peo- ple for Preaching, and Difpenfing of the Sacra- ment to Prifoners* or to fuch like, who were impeded from coming to the Congregation, where all the Faithful met, and where the Bifhop himfelf Difpenfed the Word and Sacraments, When Cyprian (if we believe Niceyborus Cati{t~ usi^b ), and herein I percdvenot, why we may not ) was made a Presbyter, his Office was to keep the Temple 5 that is, as I judge, to Overfee the Sub-deacons, OJiiarii, and other fuch? as took ( b ) Lib, 5. Cap. 27, care < 464 Cypianus lfotmus. Chap. V# care of the Neatnefs, and Utenfils of the Church. And Numidicus ( faith Cyprian ( i ) ) u added to the Presbyters of Carthage, that be may fit with us among the Clergy. This, as Cyprian there informs us, was a piece of Honour done to Numidicus, for the great things he had Done and Suffered for Chrift : For there was in the Church a more Honourable and Eminent place, a Table or Bench, where the Bifliop, and the reft oftheConfiftory, or Presbytery Sate, both when they Confulted and Judged, and alfo Attended on Divine Service, at which timef as Origen in- timates ( k ), The Bijhop ufed to Jingle out one ( if al wife of the Presbyters, or ocherwife, I deter- mine not) and appoint for him a portion of Scripture to be Explained. And when in the Church of Carthage there were only three Presbvters, Britius* Numidicus9 and Rogatianus, Cyprian in that his 4; Epiftle never onceinfinuates,that any Flock was by this Diminution caft defolate, or wanted their Difpenfer in the Word and Sacra- ments ; which in Reafon he ought, and would have donei if each or moft of the 8 Presbyters, that ordinarily were in the Church of Carthage, had had their particular Cures, or had been em- ployed in Feeding different Flocks. In a word, the Cyprianic Presbytery in moft things Reprefen- ted our Parochial Seilion. §. X. Diverfe things the Adverfaries advance againft this Truth, to witt That then there were ordinarily as many Bifhops as Congregati- ons,- but, their Achillean Argument they draw (i) Epift. 40. (k ) Part I. Exqjet. pag. a?, in prim. Reg. cap. 28. from Chap* V. Cyprianus lfotimur. 46$ from lertu&ians words to Scapula. Take them as Dr, Maurice ( I ) tranflates them. " If they 1 /hould offer themfelves to Martyrdom, what f couldeft thou do with fo many Thoufands of c People, when Men and Women, every Sex, c every Age and Condition fhouid offer them* c felves ? What Fires, what Swords would be € fufficientto deftroy them ? How much muft ' Carthage fuffsr, which then would be decima- s ted by thee ? Every one would fuffer, in his € Relation or his Friend ,- and there might appear c among the Sufferers Perfons of thy own Rank, ' and of the higheft Quality. If thou wilt not € fpare us, fpare thy felf,* if thou wilt not fpare ? thy felf, fpare Carthage. This PalTage, tho% at firft,it may look like a Demonftration, yet, I fear,it will but do the Hierarchies fmall fervice. 5Tis certain, that the many Thoufands, Tertul* lian fpeaks of, were all the Chriftians of the Vrocanfuldr Province, and not at all of Carthage alone ; yea, I don't expedt, that it can be provcit tho' we fuppofe, as Jertullian feems to fay, the tenth part of the Inhabitants of Carthage to have been Chriftians ( juft abatements being made of theDecripped, Young, Sick, Women* who are cblidged to ftay at Home, and others* who on many accounts, were compell'd to be abfent ) that all the Chriftians of Carthage muft have exceeded fuch aNumber, asmay be brought together inone fingle Congregation, for Hearing of the Word and Receiving of the Lord's Sup- per. (/) Dcf. Dioc pag. 35*. G 1 But j±66 Cyfrianns lfotimut. Ghap. V. But this is not all: TertuIIian, if you allow him I not the Liberty of an Orator, will perfwade you, that (carce the tenth Perfon in the Roman Empire remain d Pagan, or had not embraced Chriftianity. He fay*, That the Chri/lians fiWd all places \ except the Tempi, s. 4nd if f faith be ) we being (o vaft a multitude fhould get away from you unto fome remote place of the World, the very lofs of (o many of your Countrey Men, thq' they had been but of the meaner Rank, fhould confound yourLordlhipsj yea, their fimple departure fliould be your punifhment. How would you be aftonifh'd at the ftrange folitude our departure fhould caufe* and the filence and ftillnefs of your City • as if it had expired by our departure? You would be to feek for Subje&s to Govern, and more Enemies than Citizens would remain with you 1 but now your Enemies are more incon* fiderable by reafon of the great multitude of Chriftians, who are your Citizens* and almoft all your Citizens are Chriftians. Thus Tertul- lian, as Maurice in his Vindication, Pag. joi. Now, who reading thefe Paffages, and under- standing them as they found, would not. conclude, that there were then as good as no Pagans remaining in the Empire ; which all the World knows to be quite otherwife? And why he could not Rh^toricize, and take a fuperlacive latitude in his Declamation to Scapula, as well as in that to the Roman Grandees, none fliali ever be able to give a fufficient Reafon. It can no more, there- fore, be infer'd from his Declamation to Scapula, that every tenth Perion in Carthage was Chrifiian, than Chap. V. CyprUnus Jfotmus, 467 than it can from his Afokgy, that fcarce every tenth Perfon in Rome, yea, or in the Empire re- maind P*gan. §. XL Another Argument, to prove, that there were in the Diocefs of Carthage, many diftind Parifties or Congregations, they draw from the great Sum, even feven Hundred Eighty one Pounds, and five Shilling Sterling, which Cyprian ( m ) his Clergy and People Col- lected for the Redemption of Captives. Ibis Ordinary Charge ( for Maintai: ing the Ocrey, Poor, &c ) was \o great, ( faith Dr. Maurice ( n ) ) that the Sum CoUtilcd in this Diocefs for (be. Redemp- tion of tbo[c Captives, at the lowtjl Computation, mufl fupfofe a con fider able Diocefs to furnijh it, e$>e~ l ciaty fojoon after a terrible Perfection. But, as frequently falls out among Truths Enemies* Maurice is fufficiently refuted by his own Dodwell, who, in his id Letter to Mr. Baxter, having for a while laboured to prove the fame point with Dr. Maurice, fubjoyns thus ( 0 )9 But notwithstanding thefe difficulties, 1 confefs a Jingle Parifh ( I mean the fame Multitude of ChriHians tkefi which might have made up a Pirifo according to our late Eflimation ) might have advanced a Sum as great as this latter of Pameiius and Baronius, without difabling tbmmf elves for future Contributions* Thus he ; and proves it irrefiftibly, and yet affirms, that Cyprian's Diocefs had many Parifties; and fays, that it may be proved from the fame words of Cyprian, Mifimus, &c. Contending, That not Seven Hundred Eighty one Pounds, (*) Epift.. 62. (n) Vindication c£ tfee Primitive Church* pag. $$6. (#)§•■ s»* Q g z 'and 468 Cfpriams Ifotimus. Chap. V. and Five Shilling Sterling, but 7812 jo Pound \ Sterling are to be reckoned : But there is no fuch Abfurdity, but ingrain'd Prejudice will fwallow it. tf. XII. Dr. Maurice faith (pj, "That € Cyprian gives us hints enough of the greatnefs c of his Diocefs. The number of the Clergy c there, even in time of Perfccution, when he * confeffes feveral of them to have fallen away ; * yet even then there were fo many Presbyters c left in the City,that he advifes them to go to * the Confeilbrs in Prifon by turns to Admini? * fier the Communion to them, that the change € ing of the Perfons, and the feeing of new * Faces daily may render it lefs envied. But this is a Flourifti ; for they might have thus gone daily to the Prifons by turns, tho' there had been only three Presbyters in the City: I fhall not fay what this alternation could contribute to the leffening of the envy of the Gentiles j butfur^ tho' all the eight ( and moe they can never prove to have been in Cyprian % Diocefs J had been thus emploj'd by turns to the Imprifon'd ConfeiTors, it could have contributed but little more for allaying of the iury of the watchful and implacable Enemies, who conflantly would ob- ferve who came to Vifit thetp ,• or if they were 1 more Remifs, the proportion ftill holds, and they would lictie notice, tho' the fame Perfons after a day or two returned. " When ( continms € he ) four of his XJresby ters, and thefe probably * living at feme diltance from Cauhage> had * Writ to him about feme thing relating to the (p) Vine. Prim. P3£. 503, [ Church, Ghap. V. CyfrianHf Ifotimus. 469 c Church, he tells his Clergy that he was refol- c ved, from the time he was made Bifhop, to ? Determine nothing without Advifing with his c Clergy • which intimates, that they were not c of the Clergy refiding at Carthage. I deny that it intimates any fuch thing : But he will prove it. "For it is not likely that four Perfons would c pretend to Write to their Bifoop ibout any 'publickConcern of the Church without Confult- cing their Brethren, if they lived together with c them, and met daily atthefame Altar. Likely enough ,• feeing thefe four might cafily fmell out, and forefee the Oppofition the reft of the Presbyters would make to the thing that they defigned, and therefore would endeavour to perfwade their Bifhop, and bring him to their mind, which they knew would be of no fmall fyvice to their purpofe, confidering whar great weight, he, both prefent and alfo abfent, by his Letters, had with the Presbytery ; otherwife how eafily might they have confulted with their Brethren, tho' they had had no daily, yea, no weekly Meeting. But^Cyprian'/^e^/^g- cfthem with this ftrangenefs, makes it improbable that they were among this Clergy, to whom heWrttc concert ning them. To ftie, the whole Tenor of what Cyprian there fays ( q ) makes it moft probable, that they did belong to this Clergy, and that they were really apart of them, to whom this Letter is directed. We have ( faith the Dc&or (r ) ) exprefs mention of one Country Presbyter and Deacon belonging to the Diocefs of Carthage, Gaius, Diddenfis Presbyter, who from j ever al parages of (?) Epift,i4, (r) Pag. $04. G g % that 470 CyprUuu* IfoUmus. Chap. V. that Epiftle appears to have been near the City, and under its Jurisdiction. But how proves he* that Gains was a Country Presbvter, or Curate of any Village belonging to Carthtge ? Is it becaufe he is called Viddenfis ? Then, even tho' he could prove, that there was a place in that Territory called Didda, he might on as good reafon affirm, that Cato was Governour ofUtica, or Ari/iotU of Stagyra: Nor does the mention of his Deacon any better fervice, fince it was ordinary tor each tresbycer, even within Carthage it felf, to be accompanied with his Deacon ; as is evident from Cyprians own Words (/), where he wills that the Presbyters, who were to give the Sa- crament to the Imprifoned ConfefTors, fliould go to them by turns, one Presbyter at a time with one Deacon : And I allure my Reader, that there is not one Paffage, not one word, in that, or any other Epiftle, whereby it appears, th»t Gains was either nearer to, or farther from the City, than were the reft of the Carthaginian Presbyters ,• or tfyat he had any particular Church, either in Town or Countrey : 9 lis only a dream of VamAius, and in which he him- ic\t owns, that he had little Confidence. Ifl may gue(s ( faith he ( t ) ) in a yiatter uncertain* *tis like, that Didda was a Visage in the Viocejs of Carthage, and Gaius was the Curate of the place. This place is mo (I cbfure ( faith Dr. Fell ( u ) ) (/) Eplft. $. ( t ) Annot, ad Epift. 28. Si quid in »c incerta divinare Jicec, fit mihi verifimile, &idel*m% p?gum quempiam fuiife in Carrhtgincnfi D cecefi, &c* (u) Annot ad£pift. 34- Porro locum adaiodum obicurum fuiflfe hinc licet conjifere, quia non alibi de eo occuirit mentio. for Ghap; V. Cjprianus Ifotimus. 471 for no where elfe is this Gaius mentioned. And it is not improbable ( faith Dr\ Maurice ) that this is one $f thefe Presbyters Cyprian complains of in another place for their preemption in receiving the Lapfed into Communion without confuting their Bi(hop % or the Clergy. Well, be it that it is probable, yea certain too, for me ; and fay on. And the nature of their fault makes it evident th*t there were feveral Congregations n$w in Carthage; for this could never have been done by a few in the Epijcopal Church in the prefence of all the Presbytery ; it is not probable they would have indured it ; or if they had> then they had been all in equal fault y which Cy pmn does by no means lay to their charge, but lays it upon a few. WhatPMight all the Presbytery then juftly have indured it in thefe few provided they had b^cn in different Churches ? Could they have done this without being blamed by Cyprian, as much as if they had been all in the lame Church ; feing the Power of all the Presbytery reached theie few* no lefs when they were in different Churches, than when in one and the fame with the reft? Again, how knows he, that, at every Meeting of the Congregation, all the Presbytery was prefent ? It is much more probable, that frequently very few were prefent, one or two perhaps, with as many Deacons, who in their turn performed the Service of that day, the reft being oblidged to be abfent, Vifiting and giving the Sacrament to the Imprifoned Confeftors, the Sick, and others neceflarily abfent. In thefe and many fuch Works moft of the Presby- tery might be frequently kept abfent from the publick 472 Cyprianus lfotimusl Chap. V. publick Congregation, and only come to it by their turns ,• and thefe Presbyters who were (or the immature Abfolving of the Lapfed, might eafily make ufe of their Lot and Turn, for its performance : But, I yet fuppofe, all thePref- byters were really prefent, thefe few Presbyters, notwichftanding, might make ufe of their own courfe or turn in Divine Service, and of the favour of many, who liked well enough to have fome abatement of their wonted feverity, for Abfolving of the Lapfed ; and the reft of the Presbytery might openly fhew their Diflike of the Pra&ice for the time, and expeft the Con- currence of their Bifhop, in order to their pro- ceeding to Cenfures ,• but this, which fupera* bundantly repells what the Do&or here ad- vanc'd, is faid, on fuppofition, that thefe Pref- byters Abfoiv'd the Lapfers in a Church or Place appointed for Ordinary Adminiftration of the Word and Sacraments ,• of which fuppofition there is no neceffity ,• it being moft likely, that thefe Presbyters Abfolv'd them by their Tefti- monials, where they defired it, and Communi- cated with them in time of Sicknefs, or in Private, or Irregular Meetings, which they began to keep, inclining to Schifm or Facti- on. jj\ XIII. But the reft of the Dioceffes of Africk C continues Dr Maurice ) wer$ jome of them diftribvted into fevtral Farijhes : For Caldonius an African Bifoop makes mention of one Felix, who did the Office of a Presbyter under one Decimus, (mother Presbyter of Caldonius' s Viocefs, as wilt appear fern jomc pajf#gf nearer than the reft of the Presbyters, and therefore he knew him better, having more occafion of private Converfe with him ; That he Officiated in a diftincft Church, not one fyllable or intimati- on. JT. XIV. His other Argument, for the Ampli^ tude of the Dioceffes, and Multitude of Con- gregations in each of them, he takes from the Paucity of Bifhops met in Councils, " The next ( faith he fy)) " is at Lambefe, where there were c prefent Ninety Bijbops, the mod numerous c Council we read of in Afikk before the Schifm c of the Donatifts : Nor is it to be wondred, there ( x ) Afinotat. ad Epift. 24. Forte Preshyterium fubminu flrars, idem eric quod nv'niftrare, aut illo munere defungi ; Ut lite tdtx Presbyter fuerit Decimi, qui deceilbr Caldonii in Epifcooatu ■ ■ — - & fieri poterit ut conceffus hujus, Scriba au? Notarius dicatur, PrtffymHT» [ubminiftrtr** 0)Pag- 503. < fhould 474 CyprianusJfotimut. Chap: V, € fliould be fo many Bifhops met together in a ' Provincial Synod, fince the Province of Cyprian ' contained Africa^ properly fo called, NumUia, * and the two Mauritania sy and we find feverai c Councils compofed of the Bifhops of all thefe € provinces lefs numerous than this againfl: * Ttivatw. Thus he. But his Friend Dr. FeB contradi&s him, and tells him, " That Cyprian's 4 Province was Africa properly fo called, or the * Zeugitan, and that the mention of the two liau* c ritanias had crept in from the Margent. In a Word, hefufpedis, that the whole Claufe [Habtt *f /##* Numidiam, & Maurianias du*s filti coharen- tes] is forged ( z, ). Nor do thefe Councils compofed of all the Biftiops of thefe Provinces, and lefs numerous, any Kindnefs at all to the Dr. One of them is that of Carthage, confifting of Eighty Seven Bifhops j a lefs number indeed^ than was that of Larnlefe • but then we muft remember, that the Queftion about which they met at Carthage, the Rtbaptizing of thefe who returned from Heretical Communions, had fo great Intricacy, and fo divided the whole Church, that 'tis no wonder, if many abfented as Non-liyuets, waiting for further Light : Anc" doubtlefs, fome confiderable part joyned witf Stephen ; and, knowing whether Cyprian and his Adherents inclin d% would be ready to flay at home, rather than to be Outvoted by the great- er number, I fay, if we refled upon this, and confider the number of thele, that upon other ( z ) Annotat. in Epift. 48. Duarum Mauritaniaruni mencio, fortaffc ex margme irrcpfa. account! Chip. V. Cypriaius Jfotimts. 475 accounts were neceffarily abfent* and the vacant Seats 5 but efpecially, if we confider the Pau- city of Chriftians then in thefe parts ,• ic may reafonably be concluded, that, indeed, there were as many Bilhops as Congregations. But more may be faid ; for it is plain, that the Council that confifted of Eighty Seven Biftiops, was nothing elfe but only fome few ( if deput- ed from the particular Provincial Synods, or if coming together by chance, or, laftly, if ga% thered and invited thither particularly by typrian, 1 determine not J of each of thefe Provinces; as is evident from this, that all the Bifhops, who met there, of the Zeugitan or Proconfular Pro- vince, fcarce exceeded Twenty, when it was a time of great Peace * whereas, in another Ajfembly of the Biftiops of this Province, after a moft cerrible Perfecution, when many had beea KillM, many Banilh'd, and many Laps'd, Four- ty Two conveen'd for Settling Difcipline, as Maurice himfelf acknowledges ( a ). Another thing that perfwades me, that thefe Eighty Seven were only a certain number of the Ami* Stepbanians invited thither by Cyprian their Chiefs and Hijhop of the firft See, is, that we find not fo much as theleaftjar, Difpuce, or Hefitacion about a Queftion that then exercifed and puzled the greateft Lights of the Church, and well nigh divided it intohalfes: There was a compleat Concord without the leaft DifTent or Proteft to the contrary. But, to return to Lambefe>il that Council with its Circumftances be well confider'd, it will ap* (*) Pag- 511. pear. \j6 Cyprianus Jfotimus. Chap. V. pear, that it is far enough from countenancing Diocefan Epifcopacy, and that thefe Ninety Bi- (hops were but a part of thefe of Numidia alone; for thefe were fufficienc for depoiing of a Bifhop, who was not the Chief of the Province, or Bifhop of the firft See, but of an ordinary Town Lam- hefe ; and accordingly ( which a General Coun- cil of Africk rarely did ) there thefe Bifhops met, and it feems evident, that Syprian's PredeceflTor ( for the Council was held before Cyprian himfelf was a Birtiop ) went not thither, but on!y,as ec- cafion affoorded, declar'd his Approbation of that Numidian Synod's Deed ; and it would feem, that either Privates Herefy was very fmall5 or very plaufible ; for in Cyprians time a he offered himfelf to be try'd at a Council in Garbage , but was not admitted ( b ) : Hence 'tis probable, that a confiderable part of the Bifhops of Numidia might either favour Privatms, or at lcaft be Non-liquet* in the Cafe i Add> as is faid, to thefe, the vacant Chairs, and fuch Bifhops as on many accounts would be abfent, and consi- der the Paucity of Chriftians in Numidia, a place far lefs Civilized, and fo far lefs Chriftianized than was Zeugitana, and then there fhall be no juft doubt, that there were as many Bifhops as Congregations. §. XV. I have made good elfewhere ( c ), as by other Arguments, fo even from the Conceffi- ons of our moft Learnd Antagonifts, That not only all Cities, but alfo every good Village* had a Billiop, and that only forne part of thefe that dwelr in Cities of the Roman Plantations ( k ) Epifi 36. 59, ( t ) Naz, Qucr. fart I. § 7- weri Ghap. V. Cffriamt Uotimus. 477 were Chriftians, and very few of the Country People, the Body thereof remaining Gentiies, long after the time of Cyprian : Add to all this the ConcefiSon of Dr. Fell, who yields, that RogatianHi was only the Bi(hop of a Private Little Town (d) ; which is no lefs true of the far greater part of the African Epifcopal Sees : Add alfoi that the Latine Tongue was only fpoken in the Colonies, and got never any confi- derable Footing among the reft of the Inhabi- tants ; in Latine only was the Gofpel Preach- ed, the Gift of Tongues in Gyprians time was ceafed, and the Paftors underftood only the Latine, their Mother Tongue*,- or, if they had Greek, the Body of the Africans no more under- ftood it, than the Latine. And here 'tis to be noted by the way, that this the Ignorance of the Latine Tongue among the Throng of the Inhabitants ofAfrick, may be looked on, as one of the moft probable and accounting Reafons, how it came to pafc, that, at the firft Irruption of the Mahometans, the Light of the Gofpel was totally Extinguifhed ; which direful Vaftation fcarce fell out any where elfe. But to return ; this one Obfervation, feing the far greater pare of the Country People were the old Inhabitants, mortally wounds their Argument drawn from the pretended Largsnefs of the Territories of Epifcopal Cities. §. XVI, Wherefore, tho' we fbould give them Rome, Alexandria, Carthage, and fuch great Ci- ties, yet were we even with them, and much (d) Annotat. in Epift. 3. Uibeculs private Epifco, pus, more. aj2 Cyprianuf lfotmus. Chap. V. more ; it being certain, that, long before Cjfi friaris time, there were many thoufands offii- ihops, befides thefe (e). But we dare not be fo liberal in prejudice of Truth ; our greateft Ad- verfaries will acknowledge, that we are not obliged to make fuch Conceflions: I have al- ready ctemonftrated, that there was but one Congregation in all Cyprians Diocefsf and fatis- ficd what they bring *rom lertutian's fwelling HyperMiesy snd from ail their other Common Places • and tho* they could bring much more, it might well be a Difficulty, but could never eounterpoife thefe unanfwerable Teftimonies of Cyprian himfelf, which I have adduced. I have moreover evinced elfewhere ( / ) againft the Gavills of Dr. Maurice* That the fame is the Judgment of Mr. MeJe ; yea Mr. Mede is exprcfly yielded to us by Mr, DodweU (g): In vain (fays he) therefore does Mr. Mede gather from hence , that there was then only one Communion.Tuble in the Bil (hofs Uoufe. Of the fame Mind,as in another place isflbown (h), v/^sDv. Heylyn; and Dr. Hammond bears him Company, and affirms, that, in TertuU Han's time, which is well nigh the fame wi.h the time of Cyprian, allChiiftians received the Sacra- ment only out of the Bifoop's own Hands ( i)* i ( « ) A*g. contra Crtfcon. L"b. 3. Cap, 3. ( f ) Naz. Qucr. Parta.Seft. 4- (t ) ° ,e *ltar> Cap 2- § 8. (h) Naz. Quer.Part a.Seft io. (i) Difftrr. 3. Cap. 7. §. $. Sic & Tertulltanus de Cor Mil. Non de a he mm quam dt P'#fiden- tium Manu Euchariftiam fomimus, quod idem fub «rjifr#- t*t nomine affirmat Jufiinus. Et; Differt. 4. Cap- 1 7. & 14. Illud itidera i TtmWam, &** ' . K Chap. V, Cypria»us Ifotimus. 479 §. XVII. But the Chrijlians ( faith Dr. Maurice ( l( ) ) bad not the convenience of great and capacious Churches at that time, and might not he very wiping to raife extraordinary Fahricks, left they (houldtxpofe tfamfelves too much to the Observation and Envy of their Enemies* But Mr. VodweU is of a contrary Mind, and yields, that all the Chriftians, not only in Carthage, but alfo at Rome, could, and did meet ordinarily for Hearing of the Word Preached by the Bidiop himfelf, and Receiving the Sacraments. ( / ) M The great Reafon that ' inclines you to believe the Paucity of Chrifti- c ans in thefe times is, that, in great and popular * Cities, they were able to Communicate at one * Altar. - " " But you might as well have con- ? eluded whole Cities indeed, nay whole Natw € ons, to have no more People in them, than € our ordinary Parochial Afiemblies. You know e every clean Male in Jewry was to appear be- 1 fore God, &c> Other fuch National Afiemblies he infiances, and adds. " Nor were only Sa- c orifices common to thefe vaft AfTemblies from ' the fame Altar, which is more eafiiy intelli- * gible, but Speeches alfo were made to Numbers 1 much greater than our Parochial AJfemblies, which ' I believe you will think the greater Difficulty, * how the Bifhof, who,you fay, then was the Trin- 4 cipal, if not the only Treacher t ftiould be heard Mn a Multitude proportionable to a Populous * City. Yet is this fo far from being Incredible, * as that it was in thofe Ages frequently pradifed. ! I will not inftance in places of fptcial contri* (k) Defence Dio:cf. Pag. 358, ( / ) Letter 2. to Mr. JBwer, §.52. [ vance. 480 Cypriannt Ijotlmus. Chap. V, vance, as that at the Roman Roftra, the Theatres, and Amphitheatres, where many thou(ands> fometimes 1 00000, or more, have heard with convenience. And yet it is very probable, that thefe publick places of Religious Afemblies were contrived with convenience for that purpofe* — ■ -■- Oar Saviour preaches his Sermon on the Mount to great Multitudes from feveral places, S.Matth. 4, 25*. v. i0 And feveral other places* to 4000 at one time, and yooo at another, though in WilderneJJis ; by which we may guefs, how much Greater his Auditories were in Populous Cities. > - And by the Multitudes converted by fingle Sermons of the Apojlles, you may eafily conje&ure the Vaftnefs of their Auditories. » Thus you fee, that it will not foljow, that the Number of€hri/lians muft have been few, if they aflem- bled in one phce for the 19 ord and Sacraments, and if the Bifhop alone had Preached, (m) And even afterwards we find Preaching not always performed by the Bifhop, though I am apt indeed to think it was ordinarily, (t$) There was alfo a third Expedient for thefe Numerous Communions, that tho' indeed the Roman s*ltar> where the BleJJed Sacrament was ordinarily and folemnly Adminiftred, were only one, even in thefe Populow Cities, and that in the Power of the Bi(hcp ; yet in private and occalional Af- iembiies Presbyters were permitted to do it by leave of the Bi(hop. — As for Preaching --" ■ you cannot prove that to have been fa (*)§•' ». (») Ibid. ! dlppr*- Chap. V. Cyprianus Ifotimts. 481 c appropriated to the Bi(hop> as that ordinary Pres" € bytcrs were excluded from it. All that can be * pretended to this purpofe is, that the Exhortati- * on with the Communion Office was then general- * \y in the prefence of the Bifkop, and that, in his * prefence,it was not ufualfor Presbyters to Preach * ( for this is the only thing that was thought c fo ftrange in the Preaching of Origen before * Theophilusy and S: Auftin before Valerius* that c it was done in the prefence of their Biiliops ) c and that the power of Ecclejia/lical AJJemb/ies9 € upon what pretence foever, Preaching as well c as other Offices, was appropriated to theBifhop. Hence, nothing is clearer, than that, in Dodwett** Mind, about the time of Cyprian, all the Chri- ftians in the greateft Bifaopricks, yea even in that of Rome it felf. did and could meet Ordim narily, that is, every Lord's Day, at leaft, in one place, for Hearing of the Word* and Receiving of the Sacrament ,• that they could all eafily e* nough not only Participate but Hear ; that the Sijhop himfeif was the Ordinary Dijpenfer of both Word and Sacraments • and, finally, that a Bi- ftiop and an Ordinary Difpenfer of the Word and Sacraments, was, by all Men, looked on as one and the fame Perfon. And tho' their Church at Rome was not, doubtlefs, Extraordi" nary for Curious Archite fltP&fi * and Chap. V. Cyprianut Ifotmus. 489 € and Free-Will-Offtrings, for he (the Bi(hop j * well knows the Indigent, and diftributes to 1 every one as is meet. Where 'tis undenyable, that the Lord's Supper was celebrated only where the Bifliop was, that he knew particularly all the Indigent, and their Cafes, and might and did diftribuce to each of 'em accordingly ; and confequently it was irnpoffible for him to be ought elfe, but the Paftor of a fingle Congrega* tion. And when thefe Suppofititious Apoftles are ordering the ordinary Publick Worfhip of the Ghurch : " Let (fay they ( z) ) the Seat of the " Bifliop be placed in the midft, and let the Pres- byters fit on each fide of him, and the Deacons ftand by them ready, and lee it be their care that the People fie orderly in the other part of the Church, Let the Reader from a high place R^ad the Books of Mofes* », , i«^~— — » Let another Sing Davids Pfalms. ,* b And then let a Deacon or Pref- byter Read the Gofpels. — ~— -. And when the Gofpel is Read, let Presbyters and Deacons, and all the People ftand with great filence Then let the Presbyters Exhort the People, but not all of them. And laft of ail, let the Bifliop who is like the Steerf- man of the Ship, Exhort the People, ■ ■ And after Prayer let fome of the Deacons fet ( K. ) Cap. <7 n,'uffQ& «f's pur©- o ts ikhtkw* 9£?f©% *+? it&Ti&i Zf@UTiejLV, jy hi *vr*ffft?, ~__ ^ TsAeV7#!©* w£vj»1 Qi7ttw7T&9 OS- ' about 45>o CypriAnus lfotimus. Chap. V.t € about the diftributing of the Eucharift. , c Then let the Deacon which affifts the Bifliop, € fay to the People, Let none hate or malign 'another. . Then the Prieft or Bifhop € having Prayed for Peace, let him blefs the c People, as Mofes commanded. Let the Bifhop € therefore Pray in thefe words. O Lord pre- c ferve thy People, &c. Every order by them- c felves receives the precious Body and Blood of c Chrift, Thus thefe pretended Apoftles. Hence 'tis clear, that Anciently every Bifhop had only one Church in all his Diftrid, who there- in, together with all the Presbyters, did ordi- narily* that is, each Lords Day, partake of the Lord's Supper, and perform Divine Worfhip, Thefe Confiitutions ( faith Dr. Maurice ( a ) ) are fable and forget f. Becaufe ( faith Dr. Parker (i) ) ot that Books many and uncertain Interpolati- ons, it is altogether ufelefs. Not fo ( faith Dod- weti), ( O They are mofi ancient Confiitutions. And Jbe Canons of the Apo files ( which to the Hierar? chicks are compleatly another Bible ) feeing they ar$ jhreads oftbeje Confiitutions, the matters ( viz. ) which in thefe Confiitutions were largely handled reduced into a compendy and at the end of thefe Qj^njiitutions teprefented to ones 'vieiv^ cannot he better explained than out of thefe Apoftolical Confiitutions^ (a) Def, Diocef. Epifc psg. fai. ( b ) Account of the Governnrjcntof theChriftian Church. Pag. 8. (*)Diff. Cyprian. 1©. «. I. HiCanenes> cum Conftitutionum Jaciniae fine, q«ae nimirum ibi fufius difputata eflent, in brevio. rem form-am reda£h unique intuitu} fub finem reprsefen- tara ; nequeunt proinde melius quam ex ipfis conftitutioni- bus explicari. Parker Chap. V. Cff nanus lfotimus. 491 Parker and Maurice had, doubtlefs, as much ex- toird thefe Gonftitutions, had they not feen in them what *DodweU faw not, for Ipfe Bernardus non vidit omnia% even fomething that, utterly deftroys Diocefan Epifcopacy ; for 'tiscertain, that when thefe Conflitutions, as we now have them, were compiled, either the cuftom of having no fewer Bifliops than Churches, or Congregations, obtained, or at lead it remained fixed in the minds of Chriftians, that it once had been (o, elfe the Author, or Interpolator, who liked nothing better than to have a Jeivijh Hierarchy introduced into the Church, and every Bifhop look'd on as a grand, abfolute, and formidable Prince, would never once have infinuated fuch a thing ,• yea he had given to every Bifhop a multitude of Churches or Con- gregations, had not his defign* which was to make the whole Compofure, as it now ftands, go down, and take for a piece of true and Apoftolic Antiquity, oblidged him to mixe all along with his Alloy fome grains of genuine Antiqui* §. XXI. Nor could they ever, while they began to decline from the Gofpel fimplicity, and take the Jewifh Temple for the pattern of their Worfhip> have judged, as MeJe, Dodwell, and others contend that they did, the Lord's Supper to be a real Sacrifice, except they had alfo belie- ved, that every place appointed for the Celebra- tion thereof* or every Church or Meeting place of a Congregation ought to have a Bilhop or High Prieft, as they termed him ; it being cer- tain, that no Sacrifice could be lawfully Offered 492 Cypriavns Ifotiwus. Chap. V. Offered out of the Temple, where the High Prieft (till Officiated, and which was the place which God particularly choofed, except it were done by Prophets Divinely infpired, who could vouch their warrant for the exception, as Mofes did his for the Rule : Hence flow'd that fuper- lative concernednefs of all Ifrael, on fuppofal that the Gileadites had built another Altar for Sacrificing • and the Solemn Proceftation they made to purge themfelves from the fufpicion of any fuch thing ( d ). Nor find I ought objected by Mr. Vodwell ( e ) meriting any Anfwer, if it be not what he brings from i Sam. 20. y, 6» 29. where 'tis (aid, that Vavidrs Family had a yearly Sacrifice at Bethlehem : But befide that Shilob at that cime was deferted, and no other place yen nominated ,• and fo there might be then a Dif- penfation or Allowance for Sacrifices in diverfe places; the Word mi fignifieth not only to Sacrifice butalfo to Kill without any fuch defign as 1 Sam. 28. v. 24. Where it is (aid, that the Witch of Endor rQ?n Killed a Fatted C'atf; and the Word ni? a derivative from the other fignifies fcmetimes not a Sacrifice, if it be not metaphorically underftood, but a Fea/t, as Ez>ek 59. 17. compared with Revel* 19. i.j3 j8, 21. $. XXII. The fame Truth, That there was but One Altar, that is, One only Church, where the Biihop, Clergy, and all the People in the Pariilj Ordinarily, i. e. every Lord's Day, met for Celebration of the Lord7* Supper* is evident from the *d. 4th. and <$tb. of thefe called the ( d) jtjhuab 22. ( O One Altar. Chap, 3, Seft. 6. jtfofloli Chap. V. Cyprianns IfotifHus. 495 Apoftolic Canons y where thefe pretended Apoftles, having fpecified what was proper, and what not, to be offered at the Altar ( that is, the Communion Table ) fubjoyn thus, (/) " Let all € the reft of the ripe Fruits be carried as Firft c Fruits into the Houfe of the Bifliop, and Pref- c byters, and let them not be offered on the € Altar : For 'tis certain, that the Bifhop and c Presbyters divide them tothe reft of the Clergy. And Dr. Maurice, in effe<5t, confeffes no lefs : " The name of Altar ( faith he ( g } ) might be c appropriated to that of the Bilhop's Church ! upon another account, and that is in refped of c the Obiations of the Faithful, which were c prefented there only, and from thence diftri- c bution was made according to the occafionsof c the Church* Among other Oblations, was c the Bread and the Wine which were to ferve € for the Sacraments ; thefe were always bleffed c at the Bifhops Altar, though not always Confe- € crated there. And now,from what is brought^ I doubt not to infer, that in the more Pure and Primo'prtmitive Times, there were no fewer Bifhops than Churches or Congregations ; and that, after this pra&ice was, through Corruption of Men, wearing out, and that pernicious cuftome of making a Man thePaftor of many Flocks, and giving him the whole Paftorai Authority over them, which yet he was rarely, if ever to See or Feed; it remain'd in Mens Minds that a Biibop and Congregation ought ( /) Can. 4- * ;■--"■■ tyw At •' o itiffx.»ir&, ;£ Si *AWfi*iiV. (g) Defence Diocef, pag. 3*. to 494 CyprUuuf Ifotmm. Chap. V. to have continued Reciprocal, (o that feverai fhifts muft be ufed to gull Chriftians, and lull them afleep, till God's Ordinance was overturned, and they at length brought into the depth of Slavery. Hear Mr. Dodwell ( b ), il For the times of P which then had intecfted no few Churches, had got into Alexandria, and the Moderator or Nominal Bifhop was turned into one who was real and Hierarchick, he had a morfel great enough prepar'd for him ; for, to be fure, he would have no lefs a Vre&nft than that of the whole Pref- bytery. But in other Cities, the Vrecintfs of the Pref- byteries were not by far fo large, fcarce reaching any length without the Walls of the City. It appears to have been fo at Reme; for Cornelius , in his Epiftle to Fabius ( m )> clearly infinuates, that all the Presbyters, all the Deacons, all the Poor, and in a word, all the Chriftians of his Diocefs liv'd either in the City, or, at ieaft, hard by it. He intimates no lefs in another Epiftle he Writes to Cyprian { n ). 'Tis alfo evidently fuppof'd by Vrudmtius i for he fays5 that Lauren- tins the Roman Deacon ( who defign'd to gather together all the Poor o^the Church or Biihoprick of Rome* and preient them to the Prefect ) ran three days through the Town ( Rome ) gathering together the /warms of infirm Folks, and theje that keg Alms ( o ). ( I) Naz. Quer. Part s. Sea. 2. (tn) Euftb. Ecclef. Hifh Lib. 6. Cap. 43 * ( n ) Inter Cyprianis** 49. ( • ) Pag. 1 18 Tribus per Urbem Gurfaat Diebu*, infirm* egmina, Gmnefoue qui pofcunt Stipem, Ctgenf iv unum, & Gwgre£Mt. The Chap. V, Cypriams Jfotimus. 497 The Bifbop of Rome, notwithftanding, had even then Dependences enough, though more indireft than they came to be after ward ,• for the Countrey Bi&ops, who are as true Bifliops as thefe of the City, were by this time falling apace under the Eower of thefe City Bifliops : And with fuch Countrey Bifliops the Chriftian World was then well filled ; there was good ftore of them in Syria, and even very near to Antiocb it felf, and were cal/ed Ewiiru x«r iy^v Bifliops of Countrey Places or Villages, in oppofition to Eir/rxo*e/ t«v vomm the Bifliops of the Cities ( p ). Nor were they thinner fown in Italy it felf - Novatus called Three of them from one of the fmalleft and bafeft Corners of Italy, that they might Ordain him Antibifliop to Cornelius ( that in the Reign of OiocUftan, about yo Years after the time of Cornelius, there were feveral Churches in Rome. But, I deny, that ic will from thence fol- low, that there were any but one in the time of Cornelius ; for this was the very time of which Eufebius ( / J fo heavily complains, as that wherein the manners of Chtiftians were abomu nably corrupred, and themfelves ripen'd for a grievous Perfecution : And, which is moft to our purpofe, he exprefly remarks (s ) the growth of the number of their Churches. But, be it, that in Cornelius's time, befide the One Church and Altar where the Billiop Officiated, there were other places in which^ at times, Divine Service was performed • \is enough for my defign,if all 'the Church, for their more ordinary and fblemn Worfhip,m^c in One Place with the BHhop,who to them was the Ordinary Difpenfer of the Word and Sacraments : But this is row proved^not only by other irrefragable Arguments, but alfo by the moft exprefs Acknowledgments of our moft Learned and Reloiute Adverfaries : And fo, (I) Life 8 Cap r ( J ) a> M htKA fOjJWSs *iTl *ra vara* 704 ir'ihfii in foptfjwf fa%*w i*XAncictf. were Chap. V. Cypriams Ifotimuu 499 were there no more, the Cyprianic IMfhop is, on this fcore alone, twenty times liker to our Presbyterian Bifhop or Paftor, and nearer a Kin to him, than to the Hierarchick Prelate. And indeed, this pra&ice of the Ancients, and the fliifts DodweS acknowledges them to have ufed, irrefragably prove, that they believed firmly, that every Congregation of People, met for Hearing the Word and Receiving the Sacraments, ought to have their particular Bi- ftop. j\ XXV* But 'tis all one, ( fay they ) ( t ) and Calderwood grants it, whether the Bifhcp he Diocefan or Parochial ; for if a P after in a jingle Parijh have a Sole Power 0/ Ordination and Jurifdi&ion, or at lea ft be a fine quo non over a few Presbyters in this finale Pari(h, he is a 9ijhop as well as he who huth that Power over a great many Presbyters in a large Diocefs. And I ovvri, that what Calderwood there fays is Truth, and that the Parochial Epifcopacy which creept pretty early into the Church, was the Occafion or Beginning of all the direful enfuing Apoftaey and Michief, the Egg wherein lay the Seed* of the Myftery of Iniquity, and out of which Anti- chriftwas hatched. I faid indeed ( u ), If the V after ef any Parijh or Congregation be constantly imployed in Breaching atih Edifying the People, we Jh all not envy him others, fofar as %s requifite9 to ajfifl him ; the People may he inftrufied the better ; But mean'd not by thefe words to allow any Impa- rity among Paftors in a Parifh, more than in a ( t ) Author of Imparity among PaftorSj &c. pag# <. ( * ) Nas.Qntr, Part a. Seft. 10. I i z Diocefs; 500 CyprUnus Ifotimus. Ghap. V* Diocefs : However, if it can be proved, that they allow it, I in fo far retrad and revoke them : And this I can do without the lcaft in- fringement of the matter I there iuftain, which is, That the Equ«iiy of all Bifhops being once acknowledged, and a Bi&op allowed to each fingle Congregation, the diftin&ion between BiJhop and Presbyter, tho* it were granted, is to them of (mall or no ufej and fo this Parochial Birtiop fuch as the ancient Biftiops were, is by a hundred degree* nearer of Kin to our Parish Paftor, than to their Diocefan Lord Prelate : Wherefore, this is nothing but a filly bit of Sophiftry. But he is more fenfelefs fag. j. in his perverfion of thefe Ignatius's words, ( viz ) Enquire thou or leek after every manhy ncrne> neglett neither Servant nor Hani-maid. They were adduced by the Author of the Remarks on the Ca/e of the Epifcopal Clergy y to prove,that the Igna* tian Biihop had but One only Congregation in his Diocefs ,• and I had adduced them tor the fame end. Now, to him the Author of Imparity re^ pones as follows. " Mean while Ignatius does f not fpeak of the Duty of a BKhop, nor faith, * He, & e. Every BiJhop^ ought to be acquainted c with every Lad or Lais, as the Remarker words c it, and the cale of their Souls under his lnfpe- c Dodwell ( i ) and J. S. himfelf ( k ). But others, as Wbitgift ( /), Ham- mond (m), and Hill (n) are as clear for Imparity among Bifhops, as their Brethren areforitamong Pallors : And all of them defert this Principle as to their pra<5tf ce ; for, it makes all other Bifhops only Suffragans to the Metropolitans or Arch- biftops. (/) Naz. Quer.Part 2. §. 10. (g) DeBaptifmo cap. 17. & Pudicitia cap. 1* (h) Inftrudt . Hift« Thtol Lib. t6. Cap. 1. ( 1 ) Diflert. Cyprian 7.$, 26. 41. ( Ic ) Principles p 27. & ftqq, and Vindication pag. 228. 229, 230, 231. ( I ) Defence of the Anf. to the Admonition* Traft. 4. pag. 220, Traft.8. pag. 301. 305, 311,313. ( m ) On Pbtlip* 1. and 1. iT.m. 2. & 2. And in many places eJfe of his Works. ( n ) De PresbytciatU Lib: 4; Cap: t: §.3: & §: 5: Cap: 8: Confcfl. 1 2. CHAP. Ghap. VI. Cffriamu Ifotitmts. 505 CHAR VI The Peoples Power in Choofing their Bifhop or Pajior afierted and vindicated : And the Divine Right of Ruling Elders fu- ftaind. T $• *• T I imS ^ E Ninth Difference confffts in this, That, in the Cyprianic Age, the People had fuch Inte- reft and Power in Ete&ing and Galling of their Bi/hop or Paftor, that withouc their Confenc and Appro- bation, none could be fet over them, which is clean contrary to the practice of our Hierar- chies* J. S. (a) denyes, that any Approbation or Confent of the People was then required, but on* ( * ) Viadici Chap; 7: Pag: 392; & feqq. 506 Cypriamts Ifotmns. Chap. VI. ly fimple prcfence and Teftimony ; and carneft- iy endeavours to defend, yea and to prove, that the Biftops of the Province might, by themfclves alone, choofe a Bifliop, and fet him over any- Church, even tho* the People liked him not at all i but, e contra^ were altogether againft his being fit over them. All neceffary to be infill* ed on ( faith he ) is this Queftion, Whether Bifliops, in Cyprians time, were formally EUBU bv the Veople} But what if there can be only Inftances enough brought to prove, that the Bilhop was really Elcfted by the People; that is, That they gave a clear Signification, one way or other, of their Unanimous Defire and Acceptance of fuch a Perfon, at leaft, as to the Major part of them, without which Declaration of Acceptance, the Bilhop was not Placed or Admitted, though there fliould be no Evidence of the Formality of Votes, or Calculi thrown into the Urne, written Subscriptions, or writing down of Names, or fuch pieces of nice or curi- ous Dealing, needful only, where the Body of the Eligents was ready to fplit into equal halfs * What if, in all the Inftances on Record, ftill by far the Major part of the People chearfully called and embraced their Bifliop or Paftor, no lefs cheas fully than the Bifhops of the Province, or, which is all one, the Paftors of the Presby- tery,, admitted him into their College? And fo there was no need of that Circumitantialnefs in Formality of Polling or Voting. Dare any Man fay, that, becaufe this was not pra&is'd, therefore the People had no more Right or Power in Election of their Biflwp than an Infi- del, Ghap. VI. CjprUmt Ifotimus. 507 del? For, all Men were alike publickly,invited to declare what they had to fay concerning the Perfon to be chofen. §. II, He fays, we have but two Shadows of Argument for our Sentence : But, herein he is no more to be trufted, than was Zelwl, when he pretended to Gaal, that the Armed Bands he faw approaching were the Shadow of the Moun- tains ; for, as I (hall now make evident, they are not Shadows, but folid Subftances, Darts fufficiently acute to difable utterly all the De- fences that are or can be prepared againft them. The former of them is contained in Cyprian's yy and 5^ Epiftles: In che 5-5: he fays (£), " Cornelius was made Bifhop, by the De- c Agnation of God and his Chrift, by the Tefti- ' mony of almoft all the Clergy, by the Suffrage * of all the People who were then prcfenc, and * by the College of Ancient Bifhops and Excel* c lent Men. And Epiftle 5^9, (hewing, how he himfelf was promoted to the Biflioprick, he faith (c), " That if God's Inftitutions were € obferved, none would make any Stir againft c the College of Bifhopsj and no Man, after c the Divine Appointment, and the Suffrage of I the People, and the Gonfent of his Fellow Bi- ( h ) Faftus eft autem CornetiM Epifcopus de Dei & Chri- fti ejus Judicio, & de Clericorum penc omnium Teftime- nio, de Picbis quae tunc affuit Suffragio, & dc Sacerdotum Antiquorum 8c Boncrum Virorum Collegio, Pag, ©4. {c) Cui (Sacerdoti) fi fecundum Magifteria Divina ob« temperarecFr'aternitas Univcrfa, nemo adverfum Sacerdo- tum Collegium quidquam moveret, nemo poft Divinum Judicium, poft Populi Suffragiurn, pofi Co-epifcoporum Co/ifenfucn, Judiccm fc jam non Epifcopi, fed Dei faccret. I ihops, 508 Cyprianu* Ifotitnui. Chap. VI. * {hops, Would make hirafelf Judge, not of the * Bifhop, but of God. Thus> you have our Ar# gument as jF. 5. has Scettijh'd it. Let us next hear what he anfwers. He fays ( d ), " That * all the Force of the Argument lyes in the Word c Suffragium, which, in all the Cyprianic Monu- c ments, fignifies not neceffarily an EUftive Voke% € and the Term Sufragmm ought not to be taken € for an Ele&ional Vote, unlefs the Scope and c Tendency of the Difcourfe, where 'tis ufed, c neceffarily require it to be fo taken. But he is certainly miftaken; the Force of the Argument lyes not only in the naked Word Sujfragium, but in that Word as it is circumftantiated and qualified, as in the places adduced, where one is faid to be made a Pretext or Governour by the Suffrage of the People, which is a Phrafe as naturally importing Power of Choofing him who is faid to be made a Governour by thefe Suffrages, as doth Latio Suffragii in Pliny ( e ) a Power in the Roman Citizens in Choofing their Magiftrates,- from thefe he had* with the reft of his Language, this Phrafe; and therefore under- ftood and ufed it, juft as they did in parallel Cafes. The Inftances J% 5. adduces to the con- trary are wholly impertinent, there being in- deed in 'em the Term Sufragium, but in none of them, Faitns Suffrage, or any thing like it; they are all either meer Allufions to the Rowan Ufe of the Word, whereas, in the places we have brought, it is ufed juft as it was at Rome in the Choofing of Magiftrates ,• or elfe the Word is taken more properly, and really imports a ( d ) Vjadic. Chap.7. §. 35. ( t ) Lib: 3J; Gap: 12. Power Ghap. VI. Cjprhnus lfotimus. 509 Power in thofe that are faid to give thefe Suffrar ges. As for Example, That which jf - 5. brings out of Cyprian's Book Of the Vanity of Idols, TJt crefcat de Su^ragio Scelerv, Commendatio Dignitatis, that the Commendation of his Dignity may be rais'd hy the Suffrage of a Crime. This, I fay, is only an Allufion to the Cuftom of Commendatory Suffrages, whereby thefe that gave them had a Power to raiie the Candidate they commended : Yea, this Inftance is fo far from helping jF. S's Caufe, that it mifchieves it ; for, it intimates, that as Brum's wicked Deed contributed to raife bis Dignity ,• fo, had this wicked Deed been a Perfon, it would have had a Formal Vote, or Suffrage, or fomewhat as good, or equivalent thereto* to have been ufed for raifing Brutus's Dignity. Another of his Inftances out of the fame Work of Cyprian, where the Jews are faid to have de- livered Cbrifl unto Pilate, moft earneftly demanding his Crucifixion and Death, by their violent and ohjli- nate Suffrages, is truly harmful, not helpful to his Caufe. Pilate gave the Jews a full Power of Preferving either of the Twain, Chrijl or Barah* has ; tho' he himfelf much rather inclined, that Jefus ttiould be Releafed 5 and (o this Conceffi* on of Pilate being preluppofed, this Suffrage of the Jews imports mod clearly the Power they had then gotten to Releafe the one and Cru- cifie the other : But, although it fhould have imported only their vehement Petition, fuch a Gatacbrejis would have ftood J. S. in no ftead ; feing^ as is faid, the forecited places of cyprian are no lefs pofitive for an Intereft and Power in thefe 5ic Cypriamt Ifotimus. Chap. V[? thefe who give the Suffrages, than any places that can readily be found for a Power in the Roman Citizens of Choofing their own Magiftrates. His Third Inftance out of cyprian} concerning Envy and Malice, where, when David had killed Goliah, 'tisfaid, that the People, in a Fit of Ad- miration! burfted out into a Suffrage of Commen- dation, does him no better Service : For, had not the People, having learned what Noble and Profitable A&ion David had performed, Power fufficient to Praife and Commend him on this account ? In the mean while, there is here an Allufion to the Practice of Ele&ing by Votes and Suffrages of the Major Part ; as if Cyprian had faid, David got che Commendatory Vote, or Suffrage of the whole People. His Fourth Inftance is out of Cyprians ;8 Epi- file, where he, reprefenting how God, by a fpecial Manifeftation of his Will, had ieparated Aurelius to be a Clergyman, words it thus, Sid txpeftanda non lunt leftimonia Humana, cum prace- dunt Divina Suflragia : f* That is ( faith J. S. ) c plainly, neither more nor lefs, than that there ■ is no need of Humane Teftimony, when God € interpofes with a fpecial Defignation. And I am content, thac it be neither more nor lefs ; for, even as it is> it quite deftroys the thing ic was brought to confirm ; fcing furely? in this place, Suffragia fignifies fomething elfe, than a naked Tcfiimony, which may be admitted, or rejeded at the Difcretion of another, even Power Uncontroulable, His Firth Inftance out of Cyprian's 73 Epiftlc, Quod emm quidam dicunt yuafi ad Hrfretkorum Suf- factum Chap. VI. Cyprtams lfotlmus\ 511 fragium pertineat, quod dixerit Apoftolus, is of a piece with the reft. It is clear, that, in this Paffage, Sufragium Haretieorum fignifies an dfS probation, or Ratification of Heretical Bapeifm, which fome faid, was contained in Tbilif. 1. 18. And Cyprian denyes it, and fo there is here a clear Allufion to the Practice of Determining by Votes. And now judge, if he has manifefted by any, or all of thefe Inftances, that, where a Man is faid to be made a Bifliop by the Suffrages of fuch and fuch Perfonsi the Word Suffruglum does not import any Intereft or Power in thefe Pcrfons of Choofmg their own Bifhops. jj\ III. He at length comes clofs to the places I adduced, and to what was brought from the yf Epiftle, he fays ( f )y €€ There is no necefli- 1 ty of taking the Suffrage of the People to figni- c fie their Electing him by their Votes to be their c Bifliop. The Teftimony goes every white * as fmoothly, — if we underftand no c more by it, than their Approbation* ' For ( fditb * be) if God, by fome fpecial Manifeftation * of his Will, had pointed out Cornelius to be € Bifliop of Rome, how could it have been refer- c red to a Vote of the People, whether they would * have him to be their Bifliop or no ? But the Suppoficion which he makes the Reafon of his Aifertion, is deny'd by Dr. Fell (g ), who tells GardinalBcLVOU) That we ought no? to feign Miracles. Again, tho' we (hould grant this Suppofuion, yet hisConclufion follows not; iov Cyprian undo- nyably intimates, that, notwithstanding xb\$,Dei 6bri(liyue Judkioy wnatever ic was, Cornelius was (/) ?*£• 394: $: 3$- ii) Anagtat; ad hanc Epift. brought 512 Cjprianus Ifotmus: Ghap. VI. brought to the Chair after the ufua! Guftom and way, when nothing extraordinary interveened. His Second Reafon is, " That the Intereft of c the Clergy was as great as the Intereft of the ' People ; and yet all the Clergy did, was to c give a good Teftimony of him, What ? Only a naked and powerlefs Teftimony ? Had the Clergy no more Intereft in the calling of their Bifhop, than any honeft Pagan might have had ? This is fo far from being true, that even, in the corrupteft of times, the Clergy, at leaft a part of 'em* had fome Intereft" and Power in the Election of their Bifhop. Hierom (b) affirms, and J. S. denyes not (/ ), that then, in dkxan* driay the Biflaops were Chofen by the Presbyters ; and is it likely then, that thePresbyters in other parts had no Power in the Election of theirs f The People not withstanding in the Roman Afric\y and, as is prefumable, in other Provinces alfo, had more Power in the Election of their Bifhop, than had the Presbyters ; for, Five Presby- ters ( and the whole Number made but Eight ) oppos'd Cyprians Ele&ton, and yet the Body or Major Pare of the People carried it againft them ; the only true account of which is this ,• They believ^, that the Chriftian People, as di- ftind from the Clergy, had, in Scripture Times, an Intereft and Power both in the Ele&ion of their Bifhops or Paftors, and in the Managing of other Church Affairs,* and that the People in their times faceted to thefe Priviledges ; but, as to the Presbvrers, when they look'd on them asdiftinit frern u»eBi(hopSj they law, that ( b ) Epift: *u t&ttfcm. (i) §; 4*. they Chap, VI Cfprlanus. Ifotimus 51^ they fucceeded to no Body, had no Power or Priviledg^ lef c them in Scripture; for they found ho fuch Office there : And therefore, ail the Power and Priviledges lefc toPaftorsand People was divided between Bifhops and People alone ; fo chat the Pre.bycers were well nigh quice ex- cluded. So great was the Confufion of thefb Times, and Contrariety among the Pradices of different Churches ! The Presbvters, however, at Rome and Canhagt% were not deprivd whoHy.of Intereft and Power in ihe Ekct;on of their Bi- fhopi and fo> though Suffrage fhould here fig* nifie no ' more than do:,i Teftimony, ic would. not yet be, as J. S. would have it, altogether naked and powerlefs g. IV. To what is brought from Cyprian's 59 Epiftle, J. S. ( k ) (ays, 4k It is plain, that he 1 makes the Judicium Dely God's Designation, c the great Caufe of hi$ Vromotlov. And by Con- * fequence, that the Suffrage of the People caii c neceffarily import no.more, but their Approb** c tion and SatisfaBitn. And I, with juft as much ground from rhe Text, expone Gyprians Words, when I affirm, that ciic Confen: of his Fellow Bifoops can neceffarily import no *taore, but their sippttbation and Satisfaction: For, his Giofs excludes the Bi(kop<, as well as the People^ from any Power of Elcttio*. He hopes* by the fame Shift, to elude another place of the lame $; Ca.p: 43; ii§i»ri tvy/vfi&nvM dm* fiiijf f*5w £•*$•■ € whole Chapi VI. Cyprianus lfotmtts. 515 c. whole Clergy and many of the People opposed c themfelves, the Bifliop entreated them, that c they would allow him to Ordain this onePres- c byter. Meaning, That none coul^ be juftly Ordaind without the Confent of the People, as well as of the Clergv. Another Inftance of the Peoples Power and Liberties is clear in this, that the Lapfers could not be Abfolved without their Confent. Nothing more manifeft than this in the Writings of Gyprian, and others of thofe Times j which is ownd even by the Learn'd Hierarchic,^/*///**. Take his Words :(o) ) O fi pcfTcs, Fra^er Cariffime, iftic interfile nobif- cum, cum Piavj iftj & P rV Hi ae Schifmate revcrtunrur; videresquis miht Labor fit perfuadere Patiennam Frarr ibus noftf is. (q) An ad hoc, Fratcr Ca lilime, dtj oner, da eft Catholics Ecekiiae D.gnitas. cVPiebisintuf pofirac Fidel is itquc I^corrupca Maj- as, & S^ccrdoNlis qii' que Airho* ricas ac Poteftas, ut jud'earr vclleic dicanede Ecclciis Pre- F$uto extra £;c»efiem coafticutL them Chap. VI. Cypriamts Ifotimus. 517 them* in refpeA of their Chriftian Priviledges and Liberties, as the Commons oi Rome had for the Preformation of theirs from che Invafion and Inrrufion of their Senate and Nobles: For, u That Cyprian moft fitly transferred the Term € from the Roman People, who had appropriated * it to themfelves, unto the Roman Chriftian c People, is averted by Rigaltius, and acknow* ledged by Fett ( r ) : And J% S. ftill takes it for granted, that Cyprian, when he ufed fuch Ro- man Terms with refpe& toBiihops, took them in that very Senfe, wherein they had been ufed at Rome. From all which 'tis clear, that in thofe times, the People, cither by themfelves,. or, which was much more commodious and pra<5li- cable# by their Delegates, Seniors, or Ruling Elders, cloath'd with a kind of Tribunitian Power, preferved their Rights and Liberties, and had a convenient Share in both Government and Difcipline of the Church. And thus 'tis evi- dent, that the Church in the Cyprianic Age want- ed not Lay Elders, or Ruling Elders, as the Hie- rarchies pretend they did ,• and that J* S. to fay no more, did not well in endeavouring to per- fwade the World, that the Cyprianic Biihops had a Power altogether A bfolute and Uncontroulabie over both Clergy and People. That he attempted this, I irrefragabiy in my firft Chapter manifeft- ed, which was all I was concern'd there to do ; but now che Reader fees, that nothing is faifer, ( r ) Majcftatis Vocabulum, quod fibi proprium feccrat Populus olim tantum Romtnus, convcnientiflime Cypriama, in Reipubijcae C iriftianae Difciplinj, tranftulit ad PJebem Rtmannxn Chriftianarn. Obfervat, ad hanc Epift. quae illi 5S eft. K k ; than 51 8 Cyprianus Ijotlmus. Chap. VI. than that which he there endeavour'd to infufe into Mens Minds, and that the Clergy and People, or rather the People ; for in Africk, and fome other places, when Men confidered the Presbyters as diftinft from the Bi(hops they little regarded em, as feeing they had no Original to whom they fucceeded. §. VI. But to return : In a Word, tho* we fhould give, that the Word Suffrage, in fome places of Cyprian, imports no Intereft or Power ; yet I am perfwaded, that whofoever, after this, can fhut his Eyes againft the Evidence of the Proofs now acfduced, and fay with J, S. that they are all Interpretabh of Good-liking, or a PowerJefs Teftimony, cannot be abfolv'd from the Guilt of the Rebellion againft the Ligjit, and willful Scubbornnefs. ff. VII. With Cyprian, in giving Teftimony to this Truth, joyns his Deacon Pontius, and fays (f) info many Words, " That Cyprian was Eled:- * ed by the judgment or Defignation of God, f and the Favour of the People. '* By the Favour * ( faith J. S. ) not by the Formal and Stated Vote * of the People. And Zeal or Favour* or Con- € cern is one thing, and Power or Right to c Choofe is another. But, I truft, injudicious Reader has, ere now, ihcn theFruidelhefs and Vanity of this Subterfuge : Moreover, 'tis not faid, that he had their Favour, but that It was it whereby he was Elected. N©r was there any need pt a Stated Vo_ie, when the Bulk of the ( f) Quod Judicio Dei & Flebls F^vcre ad Officium Saccrdocii, & Epifcopatus Gradum idhuc Nc op k) tut, t jmtabatur, Novel-m Eisclus eft. Vita C)f. P*g. 3. peopte, Chap. VI. Cyprianus lfotmnt. 519 People, as one Man, with the greateft Ardor phch'd on him : For, as the fame Pontius tells us, r All the People, God moving them thereto, * came fpringing forth, to (hew their Love and * Honour to him, ( viz* ByChcofwg him to be their ' Bifoop ) Cyprian, in the mean while, hid him- c felfi giving place to thefe who were more An- f cient ; Then a huge Number of the Brother- € hood befieg d the Houfe, and guarded the Ave- c nues : — You might have feen the j;eft € of the People waiting for him with a Perfive * and Anxious Mind, and, when he came, re- * ceiving him with great Joy. Was there any doubt here* if he fhould carry the Majority, or the leaft neceffity, that the People fhouJd put themfelves to the Trouble of Voting, when it was molt vifible, that all were ready to Vote for Cyprian, except fome of the Presbyters, who would have Voted for themfelves ? Why, moreover, at his coming forth, was all their Sadnefs banifh'd, and their Sorrows turned to Joy? Why.but becaufe they knew,thac then they had gain'd his Confent, and fo furrnoumed the grand and fpecial Difficulty ; they knew, that the Neighbouring Bifhops* the Presbytery or Sy- nod of the Bounds, could not obtrude any Man upon them againft their Mind ; and therefore, that they were to getCyprian, if any at all. And fo much for Vindication of the former of J. &s two Shadows of Argument. §. VIII, Proceed we to the Defence of the other : 'Tis in Cyprians 67 Epiftle, which he and a whole Synod ofBiftiops writ to two Spamjh Churches^ which being perplexed, left their two §20 Cypianusljotttnut* Chap. VI, two Lapfed and Depofed Bifhops fhould have been' again, by the Bi (hops of the Province, obtruded upon them, had fought the Counfel and Affiftance of Cyprian, and other African Pa« florsi The Words of the Synod are as follow: *' Let not the People fitaner themfeives, as if /€ they could be free of the Contagion cf Guilt, c when they Communicate with a Guilty or * Flagitious Priefh and give their Confent to the * unjuft and unlawful Epifcopacy of theirBtfhop, i. r. Eeither the Entry or Repofition of him, who is unjuftly and unlawfully fee over them, plac'd or repon'd among them, "Wherefore (goes on C^ri*** (t), a few Words irterveeningj € the Peopic, if they obey the Lord's Commands, c and fear God. ought to feparate themfeives c from a Flagitious Prieft, and not frequent the c Sacrifices of a Saciikgious Prief}5 leing the * People" themfeives efpecial'y have Power either * or" Choofing Worthy Piiefts, or Rdufi g the c Unworthy.. Here is io plainly and palp biy contained our Do<5hine of the Peoples having a Power of Choofing of their Pdior, that none can be obtruded on them, againft their Mind and Confent} that ?tis at lcaft pretty haid to ex- prefs it in clearer Terms,- and \et, if we believe j. S. nothing of this our Do&rhe is to be found in this place. M The Caie, ( jaith I? ) ( u ) in 4 fhore* was this ; B#fi!idcs zSpaniJb Btfoep, in the ( t ) Propter quod Plebs obfequens Pr^cept^s D ort'mcis, & Oeum metutns, a P.ccaroie i: rasp fito kp.rsjc fe debet , nee fe ad S«?crileg? Saccrdotis Sacnficia mifcTTe ; quango ipfa maxinie habeac PoteOarern vel Eiigcudi Dignos Saccr- dotes, vel Indigncs Recufandi. ( u ) fag. 397. 'Days Chap. Vr. Cyprianus lfotimus. 521 c Days of Perfection, had fallen into the dread- * ful Sin of Idolatry ; and falling Sick, he had * Blafphemed God, as he himlelf had confefifed : € The Confcience of thefe odious Crimes had 1 moved him to lay down his Bifhoprick, of his c own Accord 5 and ftand among the Penitents, c and confefs he ftiould meet with great Fa- ' vour if ever he fliould be reftorecT even to 'Lay#Communion; and there Was already anotht f c Sahinus, Canonically chofen and ordain'd c Bifhop in his Room ; and actually in the Pof- c feffion of the Chair, and the Adminiftration ' of the Government. The Perfecution abated: c Ic repented Ba/zliJes,. thac he had Abdicated ; * and being very earneft to be reftored, he had c ftudied all Arts that might facilitate his Repo- c fitiop. Particularly, befides divers other c Bifhops to whom he had applied for being € allowed their Communion as a Btfhop, he * had gone to Rome, and fo far impofed on * Stephen, then Bilhop of that City, as* thac c he had got from him the Right Hand c of Fellowlhip, and engaged him to interpofe c for his Reftitution. This brought the People c of the Diocefe into a great perplexity, and ' obliged rhem to write to Africa, for advice € how to behave in fuch a difficulty. This his Narration, as to the fumm of it, I deny not : . Only I add, that, theCaufe of the Peoples Per- plexity being the fear they had of the Repofi- tionot Bajilides, whom they believed they could noc readmit with a good Confcience, 'tis manifcft, that they apprehended, that Bafilides, efpscially by Stephens means, might get all, or, at §2 2 Gyprianus lfotimus. Chap. VI. 21 leaft, moft of the Biffiops, whom it concer- ned to joyn in his Repofition : This they certainly feared ,• elfe there could have been no ground for their being perplexed; Now, Stephen and all other Bifhops that were for his Repofition, were not ignorant ot his guilt, but thought that his Clerical Communion was again rendered lawful b^ his Pvepentance : This the Synod ( tho' they, to aggravate Bafilicless Crime, (ay he had impofed on Stephen ) ftill fuppofes, and fo never has one word concerning difabufing Stephen and the reft about the matter of Fad ,• but, on the contrary, clearly, yea and frequently infmuates, that they would be ready enough to go on in TiaJiUdes's Repofitiom tho' they fhould know his Crimes well enough ,• and on this account complains heavily of the Degeneracy of many of the Bifliops, and others of that Age. cc XXXVII African Bifhops ( continues J. S. ) * meet in Council, and form a Synodical Epiftle, c wherein, having adduced divers Arguments * and Authorities to determine the People which € had wrote to them, to oppofe the Reftitution c of BaJiliJes, who had fo notorioufly forfeited c his Title ; and to adhere to Sabinm as their € only Rightful Bi(hop,« they fummup all in this € general Conclufion, That a People, obedient c to the Precepts of our Lord, and fearing God, 1 ought to feparate themfelves from a fcandalous VBifliop, and not pollute themfelves with* the * Sacrifices of a Sacrilegious Prieft, feeing with- i out Queftion, they had it in their Power to 1 Cbufe worthy Bifhops, and refufe the unwor- f thy. This being the true ftate of the Matter, ' as Chap. VI. Cyprianut lfotimus. 523 as muft be obvious to any that confiders the Epiftle ; what can be plainer, than that this Paffage has nothing to do with chufing Bifhops by popular Votes, when a Chair is vacant ? *Tis evident, there is nothing more in it, than that a People cannot be free from the Conta- gion of Guilt, that Communicates ^ith a flagitious Prieft, or confents to the unjuft and unlawful Epifcopacy of their Rulers. And again, thac chofe who continue in the unlawful Communions of grofs, and wretched, and impenitent Bifhops, are polluted thereby 5 and being united in the Crime cannot be feparated in the Puniftiment. In a word, nothing plainer, than that all aim'd at, is, that the People have an inherent Right to feparate from Bifhops when their Communions are fo polluted ( as Bafilidsss was ) that they cannot be con- tinued in, without the manifeft hazard of their Souls who continue in them : And that it is their Duty to adhere to worthy Bifhops ( fuch as SablnuS) who had been duly and ca- nonically chofen and ordained ) notwithftan- ding fome Member or Members of the Epijcopal College fbould interpofe ( as Stephen, and, it feems, fome more had done ) for the Reftitu- tion of fhe unworthy Bifhop. But, as is already obferved, the Inclination of one only, or a few of the Epifcopal College to repone Bafilides, could never have perplexed the People; feing he could never be repon'd, except by, at leaft, the major part of thele Bifhops, who were judged to have the Paftoral Power of either Placing or Reponing a BiOaop in that City Legio, as 524 Cyprianuf Tfottmus. Chap. VI. as it would feem : And thefe Bifliops who were for his Repofition did, without doubt, maintain, that after his Repentance his Communion defiled no Man ; and they had no lefs Power in the Removing of one Bifhop, and Reponing of ano- ther, than they had in, or concerning the filling of a Vacant Ch^ir ; and were no left the Judges* concerning what was right or wrong, and what was to be done, or not to be done, in the former cafe, than they wrere in the latter: And therefore, all J. S. has given us is a meer cheat and a pitiful go by : If the People had had no more in theEleding of their Biflhop or Paftor, if the Bifhops could have over their bellies obtruded one upon them, the People could have had no more Power to oppofe the Reftitution oi*Bafilides ( which yet J. S. here grants they had ) than to oppofe the fettling of a Bifhop in the Chair when Vacant • which is the great thing he endeavours to difprove. Cyprian kne w well enough, that it would be in vain for the People oiLegio to tell thele Bifhops, that Bafilidess Communion was polluting, he knew that they would deny this, and go on with his Reinftal- ment ; and therefore, he puts another Argu- ment in the Peoples Mouth, which he believed to be unanfwerable ; that is, The Peoples own Inherent Power, and Right, and the neeeffity of their Cbnfent, without which no Bifhop could be lawfully fet over them : This Plea, which alone can fccure them from their perplex- ing fears, he advifes them to ufe? and largely in- ftrufts them how to manage it. That that which I have givtn f continues he ) is the true Senfe and Turport Chip. VI. Cyprianus Jfotmus. 52$ Purport of the aforecited PaJJage^ wiU be farther evident when we conjider, that it is this very fame Epiftle, and in the very next fubioyned Periods, that affords m plain and firong and folid Argument againft the Peoples having ( inthofeDajs ) the right of Xfhufing their own Bifhops ( And fo the Epiftle fliall afford folid Argument to deftroy its main defign ) ; and that all their lntere(l wm giving of Teftimony to their Life and Qonverfation. Well then, let US fuppofe thefe Bifhops, who had the Paftoral Power of Placing or Reponing a Biftiop in Legio, met together for the Reponing of Bafilides\ they call the people together in full Congrega- tion, and allow them freely to fpeak, and de- clare what they had to fay for him, or againft him ,• the People joyntly Anfwer, That he had Lapfed, &c% as we have in the Epiftle: All this we know, ( repone thefe Bifhops ) yet he hath now Repented ; we are fatisfied that he's a good Man, and fit to be Repon'd, notwithftan- • ding of what you have faid ; have you any more ? No, reply the people ; and we think, we have faid enough to debar him from Returning to the Chair . You have nothing to do with that, rejoyn che Bifhops, your part is only to Witnefs, ours to Cognofce, Judge, and Deter- mine • you muft therefore, nocwithftanding all you have faid, and that cruely, Readmit the Biftiop Bafilides, or elfe bs Excommunicated. Thus, if u/e fupppfe the truth of what is here affirmed by J. S. that all the People had was only the Power of giving Teftimony, the Synods Epiftle allays not a whic of their fears, but $26 Cyprianui Ifotlmuu Chap; VI. but leaves tjaem in the very fame perplexity and diftrefs wherein it finds them. §> IX. "The BiOiops (faitbf.S.) infift € on three Scripture Precedents for this Popular c Intereft. The firft is, that Mofes ( Num. 20/ € zs, &c- ) W2S commanded to inftal Eleazuir in c the priefthood before the whole Congregation. c Thje fecondt that when an Apoflle was to be € fubftituted in the Room of Judas, St. Peter c ( Ails 1. if. ) flood up in the midft of the 1 Difciples, &c From thefe Precedents they c infer, that a Bifhop ought to be Ordained in c Prefence of the People* Why ? Becaufe he c was to be Chofen by the Votes of the people? By Votes doubtlefs, or fome thing equivalent there- to, elfe they give no fuccour to the Church of Legio. " Who can imagine that St. Cyprian and € his GoUegues were fuch T>unces\ as not to have c known, that neither Eleazar nor Matthias was € chofen by Popular Voices ? Neither were they iuch Dunces, as not to know, that Eleazar was Chofen by no Man but God himfelf, who neither needed nor fought any Informati- on or Teftimony ; and fo, if this Cavil militate againft the Peoples Votes or Confent, it wili alfo militate againft their Teftimony. " What * heeds more ? Nothing plainer, than that all c they adduced thofe Precedent for, was, that € the Ektlion ard Ordination of a Bifhop ought to * be performed before a folemn Meeting of the c People : And they do moll diftindiiy deter- c mine this popular fotereft, by afligning the Rea- € fon of it to be no. other, than that he who was € to be ordained, might b? approved by publick :TryaI Ghap VI. Cyfriams Jfotimui. $27 6 Tryal and Teftimony, And, that the People being prefent, the Crimes of the Wicked might € be detected, or the Merits of the Vertuous € publiflied, and fo the Ordination might be c lawful and accountable, being examined .With c the Approbation and Judgment of all. But 'tis certain, that the inftance of Elea^ar will prove no lefs, that he who is to be Ordained ought to be Chofen by the Confent or Votes of the People , than that he ftiould be Approved by publick Tryal and Teftimony : And fp, if by this arguing he cafhiers our meaning of€yprian3 his own keeps it company. Nor was it the defign of taking up Eleaz,ar into Mount Hor, that his Vices might be detefted, of his Vertues publi(hed, more than t.hat he might be Chofen by Popular Votes or Confait* Moreover, if a naked and powerlefs Teftimony be all that Cyprian and the reft infer frpm this or the other Scriptures, they extravage from their purpafe, and do no kindnefs to the People of Legio ; and therefore they infer another Conclufion, even that which we now Vindicate ; " The People themfelves * ( fajs the Synod ) have without queftion Power f of Ghufing worthy and Refuting unworthy c Priefts. Which very thing we lee to proceed * from Divine Authority, that the Prieft Ihould € be Chofen, the People being prefent> in the € fight of all, and be approved as worthy and fit c by a publick Approbation and Teftimony, as in c the Numbers^ the Lord fpeaks to Mofes, take c Aaron, &c. The fubftanc^ of the Synods Reafoning here, to me feems plainly this : That fines God allowed* that before Eletzar was made 5^8 Cflrianut Ifotimus. Chap. Vf# made High-prieft, the People fliotild havefuch Tokens of his Divine Million, as made them chearfully Embrace and Accept him ; God, by this his own Example, decermin'd, that no Paftor could be obtruded en a Flock, except firft the People were fatisfied, that the Paftor had Gods Call, and was fent ro them. And thus their main Conc*uiion? The People themfehes, &c. feems deducible from the Scripture, from which they inferred it. But, whatever may be (aid of the Juftnefs of their Conclufion, with refped to the Scriptures from which they brought it, 'tis, notwithstanding, undenyable from its exprefs words, and the (cope of the whole Epiftle, That they give the People a Power of Chufing their Bifhop or Paftor. And accordingly the Codex Bcneventanus, cited by Rigaltius, reads ( x ) That the triefi Jhould be cbofen by the People being frefent. §. X. As to the other Scripture, Afts x. Cyprian, as do many other Divines, 6eliev'd, that the two Candidates for the Apoftoiate were Chofen not by the Apofties Alone, but by them and the Church then prefent \ elfe how could the Scripture have made for his Conclufion, to wit, That the People have the Power of Chufing worth) , and Refufivg the unworthy B*fb;ps. All the ufe ( faith he ) they make of the third precedent., is txuEtly the fame, and neither more nor l chey Neglected' a proof ( x ) In Benevenrano lrgitur, a Pkbe prsefente, Obfuvat. in hanc Epift, 67, qv& iili 63 eft. which Chap. VI. Cypriatiut Ifotimu'sl jjO which was moft pertinent for their Conclusion : And he feems as if he hoped to prove, that they made no more ufe of it, from this, that they recite not the words of the %d Verfe% Look ye out, &c. But neither recite they the words of the 25 Ver(e of Afts i(t. They Appointed or Pre/ented two, &c and yet thefc are rhe moft proper and fptcial words, from which the Synod could infer any Intereft thev allowed ro he "People, whether it be that of Voting, or offimple Prefence and TwfHmony. And now take the Synods words. And we remark, that the Afcftles praftifed.not this ( viz. the giving to the People a (hare in the Ele. That the People have a power to Eltfl Worthy, and Rejed Unworthy L 1 BiAops, 530 Cypriamts Ifotimus. Cfaap. VI. Biihops. ;ty. If the Synod a&ed rationally, they* tho* they exprelTed them not, mainly eyed the following words of the 6 oF che Aclss where the Apoftles allow the People a Power of Chu* fing the Deacons. 4//. To J. S's Larine Mar- gene, Qua verba, &c. i. e. Which words belong mo(i manifestly to the Peoples Teflimony, and can by no force be adapted to an Eleftive Voice ; Yea, they agree juft as well to the latter, as to the former: For, as the Synod fays not that the affair was gone abouti the People being called to give their votes j fo neither fay they, that it was done, the People being convocated to give their Tefiimonies : But the truth is, as is faid, the Synod fuppofevhat every Chriftian was acquaint with the following words ; where the Peoples Power of Ele&ing their Deacon, is undenably contain d. $ly. That unworthy Men might not get into Church Offices, which the Synod makes the end oi chat Convocation of the People, is undenyably theend ofthe Apoftles their allowing them the Power of Chufing their D^cons ,• that this might be a Precedent for the future* and that no Deacons might be Tyrannically obtruded on the People,- and that the Church, who knew their Lives* and were to have fo much Concern in them, might be in cafe to provide fuch as fliould appear to be profitable, and debar the contrary,- all vyhich, and that * in a greater proportion ajid me^fure, as the Synod intimates, holds withreipeei to Paftors, <5\ XL And here he fays that they proceed to give' a plain and pofitive account ofjhe manner of ^emoting Bifhofs in theft fir/res j and then trans- lates Chap* VI. Cyfrianus Ifotimns. 531 teres a part of the Epiftle, with his obfervationsi as follows. It is diligently to be cbferved> as defcend- ing from Vivine Tradition and Apoflolic Practice, and it is afiuaHy obferved -with m ( in Africa ) and generally in aU 'Provinces* that for celebrating Ordi* nations aright, all the Neighbouring Bifhops of the Province, do meet where the People are, who[e Bifhop is to be Ordained, and that be be Chofen in the Vrefence {not by the Votes, ihith J. S. in Parenthefi) oftba People, And itis truCj that, In the Pre fence % and/ By the Voits, are different words J but 'tis as true, as is now evinced, that where ever Cyprian in this cafe fpeafcs of the Vrefence of the People, he means their Approbation, or Votes ; Now follows more of Cyprians words. Which mejl perfeBly knows every Mans Life, And has obfer* vedhis Behaviour by his Cbnverfation : Which courfe alfo we perceive hath, been cbjerved with you in the Ordination of our CcUcgue Sabinus, who has been fromoted to the Bijhoprick with the Suffrage ( which word J. S. explains by the words Approbation, Commendation or Good-liking) of the Fraternity , and by the judgment cf. the Bijkops who were prefent. Where," that which is meant by thefe words, Vlebe Vraferite, in the Prefence of the Veofle, ( to keep to jF. S'$ Tranfbcion ) is the very fame with the meaning of thefe words, Ve Univerfe Fratermtatis Suffragio 5 with, or by the Suffrage tf the whole Fraternity, 'Tis apparent* I fay, from this, and ftore of places eife in Cyprian, that # the Phrafes are equipollent, and the latter Explicative of the former.: But 'tis certain, that no Bifhop could be juftly Ordain'd, except he were Chofen, Plcbe Prafenie, In the Frejence cf Liz ; tU 552 Cypianns Jfotimus. Chap. VI. the People ; Therefore none could be Ordain'd, except he were firft Ghofen Suffragiis Populi, Vlebls, aut Fraternitath, by the Suffrages, the Approbation, Commendation or Good4iking ( J. Sm himfelf being the Interpreter of the word ) of the whole or greater part of the People. Where- fore, a little above in the fame Epiftle,as is alrea- dy noted, where the vulgar Copies read Vide Vrefente, theCfl^e.v Beneventanusi cited by Rigaltius, reads Avhbe^rafentefiy the People being prefentf the Biftiop is Cholen. But befide the Equipol- Iency of the Phrafes, it is demonftrable from a whole legion of places in Cyprian, that no Bifhop was, or cpuid be juftly Ordain'd, until he was Chofen by the Suftrages of the People ; I fay, always by the Suffrages of the People, but never without them. Eat by the word Suffrage J. S. hiirifeif understands Approbation, Commen- dation, or Good* liking ; Ergo, ( J. 5. himfelf being Judge ) the Bimop could never be Cholen but by the Approbation y Commendaticn, and Good- liking of the People, could never be lawfully Ordain'd, until ic was evident that he had this : Now, if there be any material Difference be- tween thefe two, to wit, to be Elected or Chofefl by the Approbation, Commendation, and Good-liking of the People ; and, to be Ele&ed by the ftated Votes of the People • and, therefore, if all along J. $. has not been beating the Air, and at length granted the Truth of that which he fo labourioufly endeavours to difprove, let Men of Judgment and Integrity deter; mine. tf. XII, Chap. VI, Cypriaws lfotiwus. 553 $. XII. He has here an obitinerary Obfer- vation or Inference, viz. This African Council faid, That it defcended from ^Divine Tradition^ that the Neighbouring Bijhops of the Province met, &c« Therefore they believed Epifcopacy to be of Divine ln(iitution. But this his Confequence, not only the Synod, while they own, that in Other Provinces, there was a contrary cuftcm, but alfo J. S. himfelf, while he yields, that thm in Alexandria the TUfhnp was Elettedby the Presbyters, and not by the Neighbouring- Bifnop*, quite overthrows^ for,doubtlefs, the Alexandrines were -as ready to alledge Divine Tradition for theic Cuftom as the Africans for theirs. In fliort, any thing with the Ancients, tho' of but a very imall duration, was wont to be honoured witfx the taking Elogie of Apoftolic or Divine Tradw tion. But what tho' I could anfwer nothing to this ? What tho3 he could twift a Thoufand Confequences, and each of them a Thoufand times harder than this, they would indeed be knots and difficulties, yet they could never much move any, that earneftly confidered that which is above made unqueftionably clear, viz. That Syprian. and his Contemporaries really and firmly Believe, that Chrift never Inftituted any one Paftor, but the Apoftles, and their Succef- fors ; their Succeffors, I fay, in every thing, in which they were capable of Succeffion. But, 1 which is moft obfervable, and alone mines his Enthymem^ the Synod all along in this very Epiftle confounds and reciprocates a Bi/hop with a Paftor ,• and fo looks on Presbyters as no Body. And indeed they are nothing at all, L 1 3 when 534 Cjpriamu lfoiimus* Chap. VI. when opposed unco, or difiinguiftied from Bi- ftops. §. X 1 1 1. But, Orlgen ( faith J-S.(y) ) on Levic 8, 4. accords moft exactly with our Proving cial Synod, So much the worfe for J% S. then : But let us hear Origm : " Although the Lord 4 had laid down Rules about the Infralment of c the High Prieft, and had chofen him, yet the * Congregation is convocated. For in the Ordi- c nation of a Prieft the *PreJence of the People is cneceiTary, that all may know affuredly, that € he, who, of all the People, is the exceilenteft, 4 the learnedeft, the holyeft, and the eminent cteft for all Vertue, is the Perfon chofen to the c Priefthood : And this is done, The People f {landing hy, that rhere may be no room left for 'the Afrer-retra&ations or Scruples : And. this ' is that which the Apoftle commands in the c Ordination of a Biflibp, faying, he muft haV*e * a good Teftimony from theie that are without. Thus far Origcn ; Now fubjoyns J S. " Thus, * I fay, (as the aforementioned African Council, c fo ) Qrigen afcribes no more to the People, but * Prefence and leftimony, and that for the fake of € this. Not one Syllable of the People's Elefiiye € Vott% unlefs it be, that it's fairly excluded by € the whole Grain & Tendency of the Difcourfe. But tho' we fuppofe, that Origeny by the bye dropedfbme words that hurt the Peoples Vote or Tower, yet how light muft they be when laid in the Scales with thefe many Talents with which Cyprian and other Fathers of the Origeman Age have furntfhed us; ^ho* we fuppofg it, I fay, (y) P»fi.«?i. jiot Chap. VL Cyprianus Ifotiixus. 535 not grant it ; for it can never be proved that thefe words exclude the Peoples Power or' Ele&ive Vote, or that there is ought in them, fave this, that the Choife fhould be made in the fight of all Men of whatfoever Condition or Religion ,• yea, fo much Origtn clearly fhews^ .while, to prove what he fays, he brings a Scripture that concerns the Pagans only. Lampridiws faying, that Alexander Sevcrus pub- lifhed the Names of fuch as were to be promoted to be Governours of Provinces, exhiortit-g the People, that if any had any Crime to obje<5fc againft the Perfons, he might make it appear by evident proof, and that he allow'd them this in Imitation of the Chriftians in the promotion of their Bifhops, will help him as little as either Origtn or Cyprian: For, be it, that theEmperoiir faw the Names of Chriftian or Jewifh Candidates pofted up in fome publick places, or had hearTd that this was done ; will it follow, that he knew the whole method and order of the promotion ? Or, tho' he had known it exadHy, will kfollo'w, that he approved, and refolved to Imitate'all of it? If he had done this, then, J.S. himfelf being Judge, he would have caufed every Go- vernour of Province or City to have been Ele&ed by fome number of the Neighbouring Gover- nours without any Dependence on himfelf: But he never did this, but Chufed and Nomina- ted every Governour by his own fole Authori* §% XIV. Before I leave this Suhjeg, take yet another Teftimony or two, out of the Authors of the Cyprhmc Age, Celfus, a Gtfiftian of this. Third 536 OfprUum lfo\mm. Chap. VI* Third Age, in his Dedication of thc-Tranflation * of the Conflict between Jajon and Pavifcus to Vigilim a BiJhop and Confeflbr, gives molt cxprefly the People Power of Chufmg their Bi- fliop ( z )• " Eu(ebim% who flouri&ed ioon after this Age, and records the Affairs done theiein, -1 writes, that both Theoiecnm and Anatolia* were for fome time Together Bifoops of Cefarea of Valefiine and that the latter going to the Synod | of Anttocb, which was conveen'd againft Samofa- tenuswas at Laodicea detain *d by the Brethren *f that place i their BiJhop Euiebius being dead ( a )• The Hiftory ot the Ele&ion of Fabian Bilhop of Rome is no ieis clear, 4* When all the brethren, ' ( faith the fame Author ) or the whole People, * ( as Rufin turns it ) weve gathered in the € Church to Eitft a SuccclTor to their Biiliop, ' Antherus, and many were minded to Eledt feme € Noble and . Uluf.rious Perfons, but no Man * thought on Fabian ,• ?Tis faid^ that a Dove iud* cdenly lighting fat on his head, which feem'd to 4 referable the Image of the Holy Ghoft. who in * the fhape of a Dove had deicended on our * Saviour ( b ). The People beiug moved with (z) Dimicationis Plebis mora, quern potius eligcret Bpifcopumi te quaereiui populo fuo LhriOus inopinatum rcpente obtulic & compJacitum fibi cxleriis provicUntia, mauifefte adventus tui improvifa occurfioue moi.ftiavit. Inter Opera Cypriavt Adfc ;»nra, & ab Epifcoro Oxofi-.tnfi Edira. ( a ) flrpif 7av ifiAQav avriSi K§ yu\fovT©- lv» fid* niTL&jnrai fitxclef. hit* Lib 7. Cap ;2. fM ip* $ T ¥ WapT* MOV tofTi? l/V t! 1$ **l$£[JLtLT@* *-'« K,lwdi*T& l{i\c% m^^v-A'i v en x) y.icf> 4*x* *&op *mGoii« 6. Up. 29. ''—"'■- ~~ • _ ' \ • j_j ^ this / i . ..... L « Chap. Vf. Cjprianus Jfotimus. 537 f this prodigiet and ftirred up by the Divine Spirit, c cry'd out with the heighth of alacrity, and one € confent, that Fabian wasworthv of the Office 1 c And fo prefently placed him in theBi(hop$Chair# §. XV. It were eafie to defcend into the 4th and <;th Centuries; and fhew, that this which I p^opugn was the Do&rine of the Council of Nice ; and, which Cure will pleafe J. S. well, of Leo the Firft, Bifhop of Rome, and pra&is'd in the Eledions of Gecilianus Bifhop of Carthage, of Ambrofe Bifliop of Milain, and of Juguftin and Eradius Biihops of Hippo. Nor had the Chri- ftiao People this Power only de Fafito, as the Papifts alledge, whereof the Bifhops could de- * prive chsm when they pleas'd, but they had it by Divine Right, as Cyprian ( c ) and a whole Synod with him roundly and frequently affirm ; And accordingly we find the People pra&ifing it, from the very beginning of Chriftianity : For, Clemens, the firft Poft-Apoftolick Writer, informs us ('/), That the Corinthian Bijhops or Tresbyters ( for with him* both are one and the fame ) were brought in, or ckofen with Confent of tbs whole Church. But I am confined to the Mo- numents of the Cyprianic Age, and have now made good from them, that the People, in the Election of their Bifhop or Paftor, had more than a (imple and powerlefs Teftimony : 'Tis made clear by the Teftimonies adduced, that in Italy, A/rick and Spain, the Eledion was carried on by mutual Confent of the Neighbouring Bi» (e ) Epift: 67. (d) t«* ovt %*T&?aiivr*t vv ixtiwr, iwwUt vim, Fag. 1Q2. fliopi 538 Cyprianuf lfotmus. Chap. VI? {hops on the one hand, and the People of the va- cant Parifti on the other ; the Bifhopsi or Synod, or Presbytery of the Bounds cquld obtrude none on the People againft their Wiethe People could com pleat theEle<5Hon of none, without the Ap- probation of the Synod of Bifhops in whofe JDiflricSt they lived. And in this the Presbyteri- ans exadly follow the Church of the Cyprianic Jge9 and the Pretatifts altogether defert her. §. XVI. In the laft place, J. S's Dodrine is palpably Fepi(b> againft which our firft Refor- mers earneftiy ftrove, fo foon as ever they were fent forth to fight the Lambs Battels againft the Dragon ; as Luther ( e ), Calvin ( / ), Mufculm (g), Bez,<* ( £), I/lyrius ( i ), and others. On the other hand, the Romani(is% with all their Art and Cunning, oppos'd thefe Champions of Truth, and affirmed with BeUarmin, I. c. that nothing of the Power of Election of Paftors belonged' to the People of Divine Right. If it be cbjeded to BeUarmin , that this his Dodrine is contrary to the Mind of the Fathers, and in fpeciai to Qypriaris, he returns the following Anfwer (£). "I fay, that Cyprian attributes ( t) Cited by Bellar: de Cleric: Cap: 7. (/ ) Inftitut-* Lib: 4: Cap: 4:$: jo, 1 1: (g) Log: Commun: Pag: 249: ( h) In AftlCap: 14: v: 23 : ( 1 ) Apud Bellar: J: c; ( Jf ) Dico Cyprianum hoc loco nihil trifeuere Populo circa Ele&i- ©nes Sacerdotum ; nifi ut ferant Teftimonium de Vita & Moribus Ordinandorum, quod etiam nunc fervatur in Ec- ckfia Catholicat Dicit autem Cyprian™, Populutn habere Potefiatcm Eligendi, & SufFragium Ferendi, quia poteft di- c-rf , (I quid noverit Boni vcl Mali de Ordinando, & fie TeCumonio fua efficere ut eligatur, vel non eligatur. Ita- que hi Vet Populus, fecundum Cyptiani Sententiam, Potefta. livn Eligendi, & Suffragandi per TefiinicniUHlj non per Calculum, more Teftis, non Judicis. ' nothing Chap. VL Cjprlanus lfotimHs. 539 < nothing to the People concerning Ele&ions of € Priefts, but that they give Teftimony concern- * ing the Life and Manners of thefe that were € to be Ordain'd ; and Cyprian faich, that the c People have Power of Ele&ing and giving c Suffrage, becaufe they can tell ifthev know € any Good or Evil of him that is to be Ordain- 8 ed, and fo, by their Teftimony, can bring to c pals, that he may be chofen or not chofen. c Therefore, according to Cyprians Mind, the € People hath the Power of Chufing and giving c Suffrage by way of Teftimony, not by way of * Vote, as a Witnefs* not as a Judge, Thus he. So docile a Schollar has J. S. been to the Jefuite, that, as we have already U^ny neither in Do- ftrine nor Terms, has he gone one hairs-breadth from his Mailer. Vatneli&s ( /), Becanus f m )t and the reft of the Romijh Rout joyn Bellarmin. Yet all thefe Romanics, though they, in Hatred of Truth and ofModefty, outdo even the worft of Mortals, yield, that, about Cyprians time, the People really enjoy 'd more Power than that of a naked Teftimony ,• but this, fay they, the People had not of Right, but only out of the Connivance of the Biihops, until they faw it fit to take it back again. Judg therefore of J. S% who blufhes not to avow, that then the People had neither in Right nor Ta£t, one Grain of Power, b;;fides a firnple and naked Teftimony ; and now, when thefe Vhiliftines have been long fince driven tp their Heals by Junius, Chamitru$y Gulartius, WiUet, J^ Crccius, Blondel, and other ( / ) Annotic: ad Gypn Ep*ft; 6j; alias 68: ( r» ) Man- nu*l;Lib; l: Cap; vz, fuch 540 Gyfrittnus Ifotlmusl Chap. VI. fuch Worthies, dares and threatens the Reform* ed World with thele blunted Weapons, that he has ftollen out of the Armory of the Jebufites. \ Nor had the People this Intereft and Power on- ly in the Calling of their Bilhop or Paftor, but * alfo in the Management of other Affairs of the Church, they could by themfelves, or, which is much more convenient and commodious, ( as is now proved) by their Seniors, their Delegates, and Reprefentatives, preferve their Sacred Liber- ties from the Clergies Encroachments : And this conftitutes a Tenth Difference between the typri- anic and Hierarchic Bifhop : And thofe Seniors or Ruling Elders they juftly believ'd to be of DLr vine Right. §. XVIL J. S. fpends his whole Eight Chap- . teragainft this Worfoitful Order ( as he fcornfully terms Ruling Elders ) ; and yet the only notice- able Argument he advances againft 'em, is, in fumm, this, that the Afferting of 'em is not Confident with the Presbyterian Dodrine of ^Dichotomizing the Church Officers; " G. R. € himfelf ( faith he) (n) will not allow them to c be fought for among the Deacons, and no Man ' ever faid, G. R: himfelf will not fay, that his c Ruling Elders are of the lame Order withpa- c ftors. But this Argument quite evani/hes, if we repone, that thofe Elders are the Reprenfa- tives of the Sacra TUbs, or of the Church, as fhe is oppofed unto, or diftinguifh'd from Church Officers, properly fo call'd, Biftiops, or Paftors, and Deacons ; and therefore, that they are not, in a ftrid Senfe, Church Officers. For I ( n ) Chap; 8; §: 2 2i am Chap. VI. Cypriams lfotimus. 54* am fa well affured of this Truth* that only Bi«] (hops, or Presbyters and Deacons are, in a pro- per and ftrid Senfe, Church Officers, that, if any thing I ever laid can be prov'd to contra- dict this, I willingly revock and retrad it. J. S. refers his Antagonift to Blondels Book it JuH Vlebis ; As wherein the Orier of Ruling Elders is fully and inda/frioufly overthrown. What has he faid there ? Why ? He appears in ity with all his might, for tht Intereji of the whole People. And therefore, he is clear for the Do&rine I maintain : But, tie apply es himfelf downright to iijftrove the Divine Infiitution of the Order of Ruling Elders* I affirm,that he has not done fo, and that he only denyes, that Ruling Elders belong to the Clergy, as 'tis oppofite unto, or diftindl from the People ; he neicher deny'd, nor difproved any -• more. " His main Scope (faith J. S. ) obliged * him to it. For, if all, and every one of the c People, have, by Divine Right, fuch an In- € tereft in the Government of the Church, as he * pleads for, how had it been accountable, that * likewife, by Divine Right, there ftiould have * been a certain Order of Men fee apart to Re- c prefent the People i But I am of the Mind, that the quite contrary Conclufion follows much rather, than this of J< S. from his Antecedent ,• fincethe Churches priviledges, and the neceifa* ry means to preferve them, muft itand on the fame* Foundation ; and accordingly Blondel judges, that usmoft probable, that, in the time of the Apoftles,not the whole Multitude,buc only their Seniors, uud to Conveen tor Churns of ~ their S42 Cyprianns Ifotintut. Chap. VI# their Deacons, or fuch Affairs. ( o ) He be- lieves, that the Protectant Churches of France 5 otlandand Holland, in their fetting up of Ruling Elders, did rc-introduce into the Church aPn£ dice truly Apoftolic. And, finally, he looks on Downame, Laud, and other Adorers of the Hie- rarchy, as little better than mad, when thSy rail againft this Cuftom ( p ). This Hypothefis of B/ondel differs not, for Subftance, from that which other Presbyterians hold of Ruling Elders; and 'tis propugn d by many and moft Learn'd Divines: I (hall only name one or two of the Church of England, that J. 5. may lee, that he has fome other Adverfaries to deal with, befide the Presby- terians. Biftiop Jewel? cites and approves this faying of the Cardinal of Arks in the Council of Cenflance ( gr ) ; ''When the Apoftles had any * great Matter to determine, they durft not to c difcufs it by themfelves alone, but called the c Multitude to fit with them. And Whitafar ( r ), having cited the i f , of the Atts 6. and 22. fays. " ?Tis evident from * thofe places, that not only* the Apoftles, but * alio the Elders, yea, and even the People c were prefent in this Council, and had therein (0) Vcl per Scniorcs ( fcilicet cong^egabatur Multitu- de)) a fingulis convencibus partialibus Delegatos, in qui- bus, tora per Regiones infeftae Urbi* fpaxfaFrarerniras, ca- pita cum pjspcticis fuis con!ci et, occ Pag: 262*: Edir: Francefurt. 690. ( p ) P?g: 2*7, 258. . ( cf ) Defence of the Apology- P«rc r£: ?*%'■ 41. ^r ) Dc Concil: Qa^ft: 3: Cap: 3: Ex bis lecis martifeftum eft, non modo Apoftolos, verum etiam Presbyreros, a* que adeo Popuium ipftMrr, 6 Uaiverfam Ecclefiam, in hoc Cpacilio adfttilTc, & Suf- fragium DefiaiUYura habuiffe. r3 Chap. VI. Cyprian** Ifotimus. 545 * a Decifive Vote. He egregiouily clears the place of all the Duft the Jefuite had caft on it, affirjns (J)y " That the Apoftles called thePeo- € pie to Council, and that every Laick in it had c a Definitive Vote, no lefs than had Peter him* ' {elf. He fays, finally, ( s ) " That anciently, Q princes, Presbyters, Senators, Judges, and other ' Laick Perfons were not only prefent at Coun- c cils, but alfo gave their Votes Subfcribed and c Defined. WiUet is of the fame Mind. u That € Lay-men alfo ( faith he ) ( ' t ) with Priefts ' ought to be admitted : Firft, We have Tefti- f mony out of the Word of God for it, T%%.%.\%. c For this • caufe Zenas the Lawyer is joyned € as Fellow in Commiffion with Apofos. But c we have a more evident place, Affs i j. 22. It * feemed Good to the Affiles and Elders with thz c whole Church. Here we fee, that not orijy the c Elders, but the whole Multitude were admit- c ted into Confultation with the Apoftles. "The c Jefuite faith ( u ), That none but the Apoftles c gave Sentence/ the reft only gave Confenr, ' and inward Liking and Approbation. This * Cavil Arelatenfu met withal, long before the * Jefuite was born, in the Council of Bafil. * Neither this Word, ( faith he) It feemed Good, 4 fignifieth in this place, Conjugation, but Vecifi- ( / ) In hoc ergo Concilio quivis Laicus & Presbyter De- finttivum Suffragmm lubuic, non minus quam Pet? us . ( $ ) Pxiacipes, Presbyteii, Senatores, Judices, aliiquc Homines Laid, Conciliis Sacris & Ecclefiatf jcis non inter- file runt modo, verum etiam Sententias dix^runt, Subfcrip- ftrunc, Defin\crttJnt% (t ) Csacioy; 3: Q^sf; 4: Pag: "*. (u) Ibid; * en. 544 Cjprianus Ifotmus. Chap. VI. . * on> and Determination. And fo it doth indeed ; 4 for feing there is one Word applyed to them € all %J[^§ placuit, It feemed Good to the dpojiks, JLU € ders, and the -whole Multitude ; why fhould it 1 not be taken in one and the fame Senfe, and c after the fame manner underftood of them all ? The Proteftant Divines do not only prove the Hypothefis I fuftain, by this pkee of the Afts, but they bring Arguments for it from other Scriptures of both Teftaments, from Reafon, and Natures Light* and the Confeffion of Ad^ verfaries. $. XVIII. I cann't, indeed, during the firft Three Centuries, find exprefs mention of thefe Seniors or Ruling Elders ; for I freely pafs from fome Words ot Tertullian and Origin, which I (x ) elfewhere overly mentioned, as containing them ; as alfo from what I faid of the Ignatian Presbyters their being Ruling or Non Preaching Elders, and that without giving of much Advan* tage to the Diocefanifts, iince in, or about the Cyprianic Age, in which time,, as I judge, the Author or Interpolator wrote, there were be- longing to the fame Church, pari(h, or Congre- gation, divers Presbyters, who Preached little, if any; and yet had Power to Difpenfe the Word and Sacraments. Notwici fielding thofe myReceffions, lam perfwacied, that there were Lay*Seniors, that Shared in the Managcment of Ecclefiaftic Affairs, Represented the People, and Preferved their Liberties, and fo muci I truft I have already evinced: 'Tis mo.eover clear from hence, chat the Writers ot the Fourth ( * ) Naz:C&ei; Paicia.-SeQ:* and Chap. VF. Cyprianus Ifotimus. 54$ and Fifth Ages either exprefly affirm it, or clear" ly fuppofe it. The Words of Ambrofe or Hilary I elfewhere (y ) produced md vindicated a- gainft Dr. Field. ]. S. feerns to fay, that Hilary does not mention Non-Preaching Seniors, and fays ( Z ), He'll give bis Reajons for his Jo faying, when he is put to it. But I gave him long fince occafion to produce them; and therefore, I judg, he has them yet to forge. He adds, That Hilary {ays concerning thofe Seniors he mentions, that they were quite out of Doors, long before he wrote thoje Commentaries. But all here he fays, is, that they were well nigh aboli(h*d in his own time, not at all that they were not in beeing in the cypriank Age, Optatus is no lefs clear for our purpofe ; for he informs us (a ), " Thac Mtn/urius, Bi- * /hop of tartbage, being, during MaxentiussVtt- i fecucion, commanded to Court* delivered fome c Gold and Siiver Veflfcb, which he could not € otherwife difpoie of, to the Seniors, judging c them Faithful, who yec, in the time of his Sue- -« ceffor Ctecilian, proved falfa, and, adding * Schifm to their Sacrilege, joyned with LuciUay € a Powerful and Factious Woman, in hatching c the Donatifts. To this fence writes Optatus : And I doubt not hence to conclude, that we have here the Lay- Elders we feek for. cc What? ( faith}. S. ) ( b ) " Shall we (till have an Order ' of Church Officers of Divine Jnftitution, Su- ' periour to Deacons? Inferiour to Priefts, or c Paftors, lntrufted with the Power of Govern- € ment and Difcipline3 but none of the Sacra- (y) Naz. Quer. Part a. SeQ. 4. ( z) Cbap. 8. §.15. (*) Lib. 1. (Y) Chap. 8.§. i9t M m 'ments, 546 Cyprianuslfotimur. Chap^ VI. c ments, where-ever we find the Word Seniores i * And what more: have we but the bare Word in 4 Optatus ? But this can make nothing, as is evi- dent from the preceeding Difcourfe, againft my Hypothefis% which disjoyns thefe Elders from the Clergy, and makes them the Reprefentacives of the People, and Guardians of their Liberties: This, I fay, isfufficiently proved by this place ,• for, tho* we have only the Word Seniores or El* ders, yet, feing thefe belonged not to the Clergy, as, I think, J. 5, yields, and feing there were yet C for this A&ion of Mcnfurius fell out before Gonftantiris time ) no Chriftian Magistrates, nor Chriftian Senators of Burroughs, thefe Se- niors or Elders were, of necefficy, the Repre- fentatives of the Chriftian People, and Preferv- ers of their Rights.. " We have ( faith J. 5, ) Optatus more than once reckoning up all the Orders of the Church, but always fo, as that you (hall not find a Ruling Elder among them. Thus, Lib. u he diftributes all Chriftians into five Ranks. i% The Laicks. 2. The Mini\\riy the Under-Officers, Sub-Deacons, Acolytbs, Doer* Keepers* &e. 3. The Deacons. 4. The Vresby- ters. f. The Bifiops. Now, letG. R. try his Skill, and tell us, to which of thefe five Ranks he can reduce his Ruling Eldeis. I freely an- fwer, To that of the Lahh : But, ro this An- fwer he oppqies Ovtatus's Words, That the Laicks "were underprop" d by no Ecctefiaftical Dignity^ that is, they did not properly belong to the Clergy. But this is fo far from hurting me, that it is pare of the very Hypotbefis I affert. But then they are Jvfrriour to Dtaccns ; But I am of the Mind, that In- Chap. VI. CyfrmxHs Ifotimns. 547 Inferiority or Superiority has fcarceany place in the Affair. We need noc compare the Deacons with the Seniors, but only with Bifhops, Pres* byters, and other Ranks of the Scale to which they belong. But Til fuppofe, that Superiority and Inferiority may be here admitted ; yet can any think, that thefe Seniors were not, in refpeft of the Intereft they had in Church Affairs, be* fore the Church Door-keepers and Grave-dig- gers ? But fuch Elders are -without Divine Ap- pointment. But I am fo far from believing this, that I believe I have proved the very contrary. Auguftin feconds Optatus ; for he dire&s his 137 Epi ftleffl the moft dear Brethren, the ClergieySeniors or Elders* and the whole People of the Church of Hyp" po ; And in his ;^/Book againft Crefconius, Chap* 7.9. he mentions Presbyters i Deacons, and Seniors or Elders. And Chap. ^6. Peregrin a Vresbyter, and the Elders of the Church of MufHcan. Add to all thefe the Atls of the Purgation tfCz* cilian, which are elder than the Council of Nice, and printed wich Albaffintuss Notes on 0/>- tatus ; for there, fome having alledged, that Lu- eita had given Money to get Ma\orinus made a Bifliop, add, That all the Bifbeps, the Priejis, the Deacons and Elders bad knowledge of it. And fome lines after, a Bifhop called Vurpurius writes to Silvanus Bilhop of Cirthey who was accufed of feveral things, To employ thefe of his Clergy , and the Elders of the Teopte, which are EccU- fiaftical Perfons ; to the end, they might give an account of thofediffentions. And in the follow* ing Page, there is mention made of a Letter writ to the Clergie9 and to the Elders. And fix Pages af- M m 2 ter, 54^ Cyptianus Ifotimus. Chap. V/# tcr, one Maximus fayeth, I fpeak in the name of the Elders, and Chriftian People of the Ca- tholick Law. Now, I am perfwaded, it ought to be granted, that all thefc four Authors fpeak of one and the fame kind of Seniors or Elders ; and therefore, which J. S. objeds jp. 1 3. & 15* tho' Jerom and others of the Fathers men** tion them not, it cann't (hake our Affertion ,• fince 'tis certain from all thefe Teftimonies, that thefe Elders or Seniors belonged not unto the Clergy, and yet were Ecclefiafticks, even the Reprefentatives of the People, as the People was oppofed unto, or diftind from the Clergy, which is the very Pofition I fuftain. §. XIX. This is yielded by Bifhop Wbitegift ( c ), 4i Both c the Names and Offices of Seniors were extin* * guiflhed before Amhroje time, as he himfelf doth c teftifie, wriring upon the fifth of the fir ft to € Timothy. Indeed as Ambroje faith, writing up- c on the fifth of the firft to Timothy, the Syria- € g°gue» anc* 8fter (he Church had Seniors, c without whofe Councell nothing was done in * the Church, but that was before his time, and c before there was any Chriftian Magiftrates, or • any Church eftablilhed. J. S. faith, " That he ( t ) Defence, &$. Pag: 63$. ( d ) Pag 6s r. 1 hath Chap. VI. Cyprhnus Ifoimut. 549 • hath no where affirmed, that there was fuch € an Order of Divine Right, or in St. Cyprians 4 time, or of Cacholick Acceptation ( e ). But who can deny, that Hilary, to whom Whitegift affents, makes them to be, if not of Divine Right, ( for Whitegift allows very little to be of Divine Right ) yet to have ftill been in all Churches from the beginning of Chriftianiry ? He adds, that Whitegift had no ether ground for faying fo9 hut the Teflimony of the PJeudo-Ambrofe. But 'tis now evident, that, if he diligently read the An- cients, he had more. In a word, Whitegift ac- knbwiedges, that Hilary fyoks Truth, that, from the Infancy of Chriftianity, there were, befide the Paftors, other Rulers or Seaiors, without whom nothing of weight was done ; that they were fuch Seniors, whofe place# as he though^ the Chriftian Magiftrate, when he came, might fupply 5 and therefore, that thefe Seniors were no Paftors, or Difpenfers of the Word and Sacra- ments. If then Whitegift s Confefiion may be ad- mitted ( and doubtlefs it may in the Cafe ) J. S. and his Affociates do very unjuftly al ledge, that Lay-Elders were Strangers to the Primitive Church. $. XX. He here fays, that the Authors of the Jus Divinum Rggiminis EccUftafiici have notoriously abusi their Reader, in citing Thorndike for Ruling Elders*. And'tis true, that thorndike himfelf al- ledges no lefs, but moft injurioufly : Take the Words they quote. " There is no reafon to ' doubt, that the Men whom the Apoftle, 1 Cor, ' 12. 28. Epbef.4, 11. calleth Do&ors, are thefe (#) Chap. f, §. s>, Mm? [ of 55° C)prhnus Ifolimus. Chap. VI. * of the Presbyter?, who had the Abilities of 1 Preaching and Teaching the People at their c Aflemblies ; That thofe of the Presbyters that * Preached not, are called here by the Apoftle, € Governments; And the Deacons #071**411*, that is * Helps or A0ants to the Government of Presbyters, € fo that it is not to be tranfiUted Helps in Govern- ' ments,butHelpsyGdvernments.And, " There were c two parts of the Presbyters Office, in Teaching c and 'Governing, the one whereof fome atcaind ' not, even in the Apoftlcs times, Thefe Words Yborndike jdenyes not to be his, and wherein they differ from that which thefe Divines, and many other Presbyterians maintained of Ruling Elders, I cann't learn. That which J% S. has brought out of Tborndike, for I have not the Book, is little, fave Mift and Scoffing : He fays indeed, That no Man can (htw by any Writing of any Cbriftian, from the Apofi/es, to this Innovati* en, C that is our Reformation from Popery ) any Man indowed with the Power of the Keyes, that was not alfo Qualified to Preach and Celebrate the Eucba- ri[i. And thefe Words I underltand;but how they agree with thefe adduced by the London Mini- fters, I confefs I do not. His whole 'Charge leans on this, that they believ'd the Elders they pleaded for, to be meer Lay-Men ; J know i faith he ) many Church Writers are quoted t$ prove Lay Elders, &cc. Which yet they never thought, but the very contrary: This Mr.Tkw- dike could not but know, and therefore cannot be abfolv'd of unfair Dealing. £. XXL Other Hierarchies propugn this Di- ftin<3ion of Preaching and Ruling Eldtrs \ z%Fu\k an Chap VI. Cyprianus lfotitHfts. 551 an Epifcopal, when J. S. pleafes, Dr. Fell (f) and Dodwd (g), and, as do many Presbyterians, ( not all ) they found ic on 1 Tim. 5. 17. and find this Diftindion in Cyprians 29 Epiftle, and other Monuments of the Ancients. But ( fairh Mr. Dodwell ) the Modern Scbifmaticks ( the Pres- byterians ) fenfelef) infer, that the Elders who la- bour not in the Word and Doctrine are Laicks. But he /houid have known, that fuch Presbyterians as fuftain the Diftindion of Preaching, and Non- Preaching Ruling Elders, and found it on 1 Tim. 5. 17. infer no fuch thing, but affirm the latter to be Church Officers, as well as the former : His Reafon of this Imputation is, becaufe they concludei that thofe Ruling Elders have no Power to Difpenfe the Lord's Supper ; and he makes the Presbyterate a proper Priefthood fuc- ceeding to that of Aaron, and the Lord's Supper a proper Sacrifice as was the Aaronick ; and fo, according to him ( b )> the Office of Preaching is not at all eflential to the ?rie(lbood or Presby- terate, and therefore not at all incumbent on Priefts or Presbyters by vertue of their Function, more than it was on the Levitical Priefts by ver-» tue of theirs,whofe proper Office was to Sacrifice, and fo far from including that of Teaching and Exhorting the People, that very few Priefts em- ploy'd themfelves therein. ThisDo&rine is re- 'ally %pmifh, deftroys the very Idea and Nature ( O In Epift typ 29. (g) Diffcrt: Cyf: 6, §: 4> j, g; ( h ) Cum eriam ex receptis aetatis fuse moribus fuas p]e* rumque confuetudines mutuo acceperint Chnftiani • vix puto ulluai fuilTe cxemplum quo Docendi Munus cum Sa- cerdotio effee neceffario conjunftumj &c. 552 Cyprianus lfotimns. Ghap. VI. fa Gofpel Miniftry. and is fo far from having **ny Footing in Scripture, that a very few Texts * as Afts 20. 17, 28. Epbef. 4. 11. Philip. 1. I. S Tim. % .% 1, cfc. 7/r. 1. y, c^£. 1 Vet. 5. 1, c£*. whence tis moft manifeft, that Bi/hop, Presbyter and Paftor are reciprocally one and tne idtne, andchatthe main and fpe* cial Office of this Officer is to Teach and Exhort the People, no lefs than to Difpenfe either Sacra- jpent, and nor at all to Sacrifice in any proper lenfe ) are abundantly fufficient to fecure any Honeft and Thinking Proteftant from the Dan- ger and Hurt intended. Nor has it any better ground in Cyprian, and the other Monuments from which he labours to bring it : For he (hall never prove, that any Presbyters, who had Power to Difpenfe the Lord's Supper, wanted the Power of Preaching : But this by the way ; the main thing I intend here being to evince, that the chiefeft Hierarchies didingui/h Presby- ters into Preaching and Nonbreaching or Ruling Eiders, and found (his Diftindion on 1 Tim. 5-. 17. as do fome Presbyterians : This, I think, I have now done, and fball therefore goon, and add to that of fVhitegift the Teftimony of another famous Prelarift for Lay Eidirs ; I mean Saravia. For ( i ) he alfents to Ambrojt ( or Hilary ) his faying, That the Synagogue, and rfttr, the Church had klders or Seniors, without whfe Counjel nothing w done. And {k) he allows, ''That thefe Seni* ( 1) DcDiverfis Grad4 Minifirerum, Cap: H. (t) Sed adjungumur Paftonbus Ecelcfix, tanquam Adfcflbres & Confiiiarii ; ut videant nc iortc Poceftace Ecckfuftica Pa- fterci abutantur.^lbid. . ors Chap VI. Cyfriannt Jfotimus. 553 ' ore be either fome of the Magiftrates. or other c fit Mem who ought to affift the Paftors with c their Counfel, and take Care, that they abufe € not their Power. He howerer is ty the Ears with Whitegift and with himfelf too ; for he im finuates, that fuch Seniors there could not be under an Infidel Magiftrate ; the Englijh Church Wardens, in Veetims Mind, are the Veftigej and Rubbifti of thefe Ruling Seniors. §. XXII. And now, as I truft, it is clear, that the Hierarchies, who load the Reformed Churches with all imaginable contempt and reproach, becaufe they ufe thofe Ruling Seniors, are either moft ignorant or moft unjuft; but chiefly J. S. and the reft of the Scottifh Prela tills, fince they ftill retain d the cuftom as ic had been before, and had in each Parifh a Seflion made up of a Curate and fome of thofe Seniors. But 'tis not ftrange,if Men of Oligarchic and Ty- rannical Principles bef through their Hatred and blind Fury againft the Sacred Liberties of God's Church, hurried into fuch wild and unaccount- able Tenets ; the fame Men, moreover, at the fame time when they rail on the Reformed Churches for allowing to Lay Elders, or the Reprefentatives of God's People, a (hare in the Management of Church affairs, admit, for the very Head of their Church, one whom they muft confefs to 6e a meer Laic, and give to him the Supream> if not the Sole Power in all Church affairs. jf.XXIII. This moft neceffary and Sacred Ordi- nance has in all well Reformed Churches ftill been carefully obferr ed,and refolutely propugned; and 554 Cyprian** Ifotimus. Chap, VI. and.on the other hand,moft eagerly impugned,& virulently defamed by the Papifts, as Schuitingiu*y Sanderus^ Stapletonus> Galenut, and Others cited by the mod Learned Vutius ( I ): Nor (they are the Words of the feme Excellent Perfon ) is this a wonder, fence nothing is more ofpofete to the Tapal Monarchy and Antichriflian Tyranny^ than is the lnftitutiou of Ruing .Elders. Oar Prelatifts, as their cuftom is, are in this alfodear Friends to the Papifts > as is to be feen in jhe moft of their Books ; and both Papifts and Pre- lacies ufe one and the fame kind of Arguments, which for the moft part confift of fcoffing and railing. Bat, asisfaid, the far greater and bet- ter part of the Reformed Churches and Divines ftill propugn'd this practice as< moft neceffary and warrantable : That famous Divine, that burning and (hining Light in this Church, Mr. George Gittefyie names fome of them, befide thofe I have already named : Take his words ( m ). " When the Council of Trent was firft fpoken of c in the Dyet &t Norimberg 5 Anno 15-22. all the c Eftates of Germany deiired of Pope Adrian the c 6. That admittance might be. granted as well * to Lay-men as to Clergymen, and that not only c as WitnefTes and Spectators, but to be Judges ' there* This they could not obtain, therefore 1 they would not come to the Council, and * pubHflhed a Bobke which they entituled, Caufa € cur EUBoris & Cstteri Confeffioni Augu/iana addiBi € ad Concilium Tridentinum non accedant : Where (/) Polit. Ecclef. Part 2. Lib. i.Traft. 3. Cap. 4. § *• ( m ) An A&rtion of the Government of tfce Church of Scotland. Fart 1* Chap. 13. chey Chip. VI. . Cyprianus lfotimus. 555 4 they alleage this for one caufe of their not c coming to Trenty becaufe none had Voice 1 there but Cardinals, Bifhops, Abbots, Generals, € or Superiours of Orders, whereas Laicks alfo ' ought to have a decifive Voice in Councils. And again (») "Our Divines prove aejainft * Papifts that fome of thefe whom they call Laicks * ought to have place in the Affemblles of the c Church by this Argument among the reft '• ' becaufe otherwife the whole Church could not ? be thereby reprefented. And ( 0 ) " It is plain * enough that the Church cannot be reprefemed c except the hearers of the Word, which are the c farre greateft part of the Church be reprefen- ' ted. By the Minifters of the Word they cannot * be represented more then the Burghes can be ' reptefented in Parliament by the Noblemen c or by the Commifltoners of Shires ; therefore ; by fome of their owne kind muft they be repre- c fented, that is by fuch as are Hearers and not * Preachers, Now fome Hearers cannot repre- * fent all the reft, except they have a Calling and c Commiffion thereto; and who can thofe be but ' Ruling Elders. Gerjbom *Bucer holds it for a Proteftant Principle, That Laicks are to be admitted into Synods (p )% And ( j ) " Thofe c Eiders were chofen out of the whole Multitude ' of the Faithfulli and by the Apoftles admitted € into a (hare -of the Government, that they : might reprefent the whole Church. Voetitts makes the Elders a kind of Ephori, that is, Tre* fervers of the Churches Liberties, and Injftefiors over the Paftors ( r J. I'll fhut up all with the ( n ) Part 1 . Chap. 4. ( O Ibid, (f ) De Gubern. Ecclcf. Pag. 28. (?)Pag. >*, (r)Part2.Lib. 3. Traft, 3. Cap. 4» §. '. words 55^ Cfprianmt Jfotimus. Ghap. Vf. words of the Learnd and Venerable Bezst. fTis the Churches great concern, for keeping out of Tyranny, that fome chofen out of the People know what is done in the Confiftories and Ecclefiaftical Jurifdidion, and how exa&Iy the Laws made concerning thofe Affairs are obfer* ved : As anciently at Romeu was provided, lor reftraining the Power of the Senate, that the Tribunes of the People fhould be prefent at it, and have power of withftanding by a Negative Voice the Senates Decrees (/), §. XX I V. I (halt not now longer infift on the Differences or Contrarieties between the Gyprianic and Modern Bifhops : Weigh well thofe which I have, in the former and this Chapter, colleded,and fay, if youcant that tht Cyftiank Bifbop was not in many, and the moft valuable refpeds, much liker to our Paftor, than to your Prelate. Would you be content, on fuppofiti- on> that we would embrace the Cyfrianic Epiico- pacy > to do the like ? No ; you would not : You would fay as Hiram faid of the Cities Solomon gave him ; What Epifcopacy is this you have given us ? Yea, you would even call it Cabul, and defpife it. And here let me notice a heavy charge J. S. brings againft the Scottifh Presbyte- rians i for he ipends a dale of his iff. Chapter, (/) De Diverfis Gradibus Miniftrorum. Chap, u. Ad hxz & illud acccdic, quod Ecckfis ad Eccleiiafticam Tyannidem vitandam maxime intcrcft, ur aliqui eciam ex populo norint, quid in Confiftoriis, & Ecckiiaftica Jurif- di&ione gsratur, & q