1 I £C5 **-3r? 'L rvr^A /C I (J^Tv^^^-f Sc5 11 THE Ancient Biffiops CONSIDERED; Both with refpe£t to the Extent of Their JURIS DIC TIO N, Nature of ThekToWER. In ANSWER to Mr. ChiUingworth and Others. WHEREIN The Conformity of the Government and Difcipline of the Church of Scotland, with that of the Anci- ent Church, is fully manifefced: And it is made evident, that the Minifters of the Gofpel, or Paftcrs of the Parijhes, are not Presbyters but £/- Jhops ; and that the Government ot the Church by Presbyteries, Synods, General Ajfemblies, and Commijjions of General AJfemblies, is not Presbyteri- an but Epijcopal Government. By Alexander Lauder^ Minifter of the Gofpel at Aiordentoun. Epifcopi Sacerdoxesje effe noverint^ non Domivos. Hi- eron. Ep. ad Nepocia. Quid eft enim Paulus, vel quid Apollo ? Vtique Miniftri ejus in quern credidiftit. Eft ergo in univerfis $trvi» emtbus,non Dominium, fed Minijlerium. Optat. Lib. 5 , Quantum arrogantia tumor eft, quanta kumilitaxii & U- nitatti oblivio, arrogwxix fua quanta jatlath, ut quit aut audeax, aux fa<:ere fe p$Jfe crelat, quod vxc ApoftolU coneeffn Dominut ! Cypr. Ep. 55. E D 1 N B V F^G H: Printed by James Wttfon in Craig's Clofti 17 in PREFAC E- TO offer at this time a Day, to anfxoer Mr I CnillingworthV Demonft ration of Epif- copacy, or, Archbifl)op UfherV Original of Bifhops and Metropolitans, old Wri- tings, and which may be fuppos'd to be long ago buried in oblivion ; may perhaps be thought an odd and improper Vndertaking, and be imputed to a contentious Humour, or an unreafonable Defire to revive ancient Debates, and perpetuate Heats and Animofities in the Church. But conjideringthefe Writings were not longfince reprinted at Edinburgh, with a Defign, no doubt , to make us believe, That the Government which is now calCd Epifcopal, is the fame with that which was infiituted by the Apojiles, and was the Government of the Ancient Church in the pureji Ages ; andfeing the Party, as may be eajily judged, will readily cry them up a* Vnanfwerable, andpre- tendthey prove to a DemonHration, That our pre-, fent Happy Efiabli/hment is not capable o\ a ratio- nal Defence ; I thought I would not be condemn 9 d by equitable Perfons, if I fliould undertake to dif- cover the Canity of fuch a Pretence, or make it appear, That that Epifcopacy which was of late fojuftly thrown out of this Church, ( andwhich 9 as we have good Ground to hope, flail never infeji ? Z ' it iv The Preface. it again any more, the Government thereof as it is noxp EJlablifljed, being made a Furldamental Article of the Vnion betwixt the two Kingdoms, and declared Unalterable by the Parliament of Great-Britain in all time coming) is not at all proven by thefe or the like Writings, to be either Apoftolical or Ancient : And confequently, that they who build their Practice onfuch weak and unfound Foundations, have need to confider, how they will be able to anfwer before God, for their rending his Church, by making a Schifm therein, and keeping up a fcandalous and unaccountable Divjfion amongft us. I have not infilled fo much as I might on proving, The ancient Bifliops were only Paftorsofone Congregation, this being done already to excel- lent purpofe by fever al Eminent Pcrfons, fuch as Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Clarkfon, and others, to whofe Learn'd and elaborate Writings I mujl refer the Reader for more full fat isfaftion as to this Particular \ Only I have feletted a few of their Arguments, which I judged to be Decifive of the Controverfy, and vindicated them, mani- jefting the Weaknefs and frivoloufnefs of Dr. Mau- ri ceV Exceptions again fl: them. Neverthelefs I have inftfted more largely on the Cyprianick7V#w, Juppofing I have gained my Point, if I make it ap- pear, That all the Bifhops then, were what we now call Paftors of Parifhes. I look 'd ont as more peculiarly my Bufinefs, to anfwer the Arguments of our Prelatijls for the Epifcopal Sovereignty, or by which they undertake to prove, the ancient Bijfjops had Abfolute Power, or at leaft a Negative Voice in their Churches, patched up from Sentences, Phrafes, and Modes 'f The Preface. v of Expreffion in the Works 0/ Cyprian, and other Authors in and before his time •, or the way a:id manner of wording things in Canons of ancient Coun- cils : And if I have followed an unufual Method here, and that be reckon' d fomething bold, Jftjall think it now if e below me to ret raft, as foon as any V erf on makes it evident by folid Arguments, the way I have taken is not rational. However, it my ft be remembered, that a Scoff and Jeer, orfaucy Refleftions, which fome ufe to have recourfe to, when they find they can make no other Anfwer, will not betaken for Probation. I defire it may be obferved here, that this whole Controverfy turns principally on thefe two Points. Wherefore they who undertake to prove, That that which is now call'd Epifcopal Government, was the Government of the Ancient Church,muft prove by convincing Arguments, ift. That they who were caird Bi/hops in the three firit Centuries, had DiocefTes confiding of many diftinct Con- gregations, and Presbyters under them acting as conftant Paftors of thefe Congregations, by daily Preaching the Word, and Adminiftration of Sacraments. And 2dly. That thefe Biihops had Abfolute Power ever thefe Churches and Paftors, or at leaft a Negative Voice. And if thefe be not proved clearly and difihiclly, nothing is done topurpofe : For, if the Epijcop.il Dioce(fes during thefe Centuries, were only Congregational Churches, in which the Bifoopsthemf elves officiated a* daily and conftant Paftors ; and if they had tie ii her Abfolute Power nor a Negative l^oice, the Paftors of our Pariffjes, or they who are reckon d Presbyters in this Age, are Biihops of th* fame kind \ and any little difparity that m iy be vi The Preface. be inftanced, will never amount to the conjiituting a Specifical Difference betwixt 'em. If this be carefully minded by thefe who perufc the Writings of tht Prelatifis on this Controversy^ they will quickly perceive , that few or none of " < em touch the Point, and that the Arguments thefe Writers generally infiji on are defe£llve and So- phifiical. Some of them will tell you, That the Priefts were fuperiour to the Levites, and that it is not reafonable to fuppofe, That what was inftituted by Divine Appointment under theoldTeftament in matter of meer Government, and for prefer- vation of good Order, fhould be abrogated un- der the New -, That the Apoftles were fuperior to the Seventy Difciples ", That the Angels of the Seven Churches in the Book of the Revelation were Diocefan Bifhops } as alfo, Timothy and Titus : And that Bifliops are mention'd as diftinft from Presbyters, or fuperior to them, in the Writings of Ignatius, lertullian, Origen, Cypri- an, &c. Others of them fay, That James was Diocefan Prelate oijernfalem, becaufe Peter faid, ABs 12. 17. Gofhew thefe things unto James, and to the Brethren, Why to James ? but becaufe he was Diocefan Prelate. And Gal. 2. 12. For be- fore that certain came from James, &c. And ASts 21. 18. The day following, Paul went in with us unto James and all the Elders, or Presbyters. were nrefcnt: Were they equal with James i No, for he was Chief} he was Prelate over them, their AfTembly iscall'd by his Name, &c. In like manner, That Ananias was Diocefan Prelate of Damafcm, becaufe he baptiz'd Paul who was a grievous Perfecutor, Baptifm being reck- The Preface. vii rcckon'd the Prerogative of the Bifhop in the Ancient Church, &c. That Paul's faying to Jimothy, If a Man defire the Office of a Bifhop^ he defireth a good Work, a Bijhop then muti bt blamelefs,&cc. isaCommiffion (upon Record ) iflued out for the fetting up of Diocefan Epifco- pacy *, That his faying to Titus, for this cauft left 1 thee in Crete, &c. was adireft Command to Titus to fet up Diocefan Epiicopacy forthwith in that Ifle, &c. +. But what can be made of all this ? Nothing at all againft Scotifti Presbytery, and as little for Englifh Epifcopacy. Do fuch Arguments prove, That by Divine or ApoHolical appointment, every Chrifiian Bijhop (hould have a Multitude of Congre- gations, or particular Churches in his Dtocefs, or under his Epifcopal Jurifdittion, and fljould be vefied with an Abfolute Authority, or a Negative Voice at the leafi ; Or, that this was the Practice if the Churches in the three firji Centuries ? Thefe Arguments prove that even as evidently, as our Saviour slVords,T\x es Petrus, prove the univer- sal Supremacy of the Bifhop of Rome. And tt is not enough to thefe who ftand up in defence of Englifh Epifcopacy, or arc for obtru- ding it on the Churches, to prove that every Bijhop in the [aid Centuries, and by Divine Warrant, had fuch a Number of Congregations under his Charge, and was vefied with fuch Power as we have been fpeaking of-, it is farther incumbent on them to m.ikc it appear by undeniable Proofs, that each Bijhop during thefe Centuries, and that by Apo- ftolical Appointment, rul'd the Congregations be- long- t TbomM Edwards in his Dioccfrn Epifcopacy proved from Sen P^'33, »3*j 179; ^4, <#<. viii The Preface. longing to his Diocefs, not in conjunction with the Presbytery, ( that is, all the Presbyters of his Diocefs ) but by A Court of Secular'Officers, a Chancellor, Sub-Chancellor, &c. to the total Exclufion of the Presbyters from meddling in Af- fairs of Discipline, or the infliction of Ecclefiajlical Ccnfures on the Scandalous. In like manner, they who fet up in defence of fuch Prelacy as was in Scotland, mufi make it evi- dent^ That in ancient Times, and by vertue of Di* vine Injiitution, there were in each Epifcopal Diocefs or Church, many diftinft Presbyteries, confiituted, or made up of the Paflors ofthejeve- ral Parifhes in the Diocefs \ That every one of thefe Presbyteries comprehended and hah Jurifi dittion over many diftinft Sub-Presbyteries call'd Seflions *, That thefe Presbyteries and Sub" Presbyteries had their Prefidents or Moderators, who were not Bifijops, but only Presbyters -, and that thefc Sub-Prewyteries, and Presbyteries ( to- gether with their Prefident -Presbyters or Mode- rators ) managed the Difcipline of the fever al Parifl;es, being accountable to the Biftiop, and Synodical Meeting of allthe Presbjt£ries in the Diocefs, and their Moderators. No Epifcopal Writers ever did, or can take upon them to affirm fuch things, neverthelefs they fay 9 That their Epifcopal Government is Apofto- lical, and their Bifiops the fame with thofe of the Ancient Church : But that is what cannot be help- ed, they take a Liberty to fay what they pleafe^ for Reafons known to GOD and their own Confci- ences. What malignant Influence fuch confident Affertions, contrary to mofi evident andnotoriom matter of Fatt, may have, and tendency to the pre* The Preface. ix prejudice of Religion, by encouraging Incredulity^ or a profane Misbelief of reveal 'd Truths, I take not upon me to determine, but Jh all leave it to them* [elves to confider. Thinking and intelligent Men will not be convinced eafily, that their Confcience goeth along with their Tongue, or that they believe what they fay, when they affirm fuch things -, and their affirming with fo much Affurance, what can hardly in reafon befuppos'd they believe themfelves, is to lay no J mall Temptation before thefe who arc inclindto Pyrrhonifm in Matters of Religion, to think that they believe at little what they fay with refpeft to the more important Articles of the Chri- ftian Faith, and that if their fecular Interefi: fljould lead them to affirm, Tloat Jefus Chrift is only a made God, and the Holy Spirit is not a Perfon, or the like-, in all probability they could do it as eafily, and with at little hesitation and fcruple of Corifcience, as they affirm now, That their Bifhops ?re the fame with thofe of the Ancient Church +• Tho I fiali willingly acknowledge, that thefe may be piftly reckon 'd uncharitable and injurious Perfons, who love to make fuch Inferences, I can- not but fay, there is but too much reafon to fufpeZb the Honeftyof thefe Prelatical Authors, who con* demn the Ordinations which are perform d by thofe they reckon ?neer Presbyters, and affirm them to be null and void, to the great fcandal of all the Protefiant Churches, feing the Apollle telleth m molt expre/ly, of the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery, and that on Timothy, b who opun the 7riT.l'ive Church (to wir> in the days oflfnatim ) the now wuh u>, t ..in £>. \Vjkt t in the ln^cx to hi» rrjnihuonox' tfcc -. of l£n*l'ui. ii ■ x The Preface. who in their own Opinion was a Bijhop. What can they pretend againjl plain matter of Faftfo evi- dently afferted in Scripture ? Will they fay , That thefe Perfons who laid hands on Timothy were not meer Presbyters, but fome of the Neighbouring Bijfjops affembl d together ana ailing as a Presby- tery in a joint-way ; Or, That it was a Presbytery ofDiocefans ? But, This Notion has no imaginable Foundation,there is no poffibility of pflifying fuch a fenfelefs Glojs. It was never heard, that Presbytery did fignify fuch a Meeting, or an Affcmbly of the Bijbops of the Province ; wherever this word occurrs in any Ecclejiafiical Author, or Writing of any Father, it muji be underftood asfignifying the Presbytery of a particular Church or Diocefs, this is the current and proper Signification thereof. Thus Ignatius, Subjeft to his Bifhop as the Grace of GOD, and to the Presbytery, as to the Law of JESUS CHRIST: And again, Together with your moft worthy Bilhop, and the well wrought Spiritual Crown of your Presbytery. Neither does he take this word in any other fenfe in any of his Epiftles. Thus Cyprian, Defolatam per lapfum quorundam Presbyterii noftri copi- am. And Cornelius, Placuit contrahi Presby- terium. And in a word, they cannot produce one Infiance to the contrary, they cannot give us jo much as one Example in the Writings of any anci- ent Father, where the Word Presbytery figmfieth the Neighbouring Bilhops, or, A Meeting of the Bifhops of the Province. Andfeing they affirm, that the Writings of the Fathers are thefurefi Com- mentary on the Scriptures, Timothy who was a Biftwp) or rather more than a Bifijop, was ordain d h The Preface. xi by meer Presbyters, the Prelatifls themselves be- ing Judges. But if they affirm, that Paul joined with the Ptesbytery in the Ordination of Timothy, ( tho that is i as fame think, what cannot be proved from his faying in another place. Stir up the Gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my Hands, becaufe it may befuppos'd,faythey, and not without reafon, that the Apoflle laid hands on him at another time, and for another end, in or- der to the collation of the extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit, as Atts 8. 17, 18.) and if they con- elude hence, that thefe Ordinations are null and void, which are performed by a Presbytery without the concurrence of a Bijfjop *, why may not others conclude, that the Ordinations of the Englifti Bi- (l)ops are null and void, becaufe performed by Bi- ftopSj without the laying on of the hands of a Pref- bytery} it being much more certain, that a Presbytery laid hands on Timothy, than it is, that it is neceffary that what we now call a Bifhopfhould join with the Presbytery in laying on hands. And if it be pretended, that the whole Efficacy of the Ordination was from the laying on of the hands of Paul as a Btftjop ; that is a Notion which cannot be proved, and is filly to fay no more, contrary to the nature of the thing, and may be denied as eafily as affirmed. The two Houfes of Lords and Commons concur in making a Law, as the Bifljop or Bifl)ops concur with the Presbytery in the A£b of Ordination \ but ifoneJJjouldfay, that the whole Efficacy of the Law or AH, and binding Force of it on the Nation^ is only from the Houfe of Lords, he would neither fpeak good Senfe, nor agreeably to the Truth, b2 If xii The Preface. If it be faid here, That the Ordinations of the Englifh Biffjops, or thefe Ordinations which are perform d by Btjfjops without the concurrence of the Presbytery, are not null and void, tho the Prep bytery join d with Paul in laying hands on Timo- thy \ becaufe it is no where afferted or enafted as a Law in Scripture, that thefe Ordinations are null and void, which are perform d by Bijhops without the concurrence of the Presbyter) : For the fame re af on we conclude, That the Ordinations which are perform d by Presbyteries without the concurrence of Bijhops are not null and void, tho Paul laid hands on Timothy together with the Presbytery, it being no where declared in the Word of God, that thefe Ordinations are ineffectual which are performed by Presbyteries without the ajfijiance of BiJ/jops. Wherefore Vm of Opini- on, that our Brethren in England, the Bijhops and diffenting Ministers, may compone with refpetb to this Affair, that is, if the diffenting Mtnifters will reckon the Ordinations of the Bifiops to be valid, tho they are perform } d without the concur* rence of the Presbyteries, the Bijhops may hold the Ordinations of the diffenting Mwifters to be valid, tho perform d without the concurrence of Bifiops. If they affirm, that 'BiJJwps alone Jhould lay on hands, becaufe Paul wrote to Timothy, Lay hands fuddenly on no Man, it has been anfwer'd to them before now, that will no more follow, than it will that it belong d to Timothy alone to Preach, Exhort or Rebuke^ becaufe the Apoflle faith to him elfewhere, Preach the Word, be inftant in Seafon and out of feafon, reprove, rebuke, ex? fiort With ali Long-iufferirig and Doftrine. But The Preface* xiii But if they build on the Pratlice of the Vniverfal Churchy or the Authority of the Canons in after-times, it will be eafy to anfwer y That theje can be of no force againft Scripture Precedents, the Presbyters were de- prived of their Higkt to Ordain, and tbti wot refervel *s a Privilege to the Bijhops, Novellis 6c Ecclefiafticis regulis, to ufe the words of the Council of Sevil, that is, by new Ecclefiafiical Laws, and that asfayslfodove, To maintain the Authority and Splendour of the Priefthood; but Humane Regulations cannot invalidate Divine Inftitutions.Not to fay any thing in thtiplace,con- cerningOrdinations being but aCeremony on which the va- lidity of the MinifterialC all doth not in the leafl depend, tho the want of it might jujlly be reckoned a piece of In* formality, in regard it was a^ite pratlifed by theApofiles, { tho without fo much as the fmallefl Infinuation of the dbjolute Neceffity of it ) and objerved by the Church Vniverfal in all fucceeding Generations. Certainly we have reafon to wonder here, how thefe Men we are f pealing oj, dare take upon them to advance a Principle fo dangerous, and of fuch pernicious confer quence, on fuch weak and /lender Grounds ; it might be expelled, if they have not thrown off not only Religion, hut Humanity, that they jhould not fo much as think on fuch a curfed Notion without fear and trembling, tho they bad a hundred times more to fay, and could prvpoje Difficulties on the head we are not able to dijfolve ; But feeing, the Arguments they found upon hxve no- thing in them of Solidity , and are fo very contemptible and fuperf.cial, that they appear to be more proper to perfvoade rational Men, that they know not what they are faying at to thit Point, than to convince them of the truto of what they are affirming, and would have them to believe : It u too evident , they were ft t on Work to invent thU bloody and deteftable Principle, and are in- fluenced to propagate it among the People, not by love to the Truth, or any regard to the good of the Churches^ but by a fove to felj-intereft, or a naughty^ petverfe and xiv The Preface. 1 and Antichrifii&n Difpofition of Spirit ; wherefore we cannot but approve the Opinion which the famous and. much admir'd Monfieur Claude bad of that fort of Men, rohen he Jaid, * To fpeak my Thoughts freely, it feems to me, that this fierce Opinion of the abfolute Neceflity of Epifcopacy, that goes fo high as to own no Church, or Call, or Miniftery, or Sacraments, or Salvation in the World, where there are no E- pifcopal Ordinations, altho the true Do&rine, the true Faith, and Piety fhould be there, and which would make all Religion depend upon a FORMA- LITY, andonfucha Formality as we have (hown to be of no other than Humane Inftitution ; that Opinion I fay, cannot be look'd on otherwife than as the very wcrit Chara&er, and Mark of the groffeft Hypocrifie, a Piece of Pharifaifm all over, that ftrains at a Gnat when it fwallowsaCamel, and I cannot avoid having at leaft a Contempt of thefe kind of Thoughts, and a Compaffion for thofe who fill their heads with them. Thefe Perfons think they do mighty Feats, if they can busk up little Sophifms, and by thU means make their Opinions appear fomething plaufible among the Vulgar, but Contempt U the unavoidable Conference of thefe Methods ; Juch Men as the Author o/Tne Rights of the Chriftian Church afferted, can tell them roundly, That "Men dare not vent fuch Abfurdities when they talk of Civil Government, but Nonfenfe feems facred when applied to the Ecckfiaitical ; their following theje and the like Methods, gives Occajion to fucb Wri- ters torefletlon the Clergy, and to pretend, That if the State tack the Prieft's Preferments to certain Opinions, they will efpoufe them right or wrong,and invent a thoufand fophiftical and knavilh Methods of defending them, to the infinite prejudice of the Truth ; This is a, heavy Accufation, and Vm Jorry that fome Ground U given to the Enemies of the Church, and Haters of the Fafioral Office, to vent fuch Reprovbes, * Dcf. de la Reform. Vol. i. p, W* The Preface. xv Pudet haec opprobria nobis Etdici potuiffe, & non potuiffe refelli. Vet care jhould have been taken to lay the Saddle on the right Horfe, and not to accufe all for the Faults offome^ but tkh U a piece ofjuftice not to beexpetledfrom every one. Now after all, the Validity or Invalidity of Prcsbi* terian Ordinations is what roe are not in the leaft con- cerned witb y for, feeing the Bifhops during the three fir (I Centuries had only Congregational Diocefjes, and no Bi- fhops are of Divine appointment excepting fuch as arc Paflors of one fingle Congregation, the Paflors oj the Tarijhes now (or they who are reckoned Presbyters in this Generation) are Bijhops every way as much \ and confequently the Scottifh Or din at ion s, or thefe that arc performed by theMiniJters of the diffeming Congregations in England,*r£ no lefs Efifcopal Ordinations thanthefc vhicb were performed by the Bifhops in the third Century and upward. D. Maurice + confeffeth, that a Paflor may very well be a Bifhop tho he never have more Congregations than cne under hit Efifcopal Jurif diction ; and I believe the greater part of the Prelatifls, if not all of them, are of the fame Opinion. I never yet heard of any man, fays the Dottor, who made it effential to a Biihop to have many Congregations under him ; but it is the Order that makes a Bifhop, and not Lhe being Pa- ftor of one or many Congregations. If tbu be y the Paflors of our Parishes have no more to do but fend two or three of their Number 10 France or Germany for Ordination (if Protejiant Biji:-ops be jo felfijb and ill-nature d y or have jo little regard to the Good of the Church and Inter efl of Chrifl, as to refufe fuch a thing which will cojt themj'o little ) and when they com: home, and fay to their Brethren^ Be you Bifhops, they will get r^Order and cunjequently be a* good Bijhops t in the Opinion of the Prelati(is themjelves^ as any that ever wsre t Dcf. of Diocc. Epifcop. p. 44$> 4S©i 4S'. xvi The Pu ce. were in England. One would think, the Cafe u no very dangerous, which it fo eafily helped. But in th mean time, u not this to confecrate nonfenfe, as fa) the Author of the Rights of theChriftian Church? a ma) would be thought to be out ofhii Wits if he Jhould fay that the Queen i* no Queen, and that all the B^galAcl performed by Her are null and void, becaufe She wen not Abroad at Her Acceffion to the Crown, and a Con fiftory of neighbouring Kjngs did not fay to Her,Be yoi Qpeen of Britain. If two or three French Bijhops bac laid hands on fome of our Presbyterian Minifters at th* Revolution, and had faid to them, Be yon Bifhops and if theje Ministers had done fo to all the reft, the Fa Jtors of our Parijhes bad been unqueftionably Bijhops ac cording to the Principles of our Adverfaries : but now tho it is acknowledged they haveEpifcopal Dioceffes,exer the Epijcopal Office, and do all things in thefe Dioteffe that Bijhops can do, yet they are no Bijhops at all,nay no fo much m Presbyters', the Sacraments adminiftred £ them are no Sacraments, their Churches are no Churches and in a word all is gone to Wrack and Ruine throw th Wantofthti Ceremony. O ye fons of men how lonj will ye turn roy glory into fhame? how long will y« love vanity, and feek after leafing ? Selah. Then, jeeing our Prelatifts acknowledge, that the he ing a Pajtor of many Congregations makes not one a Bi Jhop more than being a P aft or of one Congregation, am confequently that every fin gle Congregation u an Epijco pal Dioceft, the High Church-men in England who ar fo jealous for the JMtdursthn of the Apoftolical Govern ment of Epifcopacy in Scotland, need not defire it too reftor'd here any other way, but by giving the Order t all the Paftors of our Puriftes and making them Bifhopi and if they be for other Methods, they muft confefs it % \ not the Epifcopacy, or Divine Inftitutions they are \ealoi i for, but fome other thing which J defire not to mentioy. And pray, why jhould there be fuch uncharitable Divifior. and Contentions among us, to the great prejudice of th stat liir /retece. xvn State, and weakening of the Nation, feeing all thefe inay be done away, and all Parties be fully fatU fie d with tbegreatejt facility imaginable ? Do but give the Order to the Paftors of the diffenting Congregations in Eng- land, and let Cyprian's Kule beobferved, to wit, Ne- queenim quifquamnoftrum Epifcopum fe Epifcopo* rumconfticuic, aut tyrannico terrore ad oofequendi neceffuatem Collegas fuos adig.it ; quando habeat omnis Epifcopus pro licentia libertatis & poteftatis fuae arbicrium proprium ; tamque judicari ab alio non poflit, quam nee ipfe poteft judicare. Scd ex- peftemus univerfi Judicium Domini noftri Jcfu Chrifti, qui unus & folus habet poreftatem 6: prae- ponendi nos in Ecclefiae fuae gubernatione, & dfc aftu noftro judicandi. And then an end will be put to all Perfecutton on ikti Score of whatever kind, and to all our troublefome and bloody Holy Wars. But Pm afraid, whatever our P r el itifts may pretend, that they do not believe fincerely one may be a Diocefan Bijhop who u but a Paftor of one Congregation. If Dr. Maurice believed thti, m he Jays, he needed not have VOubVd himfelf with refuting Mr Clarkfon, he bud no more to do but fay \ Whatever the Bijbops were in and before the \ih. Century, your Paftors want the Order, and therefore cannot pretend to be Diocefan Bijbops ; and if he had made thu evident, he had deftroy'd Mr. Clarkfon'* Book, and rendered it quite ufehfs. Wherefore hi* following Mr. Clarkfon ftepbyftep, his contradicting him in every thing, and endeavouring to prove with fo much earneftnefs, that all u fulfe and fa- bulous that he advarces, makes it evident, hi* Confcience told him, That Englifh Epifeopacy u ruin'd ( notwith- ft anding all the fine Notions, and fublime Speculations concerning the Order ) if it remain proved, That all the Bifbops during the fir ft 3 Centuries were no other but Congregational Bifbops. And certainly, fuch a profound Author, and a Man offuckapicrcingYVit m U Mr % Dgdwell, would never ' c hxvt xviii The Preface. have thought it worth his while to write the Bool he calls, The one Altar and one Priefthood, if he had thought, & he has affirmed, and endeavoured laborioujly to prove, That Perfons are made Bifhops by Ordination, fo that the Epifcopal Power U conveyed from the Apoftles by Bijhops to Bijhops in an uninterrupted Line of Succeffi- on ; but he knew very well, that thU is but an empty Notion, and however it might ferve to da\\e the eyes of the more ignorant and ftupid among the People, or thefe who have not time, and will not put themj elves to the trouble of bringing things ofthU nature under examina- tion, yet would be laughen at by Men of fenfe, wherefore he was at a great deal of pains to invent a number ofcun* ning Sophifms, that he might induce Men to believe, That the ancient Bijhops might have I know not how many fubordinate Altars, or dijtinft Congregations in their Dioceffes, notwithjtanding of their talking of The one Altar and one Bifhop to every Church. however, ij our Prelatijls will adhere to this Article f and Jay, they are very fine ere when they affirm, That one who is a Bifhop but of one Congregation, is as really a Diocefan Bijhop, m one who it a BiJIwp of 500 Congre- gations : Things are come to this iffue, that our modern Prelates ft and as it were on thisfmall Point, to wit, their having the Order, and the Fabrick of the Hie* rare by is made to depend wholly on this poor Contrivance. And if it be fome other thing than the Order that makes a BiJ)>op, if the Call to the Epifcopal Office liethinthe Church's Eleclion, and Confent of the Perfon eletled, then our Prelatifts will be neceffitated to confejs, That the Paftors of our Parijbes have as good, nay a much firmer Title to the Epifcopal Office than any Bifoop in France or England. But how do our Prelatifts know, that it is the Order that makes a Bijhop ? What is the Foundation of their Faith ? Where do the Scriptures fay, That 'tis Ordina- tion that makes the Bijhop, or that Ordination ts Jo ne- cejfary a thing, that one cannot be a Bifbop without it, tho The Preface. xix tho be have an Epifcopal Diocefs, and be impotver'd to exert the Epifcopal Office} Certainly it u very fir ange % that the Scriptures jhould be totally fiJent m to thu Point % considering that the holy Hierarchy, the validity of the Sacraments, and the very Seeing of the Church dependeth on it) if we have Faith enough to believe thefe Gentle- men. And be the by, we may judge here.what regard thefe Men have to their fecular Interefl by the value they put upon thi$ Sicety, in which it U fo nearly con* cerned, they would have the People to believe, that it u at neceffary to their Salvation, as the Belief of the very Beeing of a GOD, or the Divinity of JESVS CHE 1ST \ which I can not for bar to fay, U to put an Affront upon God Almighty, and to ridicule and mock their Saviour • for things of equal Neceffity y muft be cftcem'd as of equal Value. if a Man's being a Paftor of mam Congregations, makes him not a Bijhop, more than kit being a Paftor of one Congregation, then certainly one Chrijtian Congre- gation is an Epifcopal Diocejs m well as an hundred \ and how u it poffible, that one can have an Epifcopal Diocefs, and a F^ght to exert the Epifcopal office in that Diocefs, and yet not be a Bijbop for all that ? Is itpof. fible,that the Parliament can fet a Man upon the Throne, impower him to create all Officers, Civil and Military, make Peace and War, call and diffolve Parliaments, execute all the Laws y and in a wora, give him a P^gal Power over the whole B^ealm, and yet not make him a Kjng by fo doing} V^hen the Church of KomCy for Example, became fo numerous in the 4. Century 9 that it was divided into feveral diftinft Congregations, and when Presbyters were fet over thefe Congregations as Palters, ttejc Pres- byters by being thus fet over thefe Con >/tgations ( fcitlg fuch Congregations are Epifcopal Dio effis ) got Epijco- pal Dioceffes, and by being impower* d to aft as Pa/tors of thefe Congregations, were impowet'dto exercife the Epifcopal Office j bow it it poffible then, tbattbefePref- c 2 bi- xx The Preface. byters were not made Bijhops ipfo fafto ? To tell m t that they roere not thereby made Bilbops, becaufe they got not the Order of the Epifcopacy, u to tell mfomething that u incomprehenfible. lor pi not the Office and the Order the fame thing, fo that he wlo is put in the Office ha* the Order by being put therein ? he who U put in the Kingly Office, has the Order of ZJngjhip, and he voho U put in the Epi) copal Office, has thereby the Order of the Epifopacy. What U the Order if it be tonfider'd as diflintl from the Office, but an unintetti- gible Notion ? How can a Man have the Order of Jf^ing- Jl)ip 9 if he be not put in the %egal Office ; or be without the Order of Xjngjhip if 'he be put in that office? If the Puke of Hanover get the Kingdom ofBrita\x)>and be im* power' d to officiate as King in that lQngdom>will he not by that very thingget the Order of Qngjbip? The fe then, roho get JLpif copal Dioceffes, and are impower'd to Offi* date of Bijhops in theje VioceJJes, do by that very thing Require the Epifcopal Order 9 But what U the import ofthU Order which they make an effemial andfo necejfary a Point ? The truth is, there u very little in it y only they would make People wonder at nothing. The whole Myfiery is this \ If they who have the Power of Ordination intend, that the Perfon whom they Ordain he a Biftiop, or fay when they lay hands on him, Be thou a Bifhop, or, Receive thou the Epifcopacy, or words to this purpofe •, then that Perjon receives the Order of the Epifcopacy, or is thereby made a Biftjop^ and when they fay to the Perfon on whom they lay on hands, Be thou a Presbyter, &c. that Per Jon receives only the Oraer of the Preshyterate, and is nothing but afimple Presbyter. Wherefore, the for ef aid Roman Presbyters in the 4. Century, tho they got EpifcopalDioceffes by being made Paffors of dijtintt Congregations, and were impower'd to Offir The Preface. xxi Officiate at Bifhops in theje Churches or Congrega- tions^ yet for all that did not become Bijhops, be- caufe they who laid hands on them, [aid not to them when they Ordain d them, BeyeBilhops, or did not intend to make them Btjhops by giving them Congregations, that is, Epifcopal Dioceffes, and by impowering them to aft as confiant Pa/tors of t he fe Congregations, that is, to officiate as Bi- fbops in theje VioceJJes. But this is to [peak contrary to Reafon. If the King fljould give the Command of the Navy to a Nobleman, and impower him to aft as Admiral^ but when he inftals him in his Office, fljould, in- ftead of faying, Be thou Admiral,/^, Be thou a Juftice of the Peace, would that Perfon be a Ju- stice of the Peace only, and not the Admiral, tho he get the Command of the Royal Fleet ? Would not the King in that cafe fay one thing and do another, would not that be to caufe Words contra- ditt Things f If that Nobleman be put in the Ad- miral's Office by the King, and impower cd atiually to Officiate 06 Admiral, will he not be Admiral in defpite of any thing the King may think fit to fay to him when he creates him Admiral ? The Caje is the fame here, the for ef aid Presbyters when they were made the Pajiorsof the fever al Congre- gations in Rome, ( feing thefe Congregations were Epifcopal Dioceffes ) they were thereby made Bi~ fljops ', whatever was J aid to them when they were Or dam 9 d, or whatever the Intention of their Or- dainers might be, and they who made them fitch Paflors did only contradict t he mf elves, fa id one thing and did another, and aftually put them in the Epifcopal Office, tho they intended to put them only in the Office of Presbyters. The verity then xxii The Preface. is this, In that moment when the Church of Rome wasfirft divided into diftinEl Congregations, it was divided really into dikintt Epifcopal Dio- ceffes, and when the Presbyters were made the Pafiors of thefe Congregations, they were made Diocefan Bifhops ipfo fatto, and from that inftantj he who was Bifljop of 'Rome before, did ceafe to be a Bijbop, and was transformed into fome other thing, and all his SucceJJors after him were fome- thing elfe than Bijhops, and continue fo to be to this day. And the fame may be faid of all the other Bijhops at that time who became Tafiors of more Congregations or Epifcopal Dioceffes than one. To apply this to the purpofe in hand •, thefirfi Tresbyterian Minifiers in Scotland were Ofdaind by Popifh Prelates, or by Perfons who were Or* dctind by fuch Prelates, and femg thefe Prelates Ordain* d them Pafiors of Congregations, and [eing Congregations are Epifcopal Dioceffes, thefe Pre- lates Ordained them Diocefan Eijkops, and their faying to them when they Ordain d them only, Be you Presbyters, was nothing but a Contradiction, and I hope, their com raditl in g thvmjeives could not alter Matter of Eall, or make thefe 1 erfons Presbyters, whom they aftualiy jet over tpifevpal Dioceffes, more than the Ktn%s faying, Be you a Juftice of the Peace, could hinder that Man to be Admiral, to whom he gave the Command of the Navy. Mr. Dodwellfays, + That the Ordain'd receive no more Power from their Ordainers than they attually intend to give them, but when the Vopifl) Prelates Ordain d the Paftors, they never intended to give them the Power of Bijhops, but the i Separate of Churchei, iSfc p. 485. The Preface. xxm the Power of Presbyters only , wherefore they actually received no more but the Power of Presbyters when they were Ordain d. But we muff not think that Intentions can alter Things: If a Perfon intending to give a Half Crown only to aBeggar,give him a whole Crown,willthe In- tention convert the Crown into a Half-Crown ? From what has been [aid here I hope it is evident^ that our Prelatical People in Scotland have neea to rettify their Opinion abov.t the Nature of E- pifcopacy, they think there cannot be Epifcopal Government in this Churchy unlefs the 14 Bifliops be rejlord a^ain to their Dioceffes, but they are in a Mifiake : Why 14 Bijhops only? Can any Reafon be given why we ftjould not have a far greater Number in this Church ? Why not 500 Bi- fhops rather than 14? Niy what is there to hinder hs from having 1000 Bijbops ? If it be their defire to beUvi'ig under Epifcopal Infpetlion, the greater Number of Bijbops they have to take care ofthem % the greater Reajon the)j have to be fatisfied. The Kin£ and Parliament did not abolijfj Epifcopacy at the Revolution when they abolijhed the late Pre* lacy, they only divided the Epifcopal Dioceffes y and made them mo-e numerous : And what harm W04 there m that ? What Scripture Rule, Divine Law, or Appointment of Jcfus Chriji did they Violate by jo doing ? none at all I can affure them \ and if they will not notice what I fay to them, I hope they will have fome regard towh.it the Great and Famous Epifcopal Divines in England (ay , let them hear V. Barow, By theL«»w of God, fays he, * and according to the ancient Practice, Prioces may model the Bounds of Epifcopal ju- * Pope's Suprcm. p. itf, in Quart; xxiv The Preface. Jurifdi&ion, ereft Bifhopricks, enlarge, dimi- nifli, or transfer them as they pleaie. And if they may diminifl) Biftjopricks as they pleafe, and that by the Law of God, they may diminif!) them into one Congregation. Aid what Reafon is there to complain then on this account ? What Reafon tofe- par ate from the Efiablijbed Church ? But to return, We have not fatisficd our f elves w.tb ptoving in the following Treatife, That the ancient Biflwps were meerly Congregational, and that they had not a Negative Voice, much lefs fuch Abfolute Power as fome pretend they had, and confequently were the fame with thefe who are the Pafiors of the Pariftjes now, or who are accounted Presbyters in this Generation ^ but that it might be yet more evi- dent that the Government of this Church, or that which is commonly called Presbyterian Govern- ment, is really Epifcopal Government, in the fame \en\e the Government of the Church was Epif copal in the 3. or 4. Centuries, ( and confequently, That the Government of the Church of England is not, and the late Prelatical Government in ScotUnd was not properly Epifcopal ) we have made it appear^ That the ancient Church had thefe Ecclefiaftical Courts which are cali'd Presbyteries, Synods, General-AfTemblies, and Commiffions of General -AfTemblies, in Scotland at this day : And moreover, that the Presbyterian Difcipline ts the fame with that of the ancient Church, by comparing the A&s of our General AfTemblies with Canons of Ancient Councils. Andfeing, J. S. is the lajl that has handled this Subject, and undertaken to prove, That the Bifiops had Avfolute Power in the days of Cyprian, and he being a learn d Man y and one who has a good Ta~ The Preface. xxv Talent of writing, it may befuppos'd he has gathered together the Flower and Strength of what has been [aid on the Head, whether by Mr. Dudwell, or other great Patrons of the Caufe ; therefore we thought it would not be amifs to confider the fore- said Arguments, as they are reprefented and fet down by him in his Vind. Princ. Cypr. Age *, and tho that Book appears to have been written in great bitter nefs, and with a Defign to irritate, or ftir up Vaffion and Fury, we have guarded again/} per- fonal Refiettions, and indecent Expreffions very carefully. But when the things our Adverfaries fay are notorioufly fenflefs or impious, when they confine the Church ZJniverfal to one external Communion, and affirm allthefe Chriftians are out of the Church who have not fuch Bijbops forjeoth as they are for ', by which means, the greater part of the Reformed Churches, tf not all of them except that of Eng- land, are put in the Rank of Turks and Pagan* : Or, when they tell us, we have the fame ( if not better ) Evidence of their EpifcopacyV* having been the Government of the Church ever fnce the Days of the Apo/lles, than we haze for the Canon of the Scripture, I hope, no fober Chriflian or rca* jonable Perjon ( tho prejudiced in favours of that Sort of Epifcopacy we are writing againfl, ) will blame tu, ij we happen to fpeak of fuch Extrava- gancies, or thefe who have the confidence to ad- vance them, with that di[dainand contempt they dejerve. The Learn d Mr. Jamcfon has already taken this Book we are fpeaking of toTask, but conjider- ing thus was finijb d before his Aufwer wai printed, and that the Method he takes id very different d \rom xxv i The Preface. from that followed here, and that he intending a compleat Anfwer to J. S. infifis much on many things we meddle not with, as not Ijingin our Roadj and that we have infijied more fully onfome things he thought not fit to enlarge upon, it was judge d^ his Book needed not hinder the Publication of this Efj<>y. I am not ignorant, that there are fome among us who look on thefe things we are [peaking of as meer Trifles, and reckon it a Matter of very f mall moment whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical of Arifiocratical, or whether it have any Government at all ; fitch, may be, will not be at the pains fo much as to ca ft their Eye on a Wri~ ting like this, thinking any thing J. S. or I, or any other can fay on this Head deferves not their Con* fi deration, and that their time is much more pro- fitably employ >ed in reading Come dies and Plays, or at Gaming : Perhaps fuch Perfons are not much injured by thofe who confider them as a bad Set of People ; for my own part, their Opinion about things is what I have but very little regard to, and intend not to trouble my j elf with, it was not at all for them that I undertook this Work ', but if what is done be any way fervice able, or in the leajl help- ful to thefe who love the Truth, especially that which has relation to the Church or Religion, and have Inclinations to fearch after the knowledge of it, I have gain* d my Point, and fi a II think my Pains well beftew'd* A N Pag: i ■ ■■■ "; ■ ■■■ ■■ ... ( m A N ANSWER T O Mr. CBILLINGJVOKTBs Demonftration of Epifcopacy. CHAP. I. The State of the Controverfy between us and Mr. Chillingworth cleared, and the jeveral Proportions he jhould have de± monjtrated, pointed at* TH E Government of the Church of England^ if fomePerfons among us may be believed, is Divine and Apoftolical; yet you fee the A- cute Tvt. Chiliivgwonh ( and many other Di- vines of chat Church, as J. Si informs us) %j*fc ? ^ will not own it to be fuch, till fame AcciAcn- p. &' ia tals be abiirafttd from it ; But I'm afraid, *"*' if Epifpocacy were itrip'dof lome of thefc Acciden- tals,which ic has now in ErgUnd and the t\pmir. Ter- ritories, and made a Bufinefs not of advantage or A uvoildly % An Anfrver to Mr. ChillingworthV wordly gain, but of labour and difficulties, as it was in the fecund Century, it would not have fo many Learn'd and Zealous Defenders ; and in all appea- rance we (hould fee an end put to our Controveriies about it in a very ftiort time. However, 'tis confeffed, it feems that ff the En* glijh Bifhops be conlider'd in their prefent ftate, they differ fi cm thofe who lived in the fecond Centurie. But fays M. C. If you abjtrac} from them all Acciden- tal^ and confider only what is Ejfential t$ their Office, 'twill be found they are fuch as thefe were. That is, abftratt from the prefent Bifhops, every thing that makes 'em to differ from thofe in the fe.ond Centu- ry, and then there will be no difference betwixt 'em. That is very true. Tnus if you abftraft from the pre- fent Bifhop of J^om^his Supremacy,the Power he pre- tends to over Princes, c5V. he will be fuch another Bifhop as was Pope Vi&or in the fecond Centurie. But the queltion is not, what the Emjijl Billiops would be, if fuch or fuch things were ab ft rafted from them, but what they are really, and what, for ought I fee, they are refolved to be, let us fay what we will. Bat thefe things M. C. delires us to abftraft from the prefent Bifhops < fuch as their fitting in Parlia- ment, acting as Secular Judges, their ruling by a Chancelluur, Sub-chanceliour, and Officers of that kind, to the Excluiion of the Presbyter ie or the Pres- byters of the Diocefs, &c. ) that they may be like the Fecond Cencury Bifhops, are but Accidentals. Andfo is wickednel's and corruption of Nature ac- cidental to the Devil. Says M. C. If all Accidentals be abliraitcd from the pre fen c Bifhops, they will be like thofe in the fecond Centurie. And fay we, If all Accidentals were abftratf ed from the Devil, there WoUld be no difference betwixt: him and an Angel of Light. But chefe Accidentals ftick clofe to the De- vil, and therefore he is not like an Angel of Light ; and the Epglijh Biihops adhere to thefe Accidentals M. C. Tiemonftration 0/Jipifcopacy. 3 M.C. would haveustoabftraft from Epifcopacy,and therefore they are not like the Bifhops of the fecond Centurie, But when all thefe things M. C m reckons acciden- tal to Epifiopacy, are abftracledfrom it, and nothing left but what he counts Effential, the prefent Englijh Bifhops wiU fo little refemble thofe who lived in the fecond Centurie, that, to give them one name, will be to confound things of very different natures. And this is evident, becaufeit can't be made to ap- pear, that the Bifhops in the fecond Centurie had a- ny of thefe things our Author makes effential to E* piftopacy. According to him it is Effential, ( lit.) That the Bipop have all the Churches or Cotl* cregations within a certain Precinft or Diocefs under his Care. Wherefore, feeing Tome of the Englijh Bifhops have 8, fomc of them 900 particular Churches under their Care, it muft be proven, that they in the fecond Centurie were Bifhops of fome hundreds, or at leaft fcores of particular Churches, elfe there will be no proportion betwixt them and thofe now in England. If it be faid, majus and minus non variant fpeciem\ it muft be confeffed that a Bifhop, who has but two or three hundred Souls in his whole Diocefe, differs not fpecifically from one like the Bifhop of London, who has, may be, two or three millions. ( 2dly. ) That he have Authority over all thefe Church* es 7 not abjblute indeed, but regulated by Laxvs f and mo* derated by his having a convenient number oj Jjfijtants join'd to him. Our Author exprefles himfelf here fomethingob- fcurely. tirft he tells us not what he undciitands by jtjjijiams joinM to his Bifhop. But we take it for granted, that he underftood the Presbyters hereby, and do not (ufpect that he in- tended to leave fome room here for the Chanctllour, Subchancellour of the Diocefe, and oiher Officials; A 2 oc 4 An Anfmr to Mr. ChillingworthV pr that he would have us to believe, that the Bifhops Jn the fecond Centurie governed their Dioceffes by Jljfiftants of that kind. Neither doth he tell us, what he underftands by convenient number of Jjfift ants, whether all the Pres- ,-byters of the Diocefs, or a feleft number of 'em only. But feeing not all the Presbyters of an Englijb Diocefs, but fome only, that is, a dozen, may be, or two 3 where perhaps there are eight or nine hundred, are theBifhops Affiftants in the Government, by compe- tent number of Affi/l ants, we muft underftand fuch a Chapter, or fmall number of the Presbyters, in the Epifcopal Diocefs; then Convenient Number ufes not to be taken for the whole Number. Either then it muft be proven, that fome few on- ly of the Presbyters of the Diocefs, were, in the fe- cond Centurie, the Bifh'op's Affijiants in the Govern- ment, or made up that Court which is call'd the Presbytery, in fynatius's or Cyprian** Epiftles, and the }ike ; or it muft be acknowledged, that our Author's Demonftration cometh to nothing. If it be found, that all the Presbyters of the Diocefs were Members of that which was call'd the Presbyterie in the fecond Centurie, and that they did all of them aft in con- junction with their Bifhop in Affairs of Government then y it will be evident, there is as great a diffe- rence betwixt the prefent Bilhops, and thofe who lived in that Centurie, as betwixt the King of Bri- tain, who is obliged to rule with ConfentoftheF*,* laments, and a King who (hould abrogate and de- stroy Parliaments, and govern with the Advice of a few Servants or Courtiers, that is, as there is be- twixt a Tyrant and a lawful Magiftrate. In the third place, it is no lefs difficult to know what he underftands by Moderated: Whether thefe Jjfjftants lhould moderate the Bifhop's Authority by exerting a Negative Voice ; or whether they fhoukl be Councilors oniy; So that their moderating his A u«r Demonfttttito 0/Kpifcopacy. r 5 ^utliority will -amotint to no more but advifirrg, which is a feeble way of Moderating. The Chapter or Affiftants of the Englijh Bifhop are Counfellors only, and have not a Negative upon his Lordfhip. It muft be made appear then, that he who wa$ call'd Bifhop in the fecond Centurie, could aft as he pleas'd in the Affairs of Government, with or againft the Confent of thefe few of the Presbyters^ who ( according to M. C's way of expreffion ) were his Afliftants ; or it muft.be confefled, that our Au- thor fhould have given another Name than. Demon- ftration to his Writing. In a word, nothing can be made of this Demonftration, till thefe three things be proven to us with great Evidence, even as great as the nature of a Demonftration requires. Fir ft, That the Bifhops in the fecond Centurie had every one of them many Churches under Charge. Secondly, That they acted in Affairs of Dlfcipline, not in conjunction with all their Presbyters, but a (mall number of them only, the Body or far greater part being excluded from the Government wholly, by the Bifhop and his Afliftants or Chapter. Thirdly, That the Bifhop could rule withor againft the confent of thefe few of the Presbjjpr.s^ who us'd to fit craft in con j.u rift ion with him. Now if any of thefe three Particnlars be not pro- ven, not only the Demonftration falls, bat it will oe evident, there was no fucli th : ng in the 'fecond Cen- time, asaDiocefan Bifhop of the modern fafhion. For Mr/C. reckons th^fe three things .eflential; and it is clear, nothing can be without what is eflentiaf. Let us fee then what kind of Arguments he propofes, When I firft read the fplendid Title ofchisDif- courfe, viz. Demonftration of Epifcopacy, I expefted great things, more weighty Arguments than any hi- therto produced in favours of the Caufc ; but the truth is, I was fomething furpris'd when I found, that all the Probation came to no more but thcOpU A 3 nion 6 An Jnjwerto Mr. Chillingworth , / pion of two or three private Divines. Molin*mzn& Be\a fav fitch things, Er#o y A weak foundation to a Demonftration. Be^t and fll'mxim were Great Men, and Presbyterians too, but not infallible ; 'tis pofli- ble they might miftake : I have known as Great and Learn'd "Men as any of 'ejn miftake a thing egregU oufly. Mr. C. was a Learn'd Man, yec nothing weaker than his Demonftration of Epifiopacy. What more ridiculous than to obtrude upon us the Opinion of a private Divine or two as Demonftration ? But what do Molinau* and Be^a fay ? They confefs, fays Mr. C. That this Government wm received univer* fa'liy in the Church, either in the Apoftles time or pre- sently after. What Government ? to wit, the Epif- copal Government before defcribed. But this is a falfity : Neither Molinxus nor he\a confefs any fuch thing. Molinxus does indeed fay, Statim po(i, &c. + In the time of the Apojiles, or Joon after, as Ecclefiaftical fliftorie teftifies, it was appointed that in one City,ene among the Presbyters Jbould be calTd Bijlwp, and have a Preheminence among hi* CoUegues, to Jbun that Con* fufion which is caus'd by equality. But what is this to the purpofe ? Is this to confefs, that in the time of the Apoftles or foon after,everyBifhop had fome hun- dreds or fcores of Churches under his Charge ? Or that he, who was call'd Bifhop in the fecond Centu* rie, did not aft in AtFairs of Government in conjun- ction with all the Presbyters of the Diocefs, but a fmall number of them oniy, excluding the reft ? Or is this to confefs, that the Bifhop then could act whether thefe few of his Presbyters, who were his jijfifiants in the Government, confented or not ? Will it follow that Moiinaus confeffed, there was fuch an Efifcopacy in the fecond Centurie,as Mr. C. defcrives, becauie f Statim poft Apoftolorum, aut- etiam eorum tempore, ut teftatur Hi- floria Eccleiiaftica, conftitutum eft ut in una Urbe, unus inter caiteros pre-byteros tpifcopus vocarstur, qui inter fuos Coliegas haberet praeemi- ncntiam, ad vitandam Contuiionera 'iu* ex a*qaaliute nafcitur. Vemonftrition of Epifcopacy . 7 becaufe he fays,' that one of the Presbyters was call'd Bifhop then, and had a Preheminence among his Collegucs ? Not at all. Perhaps we will g^ant, (hat there were Bifhops in the beginning of the fecond Centurie, that thefe Bifhops were above the Presbyters, had a Mujtritr, Superiority of Power, and Preheminence. But be it known, that this will make nothing for that fort of Epifcopacy which is pleaded for at this day. There wrere Confuls in he J^oman Senate, who had a Prehe- minence, not only a Superiority of Dignity, but a Power fuperiour to that of any Senator; + yet had they not a Negative Voice, in the Senate, muqh lefe fuch a Power as our modern Prelate pretends to ia the Church. 'Tis to no purpofe then to tell us, that this and the other Presbyterian Author makes fuch or fuch Con- ceflions, unlefs thefe Authors concede, that the Bi- fhops in the fecond Centurie had a Negative Voice at leaft \ and tho they ftio'uld grant this, we will have but very little regard to them, ( even o.ir great Champions Blondel and Silmifius themlelves) uaiefs they prove it very evidently. Wherefore f. S. did put himfelf to a dealofneed- lefs trouble, by heaping together fo many Citations out of Presbyterira Writers of all Lbrts,granting there vrtte Bijho'ps in the fecund Centurie, that thefe Bi- fhops were Superiour to Presbyter s y \\zd more Power, ot the like. The truth is, I underftahTnot whatadvan- tage he can make to our mo.lern Prelates by luch Conceffions. or Citations. > Would he be at Snaking fuclila'ftne inference as this? Bnhopb Were^uperiour to Presbyters in the fecond or third Centuries ; there- fore in this Centurie Bifhops (hould have abfolute Poorer, or at leak a Negative Voice in the Presbytery I'm afraid this way of arguing would be look'd on as weak and Sophiftical % Yet f Confulis Iraperium hie priravs f.?Tafquc fci utr* Accipicu J8 An, AnfmrtoMr, Chillingworth'/ ,Yet itTeetfishe does argue after this manner (as alfo Mr. C % and many others of the Party) for in P. ^65, -after 'he has warnMany,whQ may undertake to anfwer his Book, not to, nibble at incidental efcapes, but to grapple with tile main defignof his Writing, he adds, 'It tan do no'fubjtamial Service to the Tresby- tericws'y to prove , that he has fometimes miflaken the weaving of a Citation, or jatVi in point of reajonwg^ \o lovg'M'this Proportion ftands firm, THAT IN CT- P^AN'S TIME THERJ. WAS A PROPER P I{ELATlO N OF A BISHOP OVEB^P I{E S- B TTE I{S. This is fairly to infinuate, he has gain'd his Point, if it remain proven that a Bifhop was any way Superiour in Power to a Presbyter in Cyprian's J time. And what is his Point, pray, which he makes it his bulinefs to prove ? It is this, That a Bifhop is ■an abfolute Monarch, or at leaft lhould have a' Ne- gative/Voice in the Presbytery. So that, if what he Tays \>e put in mode and figure,it will amount to fucti a Syllogifm^s this, Whatever Power the Bifhop had in Cyprian\ time, that may the Prelate now claim J -but in Cyprian^ time the Bifhop was Superiour to a' .rresbjter^Ergo, theTrelate now may claim to Ab- folute Power ; which will not follow. Any Perfoil may eafily' perceive, it will not follow, the Bifhoji "lhould ha?e . abfylute Power now, or even a Negative Voice, f iQ/rh thf^i that there was a proper,, Preiatiou '«f ^Biihop ovzx : Presbyurs in Cypria w's.tirne. But" id 1 It may »e oWerred, that if the Queition be put, Whether the Church was in Cyfrian*t time by Paltours acting in paruy or imparity ? If by who had the Paftoral Overiight of a diftinct h or Congregation ( feeing all fuch Paftours were Bilhops then ) the u thi^ Whethei the Churches lhould be Ku'.'d by Bi- y ot impart)' \ But if by Paitours, the Frtshjtttt of a ::ion, bt underitoodfii may be faid ^ in the wordi of JHUirueui ) That in the time of the A pottles, or foon after, it wa= appointed, that in one Cay or Church, one anung ihe •'.'f lhould be : ^eminence a-uorg hi • -at thv» i o An Anfwer to Mr. Chilling worths the Queftion, would bring theBifhop's Power with- in as narrow a Cmipafs as he could \ and certainly, if any Power at all be left to him above the Presby- ters, the loweft degree oflmparity is the very fmal. left meafure or portion that can be thought on) that fo the Presbyterians might have as little advantage as may be, and that the force of their Arguments might he directed,, not againft Ab\o\tite Power, which is eafie to be overturned, but againft Imparity among Paftours, which is a little thing only, and an ambi- guous Expreihon, and cannot l fo eafily be hitten. But I may fay to J. S. That if the Rifhops now will claim to no more Power, than what may be foun- dation for faying, that they aft in imparity with other Paiiours, i for I'm fure that their being conftant Mo- derators in the Presbyterie or Synod, without any more, would be foundation enough for this J the two Parties m'ght eafily be brought to an Agreement. In fine, when our Prelatiits have proven with the greaceft evidence imaginable, that the Bilhops in the fecond Centune were Superiour to Presbyters, had a Majority of Power, &c. they have done no- thing acail, unleis they make it appear they had then fuch a Superiority, or fuch a Majority of Power, as is hjow claimed 10. J. s. endeavours indeed, as was faid, to prove they had, at leait in the Cypria- Tiick times, but with what fuccefs will afterward ap- pear. But neither J}. S. nor any Epijcopal Writer ever I heard of, oftlr to prove, or fomuch as toaf- fiiin, Tnat the Biihop in the lecond Cencurie + go- verned f Perhaps there's as much reafon to fay, That in England they have wre- fied from the Bdhop and Presl>y!efs of the Diocefs, that wnich Cyprian calls Sublimit iff piviqb fotejt'as gubtfnavdi Ecclejiam* and put it in tnc hinds of the Chancellour of the Diocefs, or Bnhop's Court. And was that the Apo- ftohcal and primitive way of.governing the Church ? Truely they would m-c have acted in greater oppolition to the Principles and Practice of the UniverfdlC:u:rch ror many AgeS, if they had difchurged their Buhopsand Pa hours to difpenfe their sacraments, and impowerd their Mad-wives to idminifter Bapufra and the Lord's buppex publicity in all their Churches. OurLeanrd Counrry-man B Burnet fays, That as to the management of EccleiiaiticalJunfdicV.on, it ism the Church's power to caft it into what mould me will. But when he proves that, 1 lhali prove, ihe may call the i-acramewB as to the Adiuiniftration of them into what mould Hie will, m Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 1 i verned his Church by a Chancellour, Sub-chancel- lour, or Court of fuch Officers, excluding the Body of the Presbyters of the Diocefs. Wherefore the Church of England is deferted by all, and not one of her Sons has the confiience to lend her a helping hand : Yet fome take upon them to fay, That the Government of that Cnurch comes neareft tne A- poftolical Pattern, little valuing that Wo which is denounced againft thofe, who all evil goo J 9 and good evil^ that put darknefs for light y and light for dirknefs* Ifai. c. 5. v. 20. To return to our Dcmunftrator. Seeing the Demonftra:ion is founded on the Ac- knowledgments of Bc\a aid Molin*'/t$ and feeing thele Divines * acknowledge no fuch thing, as is pretended, the Demonftrarion has no foundation, and conibquentiy cometh to nothing. Yet lean any (hould imagine the Bifhops in the fecond Centurie had thefe 3 things, Mr. C. reckons effential to Epifcopacy, tho perhaps they may be o- bliged to confefs, that the Con.effions of thefe or o- ther Presbyterian Authors cannot be (o far ttretched, we (hall make it appear in as few words as we can, That the Bifhops had none of thefe Eifentials in tiiat Ceniurie. B 2 CHAP. like manner : And pray, when did the Church of England cafe her E altical Jurifdicuon into thi? mould? I'm afraid the state did it whether the Church would or not. When the Queltion is ttated, Whether tt-. or Diocefs Jhiuldb* tui'd by Y.ijhufs aiui.g in faiity . the meaning is, Whether the Discipline or the Church (the indicting Ccnl 1 ion, abfoivin § Penitents, &.o ) lhould be managed by faiiuurs a- n parity orimparuy? But feeing in tngl.ir.d ihe Difcipline of the Church or Die -,ed neither by the Buliop nor Presbyters* but by the Chancellour of the Diocefs and hi^Co^r, it is evident, th (hould be Rut- j. ng in parity or imp . Quciiiun that ha 3 no relation to the purput'e. They may a s well fay, Whe- ther the Bifhop lhould wear horns on his head, is the ltatc of the Qj - betwiv. any Church or N.uion laould difcharge their pa toadmirufter the Sacraments, and imploy the that would be a more tolerable abufe, than is the difcharging the f to medic with the Difcipline, ai.d would not have fuch ops were I'attour* of more than or. . be noi ifue ijtioways iafenour to thcm,(e. g. BHttiti or B^xt:r) con- fefs no fuch thing. i % An Anftver to Mr. ChillingworthV CHAP. II. Thefalfity of the fir ft Propofition, which Mr. Chillingworth//?^/^ have demonftrat- ed, evidenced by making it appear , that the Ancient Bijhops were Paftours of one Congregation only. Dr. Maurice'/ £jc- ceptions anfwered. TH E firft thing then that Mr. ChiUingworth fhould have demonftrated to us, is^ That a, Bijbop in the fecond Centurie had many, or all the Churches within a certain Precintl or Diocefs under his Charge. This is not true. The Epifcopal Church or Di- ocefs coniifted then but of one fingle Congregation. Thus Ignatim, one Altar, i.e. Commun ion-Table, to the whole Church, and one Bijbop with the Presbytery, and Deacons my Feliow Servants. Ep. ad Phil. In vain does Mr. Dodwell tell us here, the meaning is, one Supream Altar with Inferiour Altars fubor- dinate thereto. If it be faid, that one Altar here figni- fieth one Supreme Altar, it mult be faid for thefame reafon, that one Bijbop with the Presbytery fignifieth one Supreme Bifhopand Presbytery in every Church, v/ith inferiour Bifhops and Presbyters fubordinate to them ; there is no reafon for taking one Bijlwp nume- rically, and one Altar otherways. For there is not one word,in the Authors of the firft and fecond Cen- turies, of inferiour Altars fubordinate to that of the Bifhop. Further, this diftinftion is inconhftent with what the fame Ignatius writeth to Polycarp then Bifhop of Smyrna, let your AjJ'emblies ( faith he ) be more frequent, enquire into all by Name, overlook not the Men and Maid-p.rvants m Seeing Polycarp could take perfonal Inlpeition of all within his Diocefs, even the Men and Maid-fervants, 'tis evident he could not have injeriour Altars, or more Congrega- tions Vemonflration of Epifcopacy. i j tions than one in his Diocefs, to enquire into aR hi Name, being a fufficient task to one who has a Dio- cefs like a Scotijb Presbyterian one. And feeing Po- lycarp 9 as we are told, was a Metropolitan, we may fafely conclude, that all the Bi(hops in the World then had Dioceffes of no other kind. This is a truth fo evident, that it is confefs'd by asLearn'd and Eminent Men, as the Eptfcopal Party can let us fee on their fide. I inftance only two, the late Bifhop of Vforcejter and }Ar.$ofeph Nlede. Saith ^Av.Mede, It fhouli feem, that in tkofe firft times, before Diocefan were divided into leffer andfub- ordinate Churches, we now call Faroches, and Presbyters djftgned to them, they had not only one Altar in one Church or Dominicum y but one Altar to A Church, taking A Church for the Company or Corporation of the Faith- ful, united under one Bifhop, and that was in the City and Place where the Bifhop had hit Hefidence. D. Mau - rice would difable this Evidence, becaufe Mr. Medc expreffes it with caution and modefty, itjhould feem. But, as fays a very ingenious Author, u Such mo- "defty makes it more valuable, being the humour u and way of that Learned Man; he had made as But tt fecras the cin deny what be pjetfci. 1 4 An Anfoer to Mr. ChillingworthV :ur\ or Tgiunaj'stim-j ? 1 mean in the davs of ConflAnxirty when Paulinus wasBilhop of lyre the Metropolis of Phoenicia, and whofe Bishop had the Precedencie of all the Oriental Metropolitans, nexc to the Patriarch of Antiocb. For uich refpeft to thU, Paulinus the Panegyrift (in his Oration at the Dedication of the new built Church of lyre) Eufelnas has thefe words : Vnto thts Perjon alone there- Hift: eu iib. fore be it lawful next after the Chief and prin- I0 - "P4- cipal High-Prieft % (i.e. Chrift ) if not to have the fi r ft> y et t0 have the Jecond place at leaft, in looking into, and taking care of the very inraoji recejfes of youi Soiils^ * for by help of experience and long time, he ha* both made accurate inquiries into every particular perj on am$ng you y and alfo by his Care and Induftne has i?:- ftrucled you all in modeftie, in the Doftrinc, which is according to Godlinefs, and he is abler xhan any one elje to give fuch aucount % oc„ f Thus you fee, thatP^u- linus :• p. 2S. So that Epifcofa! Diocc.fes, confifting re Kamic . . Luric. • i. f peaking of the work of a Biihop, fa) is principally taken up abot :riii of the h- , . Si 7 i Z'JU czraJfi* But when the Paftoun becim- B.u.ops of many i en man I cured. 1 6 An Anfwer to Mr. ChillingworthV Jivus, who was Bishop of one of the moft confidera- ble Dioceffes in the Work-in the 4th Centurie, made inquiries into every particular Perfon under his Charge, was acquaint witk the inmofc recedes, or Spiritual fcate ot their Souls, and inftrufted them all in the Doftrines of Religion. Wherefore it is evi- dent, that the Diocefs of Tyre y as confiderable as it v/as, was but one Congregation in the 4th Centurie. And therefore we have reafon to conclude, that, ge- nerally fpeaking, the Epifcopal Dioceffes even in the 4th Centurie, were bur Congregational Churches. If Home, Alexandria, Carthage and Antiocb be exce- pted, Epifccfi f4ium> iff utrinfuefedeat Prtsbyterium, iff adJlentDiaccni expeditiae inviter tn&utij Laici tmmno qwett iff crdinatim ftdeant. lumque reatahitur Jtv.mgelium, cmr.gs Presbyten iff Diaccni, Vnivtrfufque topujut magntcum fijcntibjlent, Aiitkit Ep'fupus Pepulo pacem precatus benedicat ei. Conft. Apolt. Lib. i. Cap. 57. 1 hat is, Let rhe Church or Houfe be long, built towards the Eaft ; let the Biihop's Throne be fet in the middle of it, and the Pres- byters lu on both fides of the Throne or Pulpit j let the Deacons ftand rea- dy, in a flight and eafy drefs: let the People fit in order, without noife. When the Gofpel is read, let all the Presbyters, Deacons, and the whole People fund in great filer.ee, then the Biihcfp having prayed, let him blefs the people. They are very blind, who do not perceive here, that the £- frfupal Church was one Congregation j that all the Presbyters, Deacons, and People of tbe Eptfiopal Church or Diocefs, ufed to alfemble for publick Woilhip in one Houfe, in the days of the Author of thefc Conftitutions. Tho tnefe Conftitutions are falfly afcribed to Clement ,it cannot be doubt* ed that they are very ancient, and contain a defcription of the ftate of the Church, in the time in which they were written. And the lefs ancient they are. the more they make for our purpoie. Thus Bzrzw Yop. Supr. p. 12.8. "The Apoftolical Conftitutions, a veryaneient Book,and feiting forth "the molt ancient Traditions of the Church. And fays the fame Author r "They defcribethe ftate of the Church, its Cuftoms and Practices curienc "in the time of the Compiler. And Du pin, They contain many things very "ufefultothe Difcipline. Confult alfo Dr. Bevtvge. This to let you fee what Dr. Maurice fays about them, being much ftraitned by them, is little to be legarded. He fays, the Author was a Cheat, and fo deftrves no cre- dit at all. But will it follow, that becaufethe Author of thefe Conftituti- ons fet them out under a borrowed Name, that he might gain more Autho- rity to them, there ,ore there is not one word of truth in them i To pretend fuch a thing is ridiculous. Neither is it eafv to conjecture, what could* have induced this Author to reprefent the Epfccpai Dioceifes in his time as Congregational Churches contrary to Matter of Fact; Per for s who pro- mote Fictions, ufe to do it for fome reafonable end, at leaft the/ will take care, that the Fictions the? advance have fome refembUnce of truth, that they be fuch, that the faliity of 'em probably will not eaiily be differed, efpecial.y in their own lime. But if the Diocelfes were fuch then, as Dr. u fancies, the Fiction was too palpable, nay notorioufly fenielefs -, and the Author could propofe nothing rationally thereby, bur the caufing of hmfelr be looked upon as a \ ilhin or mod Man by every body. It you : his Conlideration, that Ignatius, Cyprian, Eufebiui and other WrU ho can ccme urdir no fufpicion, with refpect to this particular, re- : them the fame way, ii wtfl be found abfurd to fufpect tkw Auihcc wah refpvG ;o this Point. Demon 'ft rat ion #f Epifcopacy. 1 7 pted, perhaps there was not a more confiderable Church in the World then, than that of Tyre. Before we proceed further, let us hear what Dr. Maurice has to offer againfr what is faidi He an- fwers, firft, " That it is ufual in Panegyricks to raife u things beyond Nature, and the ftriftnefs of Truthi u What therefore, if Eufebius by all this Citation w fhould intend only to commend the diligence and l€ penetration of that Biihop of Tyre, that he had the l< Gift of difcerning Spirits, and of judging aright " whofe Repentance was fincere, and therefore to t€ be received into Communion, whofe Converfion u was unfeigned, and therefore to be admitted unto * Baptifm + &c. they are to blame who would force * a complement into a fyllogifnu This anfwer is noways fatisfa&ory. For whate- ver liberty may be allowM to a Panegyrift, in rai- ling things beyond Nature, he is ltill tied to Matter ofFaft, that is, he muft not venture to coin ftorieSj invent Romances, or advance things never heard of, ito heighten the glory of his Hero. * Vt ncc^ue ve- \ra law ei detracts Oratione nojtra, nee falfa afficta ef- \fe videatur 9 fays Cicer$ very rationally, in a Panegy- rick upon Pompey. i. e. That nothing may be detra- cted from his due praife by our Oration, and that nothing mayfeem to be added thereto beyond Matter of Fact* Here the Orator tells us, what great things Pompey did in italie, Sicilie, Africa^ Gallia and Spaing and perhaps he might take the liberty to hyperbolize, and make the things he did in thefe Places appear greater than they were really. But it he had advan- C ced t The Lejrn'd Dr. deftroys his Hypothecs by this very Anfwer. i-or it ; ^iiblc to d Biil.jp, to judge or the iincerity or the Repentance and cdnef. of the Convei . ^ Diocrfs ct the modern U\ op troubles h: . iU V ) ibis is what cai.'i be dancwithou 1 : peifoiul acquaintance, dud careful Obfervauon oi People'* Con v.; long time. nmeodaiion of fUfilmd Grtg:ry Ha^jUtq^. ptfTO?/- -■ X.cLK?W CtTTcLV J n?d {J.ZV 31, TG nIv - tvctW VcrboruraeicianiuT. decccp r ctuntj I 1 8 An Anfwer to Mr. ChillingworthV ced Fi&ions, and added to Matter of Faft, had gra- vely told the Homan People, that Pompey fubdued the Empire of China, and made it tributary to the Common-wealth, made India or Ethiopia fubject to them, conquered the Ifles of Britain, or the like, what would that have been, but to ridicule Pompey , and to expofe himfelf to laughter ? But our Doftor is not afham'd to fay* that Eufe- him, a very grave Perfon, entertain'd the Chriftians of tyre with fuch Fictions as thefe* He might in- deed fet off Paulinims actions with all the advantage he could, and carry things to as great a height as de- cency would allow ( for there muft be a decorum ob- ferved in thefe things, el'fe our Panegyrick will be look'd on as Hatter ie, and become the moil naufeous fluff in the world) but to fancie he would fay, that , Paulinus took care of) and iook'd into the very inmofi recejfes of the Souls of the People in hit Diocefs, when it was evident to every one, that this was altoge- ther impoffible; or, that he made accurate inqui- ries into every particular Perfon among'em, whereas he never attempted any (uch thing, more than did Pompey the Conqueit of China or Ethiopia ; and that he inflrufbed them all with care and modeJtie y when it was notoriouily known he never inftru&ed the hun- dred part of them, or but one Congregation in a large Diocefs, appears fomething extravagant* If this Doclor ihould fay in a publick Speech, that the Bifhop of London, by help of experience and long time, hath both made accurate inquiries into every particular Perfon in the Diocefs of London, and in- itrucred them all with care, &c. and give out, he intended no more by all this, but to commend that Bifhop's diligence, in loukmg after the People be- longing to the Cathedral Cnurch, or doing any thing a Man is able to do among fuch a valily numerous People ; he would be thought a very odd fort of a PanegynA, and I'm afraid, fitter to make fpeechea in Bedier/i) than any where elfo The *Demonjlratioft of Epifcopacy. 1 9 The Doftor further tells us, that Eufebius fays not the leaft word, that Paulinus had but fo many under his Charge, that he could look into ail their Souls. This is a miftake. Eufebius fays, that he look'd into all the Souls of his Flock or Diocefs ; but if the Doctor will affirm, Paulinus had more Souls un- der his Charge, than belong'd to the Diocefs, or were counted his Flock, I can't help it. Then adds our Doftor, Eufebius fays only, it was lawful for Paulinus to do fo, to be an Infpeftor on Bifhop of their Souls, not that he was fo actually. This is another miftake; Eufebius fays not only, it was lawful, but that actually by help of experience and long time 9 be had both made accurate inquiries into eve- ry particular Perfon, and inflrucled tbem y E3V, And he fays, be it lawful^ becaufe Paulinus alone had the Epifcopai Overfight of them, and was accountable for their Souls, which no other Bifhop was* And if the thing was impoffible, how came it into Eufebius** head to fay, it was lawful for Paulinus to do it ? he might as well have faid, it was lawful to him to move the Earth out of its place. It fcems the Doftor, tho he might be of Opinion, that this anfwer might contribute to the darkning of the Point, or the obfeuring of this Paffage of £«- febius, and the blinding of the eyes of fome,yet was not fatisfied with it himfelf ; wherefore he propones another quite contrary thereto ; telling us, that Eu- febius was dire&ing his Difcourfe to thefe only of the Diocefs, who fell in the Perfecution, and were in the ftate of Penitents, and that it is with refpeft to them, that Eufebius commendeth the discretion of the bifhop, that he can fee into the fecrets of their hearts, occ. There is as little truth in this, as in what he faid before. The Difcourfe of Eufebius is directed noc to thefe only, who fell in the Perfecution, but to the whole Flocks or People of the Dioccfe Ahhd kcu C 2 V^tiS 2 o An Jnftvcr to Mr. Chilling wor thV v(juh{ *> tu< Uftis dyitoif yet?* Qp^fxetTctl And you O Sheep of the holy Flock of Chrift ; and then follow- ed the PaflTage in debate, Vmo xby> Perfon alone therefore be it lawful, &c. without the interpofition pf fo much as one word, that has particular refpeft to thefe, who were in a ftate of Penitents among them. Then Eufcbius addeth a little after, that Paulinus tmilded that Church at agreatExpence; Tou having contributed liberally toward the defraying of it, to wit, you the inmoft receffes, ot whofe Souls he looked in- to, and took care of, &c. And I hope no Perfon will imagine that Church was built at the Expence of thefc allennarly, who were in a ftate of Penitents at that time, it being undeniable that the whole Peo- ple of the Diocefs contributed for that end. Thus it remains evident, notwithftanding all this Doftor is able to fay, that Paulinus Biihopofthe great Metropolitical Church oi7yre l even in the 4th Cenrurie, was but a Paftour of one fingle Congre- gation. And from what Eufebius fays with refpeft to this Paulinus, it is eafy to judge what ihould be thought pfthat Glofsthe Author of the Cafe of the Epifcopal Clergy m Scotland, puts upon the fore-cited Sen- tence out of Ignatius*s Epiftle to Poly carp : In- plgclt i uirc a f ter a M h Name, ncgleft not the Men and Maidservants. " The Bifhops in Bohemia^ ?( faith he) had Catalogues of all within the Pa- " roches of their refpeftive Bounds, and took care to know them, &c. It is evident enough from what is faid with refpeft to Paulinus^ that the care which the Bifhop took of the Perfons belonging to his Flock, was quite another thing than a keeping a Catalogue of their Names ; It was an inputting them all wi:h care ; it was a making accurate inquiries into every particular Perfon among'em, and an acquainting himfclf with the ftate ot their Souls. Could the Bifhops Dmonftntion of Epifcopacy . 2 r Bifliops in Bohemia, do this ? I trow this is as much as the Presbyterian Bifhops can get done in their Paro- chial Dioceffes. What an eafy task is the Epifcopxl Office made now by this rare invention ? And how childifh were Na\ian\en\ and Chryfoftom's Flourifhes knent the laborioufnefs thereof? But pray, »good Sir, what the better would the People in the Diocefs of London be, if the Bithop fhould have a Catalogue of all their names in his pocket, and fhould take care to know them, if this were poffible to any Man ? When Peter faid, Feed the Flock of God which is among you, taking Epifc$pal ln\pecti$n thereof, Itig-kott^vti^ intended he no more but the keeping of a Cata- logue of their Names ? And tho each Paftour were obliged to acquaint the Bifhop of London twice a month with the ftate of his Paroch, ( as he fays the Paftours of Bohemia did) yet what a general and fu- perficial kind of Epifcopal infpeftion would this be, and how far from Bifhop Pauhnus's way, who looked |into, and took care of the inmoft recefles of the Souls belonging to his Flock ? I fufpeft fome will be ready to think, that what this Author fays here, and f. S. in the 7th Chap, of his Vindic: fays about Popular Elections, looks fome- thing like that, which the Apoftle calls detaining the truth in unrighteoujnefs, and that thefe Writers could not but be confeious, they were dealing deceitfully, when they were fetring themfelves to invent fuch Igrofs and palpable delulions. But to return to our JDoaor, I confefs, I have no inclination to examine ail the Anfwers he makes to worthy Mr. CUrkfon, in his large Trafrat in defence of Diocefan Epifcopacy (tho I believe, that would be a work more tedious" than difficult) yet I think it will not bj amiis to coniider one other Point in Concroverfy betwixt them, with refpeft to which he triumphs over him extraordi- narily, branding him with notorious dii-ii}£enui:y; and 22 An Anfoer to Mr. ChillingworthV and we do it fo much the rather, becaufe it is to the purpofe in hand. It is this. Mr. Clarkfon affirms, that Barfes and Eulogius (Monks) were ordain'd Bifhops, and had no other Diocefles but the Mona-fteries in which they livedo and cites Socmen for his Author, declaring in his Hiftorie, they were made Bifhops not of any Town, but were ordain'd in their own Monafteries. Where- upon our Learn'd Dottor.as if Mr. Clarkfon had been one of the moft dif-ingenuo-sPerfons that ever put Pen to Paper, tells us with the greateft confidence imaginable, that* "If the Author (Mr. Clarkfon) had " tranfcribed but two words more out of Socmen, he " had fpoil'd ail his Argument. But becaufe nothing ieftion then between Mr. Clark* ton and the Doctor will be about the nature of this Ordi- * Barfes item & Eulogius qui quidem ambo poftmodum Epifcopi tuerc, lion aticujus Urbis fed honoris dunraxac caufa, tanquam ad rcpenfajKfl ira iL-foium facinoraj In fail Monafteriis Ordinate V*lejtus. Demonfitation tf/Epifcopacy* 2 3 Ordination. Says the Do&or, they were only Ti- tular Bifhops. Wherefore, according to him, they were ordain'd to the Title only, not to the Office of Bifhops. That is, he would have us believe, that the Church at that time made a mock of Ordinati- on, which is God's Ordinance, and made thefe Per- fons Bifhops, in no other fenle than the Empsrour's Horfe would have been Conful of Hgme % They might as well have baptiz'd a Pagan to make him a Titular Chriftian % And fay we, They were ordain'd to the Epifcopul Office, and were made Bifhops of their re- foeftive Monafteries +. ( £«ffr79N»8trrf{ if tojV £*V ©/* fj-ovdis-iifiQis) and were hereby impowered to per- form in thefe Monafteries all that work, which be- longs to the Epifcopal Oifice. And becaufe it was not thought honourable enough, thac thefe famous Perfons fhould be lxiled only Bijbops of Monafteries ; therefore each of them goc the Title of lome Town, and were ftiled Bilhop thereof: as fome of our No- bles are ftiled Duke or Lord of fuch a Town, ( for I honour's caufe) in which they have no jntereft at all. Famous Mr. Dodrveil is of Opinion, chat Ordina- tion is that, which effentially conftitures or create* 1 one a Bifhop. Wherefore feeing thefe Monks were = ordain'd, they were rei\ y and not Titular Biihops i only, and did really oificiate as Biihops in their Mo- nafteries, and consequently their Monafteries were really their Diocelfes, tho they were not ftiled Bi- fhops of thefe Monafceries,buc Bilhop of fome Tu*n lor honour's fa;fopum in . ejj'e, <& EuKJumtn Eptfiopo, &c. Cypr. Ep. 65. p. '6$. Here y ■> jahe notice or" the ignorance of thefe, who uy, that the Bilhop is proper, y tpifti'puf y.iji. rum ,~uid the fre^bycers Epificpt Greets. You fee, thit the uck Bi bop xrnEp'fiopus Gregk, Paitourof the Flock or feople. {*) Mcpolleat Epifcopus 5apicmia ? ut non folum Creditum iibi Popu- lum futhcicnter doceat--ne fua in; crritia impehtOf mimmc doceatySt hui uf- modi caufa prjycu = . 3 o An Anfwer to Mr. Chilling worth V by bis Presbyters, by them he feeds all his Congre- gations; but, I fear, he would take it ill, if he were obliged to fpend the Episcopal Revenue by the Pres- byters too : he knows how to do that by himfelt. But in procefs of time, when the Bifhop's Diocefs became fo numerous, that it was not poffiole to the- People to affemble as one Congregation, did not the Bifhop divide his Diocefs into diltinft Congregati- ons or Paroches, and fet up a Presbyter, as fixed Paftoar in every one of thefe Congregations, and were not thefe diftinft Congregations ftiil look'd on as parts of the Bithop's Flock or Diocefs; and was not he looked on as Paftour or Bifhop of thefe Con- gregations, having Sub^paftours, Surrogates, or Presbyters to preach and adminifter the Sacraments to them ? Very true. But I fay with Dr.Barow, this waSj I tear, a latter invention ; for a Bifhop to feed fome Congregations of the Flock by Surrogates, was a thing not known in the rirft 3 Centuries, and was but very rare in the fourth. Secondly, this was their error. W hen a Bifhop's Diocefs did grow above the bulk of a Congregation, a new Diocefs (hould have been erefted, and a new Bifhop fet over ir. Yet this was done upon the Matter; for when the Bi- fhop erefted a new Congregation in his Diocefs, and conftituted a Presbyter fixed Paftour thereof, he did ipjojdclo ceafe to be Bifhop of that Congregation, and remain'd Bifhop thereof nominally only, and with refpeft to the Emoluments and Revenue, and the Presbyter, who was made fixed Paftour thereof became by being made Paftour of it, Bifhop thereof really, tho nominated a Presbyter, and was perhaps ftill look'd on as fach, and keep'd in dependance on the former Biihop. Neverthilefs it muft be own'd, that when a Bifhop had many Presbyters, ani found himfelf obliged to fee up fome new Congregations in his Diocefs, and 1 Pres* Demonflration of Epifcopacy / 3 1 Presbyters asfix'd Paftours in them; the Ancients were not fo dull as to think, that thefe were no more but meer Presbyters, like the reft, or as they were before they became Paftours, they e'en knew, that :hefe P&ji our -Presbyters were really biihops; and be- caufe they exerted the Office of Biihops in Villages ;>r Country-places, therefore they were calYd Chore- oifcopi. But fome time afterward, when the pride md ambition of the Biihops did increafe, they would have theie Paftours of Congregations or Chorepifto- n % to be aothing but Presbyters, as formerly, con- trary to fenfe and reafon. For what could be more contrary to common fenfe, than to make thefe, who had an Epifcopai Charge, and perfonn'd the work of the Epifcopai Office," even the higheftachot the Prieithood (preaching of the Word and Adminiftra- tion of Sacraments) to reckon thefe, I fay, nothing but Presbyters, or deny they were Biihops. ( \My* ) The Biihops alo.je diJ. ordinarily admini- fter the sacraments-, and if the Presbyters did it, it was but rarely, and in the Bifhop's abfence(a). The Bifhop fa) Vnde intelligintus non mfiin Ecc/ifia Prm Epifcupi Auibcritate, propter Ecclefiee bo- oorem. Cap. 17. And hence ic feerai 10 be evident, ihii dd Epifcopai Dio- cefs then was but one Congregation . for in thefe Diocelfes, where the Pres- et rixed in Congregations of their own, they have the power of the Sacraments as well as the Biihops, baptize when they pleafe, without con- fuliin^ the Biihop in the ari'air, or expecting, Orders from him wherefore it can't jc faid, that they baptize by the Authority of the Biihop, as in ri*% time, rhey tell us, that the Presbyters are impower'd by the Biihop to baptize, viz. when he Ordains them, and therefore they baptize by the Authority of the Biihop. But this helps not the Caufe, it can't be faid tor [his, thit the Procters in England baptize <-*,n Epif^pi Authonta- . Tcrtulli.m'* tiine. auppofe an the Bunops in England were dead, and they uiould fend over to Ft met for a new r*ro^eme, thefe would receive the power of Ordination, &c. from the Tranfmanne Bi.hops, as much as the Vttsbjtiri receive the power of Baptifm from the prefent Biihop; ; but coulJ it therefore be faid properly, Ordinandi qwiem jus babent ttanfmati- n.\ inline iff Anglu.ini E$/copi s nc-j \gmunjnu trsnfmcrimofwn* aui',...,itate i Wherefore Tettullnn's meaning feems to be no otner than this, I hat the ptesbytiri could not baptize but by exprefs Orders from the Biihop tct-.tt quj.es, or every time they were to adnunt;tcr ihat Sacrament. And hence wc may fay, it appear* that the Ptocfl wa> but a Conurbation, whereof 32 Jin Anfrver to Mr. ChillingworthV Bifbop admini-ftred the Sacraments to all in hisDio* cefs, ( b ) and perforpv'd all the other work incum? bent on the Paftour (0- (±ihly.) The whole People of the Diocefs us c dto be prefent at the reading of Letters, which had any relation to the Difcipline of the Church. Thus Cy* pirn wrote to Cornelius Bi(hop of %ome, He hop c dj that he did not negleft to read his Letters to the moft flouriflilng Clergy, ( i. e. the Presbytery ) who did preiide or rule there together withhimfelf, and to the mofc holv and numerous People (d> (Vbty.) the Bifiiop was Paftour, on whom it was incumbent to adminitler the Sacra- ments, Co thai none could adminiiter any of them without fcim, or express Orders from him. or when he was abfent or the lilte. Neither can it be laid, that the Vrtsbyttrs baptize by the Biihap's Authority, becaufe they] are accountable to him, or are made fo. Every particular Biihop is account- able to the Convocation, yet does not a Biihop baptize, &c. by the Convoca- tion^ Authority. (/>) Ut Sacramenti Veritatem Fraternitate omni prasrfcnte celebremus. Cyp. E}. 63. p. 155. (c) Omnium itaque curam gerat Epifcopus, turn eorum qui non pecca- 1 runt ut tales etie perfeverent, turn eorum qui deliquerunt ut poenitentiami ducant. Ad vos enim dicit Dominus, videie ne contemnatis unum ex hi» pulillis. " De omnibus eirofolicitus. Laicus enim fui tantum curam gerir, tu omnium, ut qui plus oneris habeas & majore pondere graveris -— qua- jpropter tanquam de plunbus rationem redditurus, curam omnium fuftine, ac fanosquidem conferva, eos vero qui peaccverunt increpa, jejunioqucj attritOs remifiione leva, & ingeraifcentem, univerfa precante pro eo Ec- ! clefiav recipe, manuque impolita, permute ut deinceps cum grege mane- at. Atfomniculofos & ignavos verfa, fuftulci, incita, confolare, fana, e- do&usquantam mercedem, iifecens h«c, capies; contra vero, quantum,! difcrimen, ft neglexeris. Nam Epifcopos populum parvipendentes hunc in modum alloquitur. E\ek. V<£ pajioribur, tyc. c. 34. *•> A^oJt y ionjL Lij.j a-. C. 18. How is it poiiible, that a Biihop can do all thefc things in any| Diocefs but a Congregational one. — similiter Epifcopus Laicos ut filio* Ciligat — cunctosadmonens, omnes qui caftigatione indigent l*deas fed 1:011 lllidens. ad converfionem premens non autem ad everiionem, fuadeni ad regreifum,' increpans ut corngat & in viam re&am deducat Popu-^ lum pacirkc pafcens, quod quaiiatum eft roborans, h. e. quod tentatione concutitur admonitione confolidans, quod aegrotum eft fanans, i.e. quod ex fide vacilianre laborat, per doctrinam curans 5 quod contritum ett li- gans. h- e. quod vagum eit vel collifum, velita peccatis contra&um ut in via claudice'r, per exhortatior.em confolatoriam vinciens. — Pari ergo rnodo, O Epifcope. & tu Deoobedientiam pratfta, dum quod perierat re- quiris, quod abeiraverat dirigis, quod feceiferat revocas, poteftatem enira fcabes revocandi. Pax autem & tranquillus eft porius Ecclefia Chrilti, ad quern neccatoies abfolvendo reftitue fanos 5c immaculatos 5 bene fpe- rantes, KUdiofoS, in bonis operibus laboriolos i ut peritus &. raifericorsme- dicus omnibus in pcccaro vcrlannbus medere Mr.tth. 9. iz. Luc. 19. io» Cum ergo lis Ecclefi* Domini Mcdicus, linguhs a?grotis convenientem Mcdicinam adhibe, omni modo cura. fana, fofpites redde Ecclefi• *39« Demonflrtiion of Epifcopacy. 3 5 ( yhlj. ) The People us'd all to be prefent at Con- futations and Debates about affairs ofDifcipline. (O (6tkly.) All the People of the D;ocefs us'd to be prefent at the inflicting of Cenfures (/). In a word, •nothing of any moment in Ecclefiaftical Affairs was done without 'em (g). Dr. Maurice meets us alfo in this place, and tells us, that omnti Fraternity, St antes Laid, Plebe uni- verja, and the like, muft not be taken in too ftrift •a fenfe. He tells us, that ferome fays, that all the People of Home came to the Funerals of Fioiola, that all tne People in the Cities ot Pdlefiine came to that of Paulina* and produces many inltanccs of Lhis kind, and concludes, That tho there be grea. num- bers of Congregations in a Church or Diocefs, wi:oh Church, whole People, &c. may be interpreted, one Congregation of that Church, ( whatever is done in pu- blick, fays he, and before a Congregation, that is unlimited, is in the common way of fpeaking, faid to be done by all the Community ) or underiTood of the Lijhop's Congregation. Thus, faith he, Alexan- der the PredecetTour ofAthanadu,: affembled the whole multitude in the Church called Iheonas, the other Churches being all itrait and little. Hence he gives Ub to understand that whole Fraternity, Plebs univer- J'a, all the Peoplc^d in Cjprian's Epiities, impiieno more but one Congregation of that Dioccfc of Carthage y or the Bijbvps Congregation, tho there were many o- ther Congregations in it. E True (0 Deinde fie collanone Confiliorum cum Epi^"copis, Presbyteris, Duco- mtcr ac (tain - aihuc . lifrn putave- limanda plenius raiio, nonun- vcrfj. Ep. 34, •. . pub- m no- i 8c lt- m.rcporcrnr. :u, qui •. ubire mcruc- {g ) dcacitciim nihil fine- Qfcnfu Plcbis mea ^rivai'm - 34 An Anfwer to Mr. Chillingworth^ True it is, when Jerome fays, all the People of 2{ome went to fuch a Woman's Funeral, no more can be made of the expreflion, but that a confiderable number went (and fo with refpeft to other expref- fionsofthis kind) to 50 to a Burial, being a Matter of indifferency, to which no Perfon was obliged but fuch as thought fit, and having no relation to Go- vernment. But will it therefore follow, that when it is fa id, the People of l{pme y or whole multitude created fuch Men Confuls, or made fuch a Perfon Imperator, andfent him to fuch a Province with an Army, or againft fuch a King; by People of Rome or whole multitude^ we mult underftand one Tribe on- ly, of the Jfoman People ? Were not all the %oman People equally concern'd in the Eleftion of a Conful or Imperator, wherefore muft it not be concluded, that thefe Elections were made by the Body of that People, and not by one fingle Tribe ? And is not the Eleftion of a Bifhop the fame thing to a Diocefs or Church, that the Creation of a Conful or Imperator was to the Common-wealth of J{ome ? Wherefore, when it is faid, for infrance, that Cyprian was pro- moted to the Epifcopal Office by the Favour of the People (Jf») or Cornelius by the People's Suffrages, tho this does not neceffarily include all the individuals in the Church, without exception ( foine might beab- fent, inclifpos'd, or fome way taken up) yet muft it be underftood of the Body or Bulk of the People of the Diocefs or Church, and not of one Congregati- on only, tho there had been more than one in the Diocefs ; Unlefs ye will fuppofe. that Chriftians then atted like Children, and not as rational Men, as the People of Britain would do, if the County of Men or hortbumberland, or their Deputes, fhoulcl bj permitted to choofe a Ring and Parliament to both (b) WiH J. S. fay, that Ptul was advanced to the Apoftolick Office by the F.iv,:.; of the People ? Cerzar.i'y he had their thtavful Jtceotame and approbation^ a* much us ever t>f*M», Sec Vx*$i Prini:\'ypr: A^t, p. ft& Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 5 $ both Nations: This Maxime oi Leo BifhopofJ^jw^ QuiprxfecturvA eft omnibus ab omnibus debet t?//g/,being founded on Common Senfe and Light of Nature. In like manner all the Stantes Laid, all the People, the -whole Brother-hood of the Diocefs or Epifcopal i Church, were equally concern'd in the Cafe of the Lapfers, and other affairs of Difcipline, as all the Fomxn or Athenian Citizens were in the publick Af* I fairs of the Qommon-wealth. Wherefore, when. Cyprian fays to the People of Carthage, That fuch af* fairs of Difcipline Jbould be determined according to 1 their Arbitriment, ( fecundum arbitrium quoque ve- i ftrum & omnium noftrum commune conlilium ) on I they being prefent and judging (praefentibus& judican- \ tibus vobis) or that J uch Perfons fiall give account t* ! bimfelf, to the Confzffours and to the whole People ( a- \ fturi & apud nos, a Confeflbres ipfos, & apud Ple- i bem univerfam, caufamfuam) &c. Whole People, and you being prefent and judging> can no more be reftri- i tted to a part of the People of that Diocefs, or one i Congregation of it or two, than it can be faid,when ; the Carthaginians made Peace with the I{ora an Peo- ' pie, they made peace with as many of them only as ! would make up one Congregation, or when fuch a I King made the Roman People his Heir, he made one ! Tribe only of that People his Heir •, or when Peter faid, Feed the Flock of Go:l which is among you, his meaning was, Feed a part of the Flock, or one Con- gregation of it, being Enfamples to the Flock, being Enlamples to one Congregation of the Flock, &c. And if any Perfon will caft his eyes upon Cyprian'% Epiftles, he will loon perceive the Doctor's GlolTes will not quadrat. Take the 67th Epiftle for an exam- ple. There faith Cyprian We fiouid choofe juch Bi* Jhops as are immaculate, who may be hear d in their prayers for the Solvation of THE LOAD'S PEOPLE. CO E 2 The (i) Immaculatos Antiftites eligere debemus, qui audiri in precibus pof- jjiMciuiu pcoFJcJii Dominic* incolumiuic. tp. 07. p. iji. \6 An Anfvoer to Mr. ChillingworthV The Bifhop prays not only for the Salvation of ono Congregation of his People, but of all; wherefore feopi here rauft be underftood of all the People of the Diocefs. Neither let the People flatter themj'elves, that they will be free from the contagion of the Crime , if they communicate with a vitiout Prie[\ y and ajfent t§ his unlawful Epifcopacy. — Where ftre a People fearing the Lord, and obeying hti Commandments^ Jhould fepa* rate from a vitiov* Bijhop, and Jbould not partake in the Sacrifices of a Sacrilegious Prieft, feeing they principal- ly have the power either of e letting good Bifhops, or re- letting bad ones, (k) I hope, it will not be faid, that apart only of the People of the Diocefs (hould fepa^ rate from the Sacrifices of a flagitious Bifhop ; where- fore, th?y principally have the Power , m uft be under- ilcocl of all the People of the Epifcopal Church. That the People bein^ prefent, the Bifhop be chofen in the fight of all. (J) That Epifcopal Ordinations fbould not be but tvitb the knowledge of the People ajfijling ; that the People being prejent, the Crimes of the wicked might be detetled % $r the Merits of the Vertuous publijhed, ani fo the Ordination might be lawful and accountable ^being examined by the Suffrages and Judgment of all. It can't be fuppos'd, that any of the Diocefs were debarr'd from accefs to detect the Crimes of the Unworthy, which might beprefentcd to Ordination \ wherefore, the People being prefenty with the knowledge of the Peo- ple ajftfting, implies the prefence of ail the People of the Epifcopal Diocefs. Which wot done in a cau- tious way, the whole People being ajfem bled, that no un- toortbj Per/on may creep into the Epifc$pal Office ani Mini* (10 Nee fibi ?Ubs blandiatur quafi iramunis cflc a contagio delidti poffit, cum facerdote peccatore communicans, & ad illicicum Pr*pofxti Tui £pii- copatum confenfum fuum c'ommodans. — Propter quod Fieit obfequens pr^ceptis Dominicis & Deum metuens a peccatore Pracpofiio feparare fe debet, nee fe ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis aacrjficia mifcere, quando iffi maxi- -xne habeac poreitatem vel eJigendi diaries s>acerdo:es vel indignob recufan- di. :b:d. (1) Ut SacerdosFVe^ pr<*fente,fu!> emmum o C ulti deligatur — Ordinariones Sacerdotales non mftfub Vcfuli affyientis confaentia fieri opor- tere> ut Vbbe pr* fence vel detegarmir malorum crimina, vel bonorum me- rita pr^dicemur, & lit Ordinaiio jufU & lcgiiuna qu* omnmm fuffiafcio& judicio fucrii exarrunata. Demonfiration of Epilcopacy. 3 7 Wnifiery of the Altar, (m) This can't be underftood }f affembling a part only of eke People. Where fore it is diligently to be obferved, as defcending fi$m Di- vine Tradition and Apojtolical Practice, which is alfo \bfervzd with us ( in Africa ) and commonly \ in all Provinces, that for celebrating Ordinations aright, all \he neighbouring Bijbops of the Province DO M E ET WITH THE PEOPLE TO WHO M A B I~ y HO P IS 70 BE \D A I N' D, and that he be cbofcn 9 THE PEOPLE BEING PRESENT, who mofl perfectly know the life of every one, and have fbferved their behaviour by their Converfation. (You fee, the neighbouring Biihops did meet with the People to whom a Biihop was co be ordained, and he was or- rlain'd in their prefence \ but the Bifaop was ordain'd ciot to one Congregation, or a part only, but to all the People of the Diocefs: Therefore the neighbouring Bithops did meet with all the People of the Diocefs, andtheBiftiop wasordain'd in the prefence of them Sill ) Which courfs alfo we perceive bath been obfervei with you ( iti Spain) in the Ordination of our Collegue Sabi- (m) Quod utique iccircotam diligenrer & caute Convocara P/r .;, ne qtiis ad alcaa. miniiterium vcl ad facerdotalem locum in«i- gnu» obrepere: t bt fere ptr Prcu;ri£.vtJ uruvi'fis tenetur, iffc. Gladly would J. S. make (brae advantage of this fire, if my Perfon think it importer h . iops by i^j.ular Voice, was not univerlal in C/J J5 1 him 'firms, that this way of creating B ras the way in Afnquc^c. 1:1 his :r matters hot what was the cu- - {(n feems to except, feeing they deviated from the -ion. (1) It is evident by abundance of Canons of Councils moting ferfons to the Epifcopai Office l :clions, was unjverfal. (3) What if /new,, routed laro this Epiftle by fuch Ciu its a? dii p 1 fenti ( mEpll: 59. ) in place of, I lenti ? • is elected by the rs and not by the People, ^prg. 400 ) and this nukes him : Hums he «-d, ) ffigm ■ ■ . ™°P- , . obfervcOin the Pro on or theBi;; not th - °. thcr *' ». fays without ground j but it was this ere oriam'd by the irapofition of the in other Places fuch pcrrorm'd by the neighbouring Bifliops. 3 8 An Anjwer to Mr. ChillingworthV Sabinus, who was promoted to the Epifapxl Office by the Suffrage OF THE WHOLE F % AT E *\N I- TT, and the Judgment of the Bijhops, rvho ajfemblei with them at the time, and laid hands on him in room ©/ Bafilides. (Wl And many other inftances of this kind may be made. In like manner, when he fpeaks of communicating Counfels with the Presbyters, Dei- cons, Confejfnrs, and ftanding Laity, or the People that flood or hadokeep'd their integrity, no Perfon underftaads Presbyters or Conjeflors y of a part only of the Confeflbrs and Presbyters of the Carthaginian Diocefs; and neither would any take ftanding Laitf in the very fame Sentence, for a part only of the People of that Diocefs, if they were not forced there- to by their own precarious hypothecs. But lays the Doftor, If we muft conclude from fuch Phrafes ( Plebe univerfa, univerfa Fraternitatis fuffragio, &c.) that all the Faithful in J(??ne,without any allowance or exception, did meet in one place in the 3d Centurie, to choofe a Bilhop, and that therefore they were no more but one Congregation, it will follow from the famePhrafe, that in the 4th, 5th and 6th Centuries, and fo foreward, there was but one Congregation in %ome y after it was become Chriftian. For Gregory the Great isfaid to be cho- fen by all the People, Certain it is, that Popular Ele&ions continued in the Church long after the Dioceffes confiftedot ma- ny Congregations, and the Sacrilegious and detefta- ble abuie of Patronages, was not well eftablifhed many hundred years alter the Throne of Satan was fet (M) Propter quod diligenter de traditione Divina & Apoftolica obferva- tioac fervandum elt & tenendum, quod apud nos quoque, & fere perFro- vincias univerfas tenetur, ut ad Ordinationcs rite celebrandas, ad earn pie-* hem cm pr ) to the whole People of his Diocefs, makes it evident, we think, to a Demonfcration, that the Dioceffes then were but Congregational Churches. Mr. CUrkjon faith, with refpect to the Chriftiansl In Homey They were no more after, vi\. An. 250, than could altogether in the Church importune Cornelius for the re-admiflion of the Ordainers of Novatian. The whole People interc ceding for him 7rav- rbf&hoM. Euf. 1. 6, c.43. To which our Doftor aniwers, " Our Author "(Mr. CUrkfon) according to " his ufual ingenuity, has left out a word that IpoiiJ <; ed his Argument, and limited thisexpreflion. For " Cornelius does not fay, that all the Chriitians in Home (0) NanicumFratresomncsSucceflbris ordinandi caufa in Ecclefia ef- fect coimre^au 3 ac plerique jam illuitres aliquot 3c nobiles virus eligcn- lie cenjicereni, de Fabuno quidem nemo ne unrifper coiutabat. 'l*'&" Eplrcop'us 'elt. hie verbi eft Minifrer, Sciemis cuttos, Mediatof Dei & vefrriim in Divino cultu, hie eft Magiller piciaus, hie poll Deum tJiici feitruin. Afjt* U«/*, /. 2- <> ^ • *b ltlitlt - Demonflration 0/ Epifcopacy. 41 u Rome importun'd him, but that all the People that * was prefent with him, didinterceed rarrof rx tta- This is like the reft of the Doftor's Obfervations: I with he could be as eafily clear'd of his dif-inge- nuity, as Mr. Clark fon may. The meaning of v~n- Qivtoc TctuTOf t« t<£? ovtos Ka£) is not, that the bulk of the People being abfent, thefe few only, who were prefent, importun'd him. But that all the People ( not every individual without exception, but the main Body ) being aftually there prefent at the time, did importune him. Vh&tCjpritn faith, with refpeft to the Election of Cornelius, may give light to this. Cornelius vis male Bifiop, fays he, by the Judgment of God and of his Cbrift, by the Ttfti- m9ny ofdimofl all the Clergy, and by the Suffrages of the People, who were then prefent. (q) Will any ra- tional Man think, Cyprian does not fay Cornelius was ele&ed by the Church of Home, but by thefe only of that Church, who happened to be prefent at the time ? At this rate, perhaps not the hundred part of that Church, concurr'd in Cornelius's Election; at this rate a dozen or two of the meaneft of the People might choofe a Bithop to a numerous Dio- cefs, which would be near as abfurd, as if the Town. oiGlafgow or Hadingtoun fhould take upon them to fettle the Succeffion to the Crown of Scotland. More- over it is Cyprian's defign in that Epiftle to juftify Cornelius's Eleftion to the Sea of Home, againft Pre- tenders, but would not the lawfulness of this Electi- on be bravely defended by Cyprian, if the Doctor's Gloffes be to be put upon his words? Cyprian's mean- ing then can be no other than this, that the %oman Chriftians being aftually prefent, did by their Suf- frages elect Cornelius ro the Epifcopal Orfice. And the meaning of Eufebius is no other, whole wprds F may (iggredi } ipfe vos iecundum bwngelu Ma^atc uuro cohorwri ? £p, 43. p. Sj, Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 45 he rior the Presbyters exprefs the leafl: trouble they were in, upon the account of fuch deflations, or becaufe fo many Congregations among them were living without the Word and Ordinances. It never enter'd into the head of any of the Presbyters, to confult Cyprian when he was in his Retirement, what fhould be done that thefe deftitute Churches might be furnith'd with preaching, till they were provi- ded with Presbyters of their own, tho they usM to advife with him about the fmalleft Emergencies. It never came into Cyprian's thoughts to fend any word to the Presbytery anent the fupplying thefe poor defolate Churches, to give any fort of direction a- bout them, or to exhort them to preach to then* now and then at leaft, or as oft as they could conve- niently get it done, tho oft times he fends word to them, or direftions about affairs of much lefs mo- ment; an incredible thing if there had been fuch Vacancies, confidering the Piety, great Care fulnefs and mighty Zeal both of Bifhops and Presbyters in thofc days. Cyprian does indeed intreat them to fupply his own Pulpit, to preach and adminilter the Sacraments in his ablence, which I take to be the meaning of his words, which you have in the mar- gin, (y ) but concerning the fupplying of the other vacant Congregations (a thing which he ihould not have neglected, if he had been an honeft and faithful Minifter ) not one word in any Epiftle. Is it not ftrange* that it never enter'd into the mind either of the Presbycery or Bithop to uf'e any endeavours, or to make even the fmalleft attempt to get thele Churches pdanted with able and faith- ful Minifters? efpecially conlidering, that there were no troublefome Patrons, or the like, concerned t 2 in (/ ) Fretus cr^o & diledione & rehgione veftra quam fatis novi, his li- teris &. honor it trundo, ut vos nuurinn lumime UUc invidiofa. :x now ad- co pertculofa pra-fenua cit, ticc inca fun&anuiu circa ^crenia ca qu* ainiinutrauo rclikjiofa dcpofcit. tfj. i*. 44 A# Anfoer to Mr. Chillingworth'* in the Call of Minifters, to hinder the Plantation of Churches. A: 1 aft in the 43 Epiftle, which was writ imme- dia'ly upon receipt of the news of the Seceffion of the five Presbyters, we might expeft to meet with (bmethiqg of this kind, with fomething relating to the Cafe of thefe Congregations, fuppos'd to be de- ferted by their Paftours, but no fuch thing to be feen there, nothing that may give us occafion to think, that fome of the People had a more peculiar Intereft in thefe Presbyters than the reft, nothing to hinder us to believe, that all ot'em were equally concern'd in them, as they were in the Bifhop ; or as one of our Pajroches in the Confiftory of Ruling- £lders, he drops not one word in the whole Epiftle that has refpeft to the Circumftances of the five pretended Congregations ; He laments not the in- conveniencies they were lying under through want of their Paftours, and the difpenfation of the Word and Ordinances among them; gives them no advice what to do; makes no promife to take care to get their Pulpits quickly filled with able and confeien- tious ML.iiters, in place of thefe who had turn'd their backs on them: And tho of all the People in the Diocefs they were the moft likely to be wrought upon, and prevail'd with to defert the Church, and to follow their own Paftours, who had joind the Schifmatical Faftion. Yet Cyprian does not notice this in the leaft ( as fagacious aiftt iharp-fighted he ufes lo be on other cccaiions ) takes no pains on them In particular, contenting himfelf to exhort them all in common to continue ftedfaft, to adhere to the Church, and not to be moved either by the Age or Authority of thefe Apoixatcs. He complains in this tetter, that thefe Presbyters had long ago corrupted the minds of fome of the Confeffours, but {peaks nothing of their attempting to feduce the Confeffuurs vidua their own Congregations, which npt> Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 45 iotwithftanding it is moft likely they would hare lone, it they had had Congregations diftintt from ;hat of the Bifhop, and thefe of the reft of thePref- >yters. When Cyprian was in his Retirement, he and his Collegues, or fome Bifhops who were wi:h him at he time, ordained Cclerinus Leftor or Reader ; he ;ould not be Ltctor to all the 9 Paroches or Con- gregations in the Diocefs of Carthage $ is it not a vonder then, that when he fends word to the Pref- >ytery, he had ordain'd fuch a one Leftor, it did lot enter into his thoughts to (hew them which of :he 9 Paroches he defined him for ? This would lave been an overfight 'bordering upon ftupidity, if here was any fuch thing as diftinct Congregations n Carthage at that time. Ciprian does indeed ac- [uaint them, that Celerinus was mighty averfefrom >eing ordain'd ( being confcious, in feems it was a wrong ftep to be thus ordain'd by Cyp run and the Dthet Bifhops, without the Presbytery and Call of :he People) and that he and his Collegues could lot prevail with him to comply, till the Church ippear'd to him in a Virion by night, and exhorted 11m to be ordain'd by Cyprian and the refc: (which |t feems the gjod Man looked on as equivalent to :he Call of the People) The Church, fays Cyprian, Cut ■)lus licuit, that is, which could do more, or had Tiore power than Cyprian and all the Bifhops that ivere wkh him, 2? qu* coegit, Cyprian and the other Bilhops could out exhort or adviie, but the Church could comptl, vi\+ any ot her Members to accept an Orfice when cail'd there:o ; (t) But Cyprian gives them xulrateisiiur Scgaudete nobifcum, Ic3ig Uteris noftris quibu; ego r*. (ernes aderjmc rcrcuinui ad i mier & monbus lUuurem, Clero noiiro non r turn. Qui rum com r.omcuSc hortaia m viiione per no&em I uit i Iff yu«e (*tgit. I 10 fe Celcrm ; .1 vcro cui au r, compuluic & coc-Kiite. HjfJtltus tn ft, 46 An Anfoer to Mr. Chill ingworthV them no account which of the Churches or Carthagi- nian Congregations did thus appear to Celerinus in theViiion. By the by, is it not very likely, think you, that Cyprian had a Monarchical and abfolute power over the Church of Carthage f as f. S. pretends, when Cjprian himfelf declares in as plain and exprefs terms as a Man can do, that the Church could do more, or had more -power than he and ail the Bifhops, who were with him ; that fhe could compel^ whereas he and the Bilhops with him could but exhort? This is a might/ Objection ; and if ^. S. had been a fair dealer, he would have endeavoured to clear this ^ Point, which overturns the defign of his whole Book, and makes it appear very evidently, that all his Arguments for the Epifcopal Power or Monar- chy are but idle Notions, a catching at the found of Words, or undue ftrttching of fome ExprefTions beyond the intention and defign of the Author, (w) But to return to our purpole. Cyprian adds, Seeing he carte U us fo much favoured, of God, and renown* d by the wonderful teftimony of hie J > erfecutor > what could we do but fet him on the Pulpit, that U the Throne of the Church, that being in a. higher pi ace , and confpicu9us to the whole People, he may read the Go/pel of our Lord, which he fo faithfully doth follow ? (v) If there had been 9 Pulpits in the Diocefs of Carthage f how comes Cyprian to fpeak of fetting Celerinus on the Pulpit of the Church? Will Jxlx.&odwel fay, there was one 'Jupr erne Header's Seat , to which ail the other Evader's Seats in the Diocefs were fubordinnte f And if there was fuch a Supreme Rea- der's (u) Malo te ad fenfura rei, quara adfonum verborum cxerceas. Tert. ai- verCui trax: c. 3. This was not minded by J. S. (v) Huncadnos, Fratres dhecuflimi, cum tanta Domini dignatione ve- nientem. teitimonio & miraculo ejus iplius qui fe perfecutus fuerat lllu- itrem, quidaliuaquam/uper tulpitum, id elt fuper tribunal Eicleji* opor- tebat imponi, ut loci aluoris celikate fubnixus, & ?Lcbi umverf* pro ho- noris fuL cUritate confpicuus,/'e£;r pr*cepca & EvangeUumDoiru.nl qu« former ac jideliier fcquitur? C/f r, ibi AND THEY I^NOVV ME, THEY HEAF^ MT VOICE, THEY ANSWER ME, I CALL THEM, AND THEY FOLLOW ME, they will not follow Strangers, they will not follow Valentinus, Montanus, Manes, &c, (a) Ha 1 not Gregory but one Congregation in his Dio- cefs then ? and was he no: a lawful Diocefan Bishop, a Diocefan Bishop in the moft proper fenfe for all that? With what face then (b) can it be denied, That Presbyterian Minifters are Diocefan Bishops in a proper fenfe, feeing all the world is perfwaded, and even our Prelatifts themfelve?, thatthefe Per- fons we have named, were really Bishops, when Paftours (i) Ov or with a final! Number of the Presbyters^ the refit being altogether excluded. This Point will fuffer a quicker and more eafy dif- patch than the former 5 in a word, Mr. C. could not have advanced a greater Untruth. That the Affairs of the Church in the 2d or 3d Centurie were mana- ged by the Biiliop and all his Presbyters without exception, is a thing fo well known, that it is not worth the while tofpend time in proving it. Who will deny that the Bifhop in the fecond Cen* turie afted in conjunction with the Presbytery ? or affirm, there were many other Presbyters in the Di- ocefs, Demonfirxtion of Epifcopacy. 5 5 >cefs, than they who were call'd the Presbytery, or aade up that Court ? Ignat. ad Magn: Subject to the iijhop as the Grace of God, and to the Presbytery as to he Law oftfefut Chrift. Wherefore it will become yon Ifo not to take advantage of the youth of your Bijhop, ut to yield all reverence to him y as alfo I perceive that our holy Presbyters do. Does not Subje&ion to the iifhop and Presbytery implv, that the Bifhop and 'resbytery afted in conjunction ? and did not all he Presbyters in the Diocefs reverence the Bifhop, nd not a few of them only ? And feeing thefe, who re called Presbyters in the end of this Sentence, are [he fame with the Presbytery in the beginning of it; luft we not fay, that the Presbytery comprehends 11 the Presbyters of the Diocefs ? And what is there d be met with in any of the Writings of the firit ^ r 4. Centuries, that may give even theleaft ground fufpeft there were other Presbyters in the D10- efs befides the Presbytery ? The Deacons did fit 1 the Presbytery, and will any body fuppofe, that he main bulk of the Presbyters were excluded, or hat a competent Number of them only were ad- mitted t What was the convenient Number that a- led in conjun&ion with Cyprian, when there were ut three Presbyters in all his Diocefs or that: loderated the Authority of Gregory Ihauraaxurgu^ when here were but 17 Perfons in his whole Diocefs? Knd does not the Council of Sardica ( an. yi\)Cav. m appoint, That a Bifhop lhall not be ordain'd in a ttle City (contrary to Paul's exprefs Orders Tit* 1 i.v.j.) where one Presbyter is fufficient, left the Yigntiyof a Bijbop be lejfened I And does not this nplie, that before that time a Bishop us'd to be rdain'd to a Diocefs; for which one Presbyter wa> iificient, or a Diocefs which was but one Congre- ation? And does not even this Canon permit a >ishop to be ordain'd, where two Presbyteis, or a 'ishop and one Pruby ter are fuificient for the whole Wurk?' 56 An Anjrver to Mr. Chilling worths Work ? So that it is not to be doubted there were abundance of Dioceiies in the 4th Centurie,in which there was but a Biihop and one Presbyter. (0 And it is likely, that from this time they did begin to have Diocefles in Af\a confifting of more Congrega- tions than one. Rut it is needlefs to infill any fur- ther on this particular. CHAP. V. The falfity of the third Proportion Mr. Chillingworth Jhould have proveriy manifejied. THE third thing which Mr. Ch. fhould have demonftrated to us, is, Jhat the Bijhop in the jecond Centurie could, as he thought fit, rule with, or agaivft the Advice of the fe few of hit Presbyters, who were admitted to fit and all in conjunction with him. There is as little truth in this Pofition, as in any of the other two, and is denied by, I believe, the greater part, and I'm fure the moft eminent of the Prelatical Writers themfelves, who pretend to no more (0 Numidiuf obferves upon the Propofal of Aurelrut of Qarlhngt, That it ■was always lawful for the Biihop of Cartkags to take ihofe whom he clerked and ordain them, tho' they wcie of another Diocefs. Efgomut declares in the Name of the Bifhops, that it is his Right. But Po^Lumiut remontirates, that it may happen, That a Bijbopfall bsvthut one hnsbyter, and it is not juft to take him away from him. Aure/ius anlwers, A Buhop may eaniy ordain many Presbyters, but that it is more difficult to hnd he Perfons to be Bimops : and therefore tho a Biihop mould hare but urf presby:cr. he ought to give him that he may be made a Buhop. Pyhumus replyes, That therefore it is juft trut another Church, that has many Clergy-men, Ihould furnifh him who has given his one Presbyter. And it is replied, That he who has many, ihall give foine to him who hai parte* -vkIi h.» oik- presbyter t© be a Biihop. Demonflration of Epifcopacy. 57 more, but that the Bifhop had a Negative Voice in the Presbytery, Is it not a wonder then, how Mr, C. could advance fuch things without the leaft fha- dow of Probation, and then call what he fays upon the Head, Demonftratiou ? It is needlefs to infift on proving, that the Bifhop had not fuch Power; the vanity of this Pretence will appear clearly enough, when we come to examine the Arguments, by which fome think they can prove the Bifhop bad fuch Power in Cyprian's time. We produce only a Ca- non of a Council, which will prove as clearly, that the Bifhop had no fuch Power in thofe days, as an exprefs Aft of Parliament can prove, that the Pre- fident has no abfolute Power or Negative Voice ia the SefTion. This Canon is the 23d of a Council at Carthage An. 398. the words whereof are thefe: let the Bijhep bear no Caufe but in the pre fence of his Cler- gj> not a part of his Clergy, and the Sentences hs flyaR give in the abfence of hU Clergy y Jhall be null ani void. To tell us, that this Canon fpeaks of the pre fence ef the Clergy, but not of their Confent^ is frivolous, for prefence here iignifics confent. Thus Counc: Carth: An-. 39c. Canon 10. A Bifoop accufed full de- fend hU Cdufe in the prefence of 1 2 Bijhops at leaji* Might the Presbytery fentence the accus'd Bifhop, whether the 12 Bifhops confented or not, becaufe it is faid, He fhall defend his Caufe in the prefeiue of 12 Bifhops? And thus Cyprian Epift: 67. fpeaking of the Ele- ction of a Bifhop, fays, Ex Epijcopus deligatur TUbe //re, and what is his meaning, think you, when r he fayi, the Bifhop fhould be chofen in the prefence of the People ? No other than this, That the Bi* fnop fhould be chofen by the Suffrages of the Peo- ple, or their Eleclive Voice \ this is evident, fel ;.<> Plebe prafente, chofen in the prefence ot the People, is expUia'd immediately after by c>*>nn H 5 8 An Anjiver to Mr. ChillingworthV himfelf, thus, Vt de univerfiz Fratertihatu fitffragio Epifcopitns ei deferretur. i,e. So that the Epifcopacy was conferr'd on him by the Eleftive Voices of the whole Brotherhood. And truely one pofitive Carton of a Council has more weight, than a thoufand Ar- guments and obfcure Confequences from ambiguous Phrafes or Modes of Expreflion. From what has been faid, it is eafy to fee what a raft difference there is betwixt the prefent Evglijb Prelates and thefe who were call'd Bifhops in the 2d or 3d Centurie (a). The Bithop in the fecond Cen- turie was a Paftour of one Congregation : The En- glijb Prelate is a P^frour of many hundred Congre- gations, tho' to fpeak properly he is no Paftour at all. The Bifhop in the fecond Centurie afted in Affairs of Government, in conjun&ion with all the Presbyters in the whole Diocefs: but the fiftieth part of the Presbyters of the Diocefs is not admit- ted to aft in conjunction with the Evglijh Prelate, The Evglijb Prelate has abfolute Power : but the Bifhop in the 2d or 3d Centurie had not a Negative Voice, as will afterward appear. Moreover, the Bifhop in the 2d or 3d Centurie was chofen by the Church: and the Evglijh Prelate is elefted by the State (0- Wherefore if thofe in the 2d or 3d Cen- time were properly Bifhops, the Englijl? Prelates are not Bifhops at all. And to fpeak the truth plainly, to (d) And here we have reafon to abhor the Impiety of thefe, who pretend there is as much, if not greater, Evidence, that Epifcopacy was the Go- vernment of the Church ever fince the days or* the Apoltles, than there is for the Canon of the Scripture. If by Epifcopacy they underltand fuch as goes under that Name now, it is evident from what we have faid, That to affirm the Government was Epifcopal ever fince the Apoltles, is to af- firm a molt notoricuj Untruth. If by Epifcopacy be underftood Primitive Epifcopacy, they fpeak not to the purpofe, and fay upon the Matter, that Presbytery was the Government of the Church ever fince the Apoltles, and would deceive People by the ambiguous Signification of the word £p/ t o- pacy. IfbyBilliops they underftand fuch as are now in Enghni, they fpeak deceitfully and againit their own Confcience, runleft tney be con* vinced, the Canon of Scripture is but a Cheat. If by Bnhops they under- ftand fomething elfe, they fpeak like Idiots, and affirm that, which makes juft nothing for the Caufe they defend. (0 Vhi tl/e Car.on, ut a Palatio tnittatur is fitturut t/l Ef ; fiopus ? i. e. Where is thac Canon to be found, that appoints Biinop* to be elected by the King ? Atban. Bp. ad Stlit. Vit. egtnu Demonjltation 0/Epifcopacy. $9 to call thefe Prelates Bifhops is to confound things, and to abufe the People, by making them imag ue they are under the fame kind of Ecclefiaftical Go- vernment, the Ancient and Primitive Church was. If the Romans had taken it in their head to retain the Name, and call their Emperours Confuls^ we might have affirmed with as much Reafon or Pro- bability, that there was no difference betwixt the Roman Government in Ira)an\ time, and before the laft Tunick War, as our Prelatifts can that there is no difference betwixt the Government of the English Church, and that in the 2d or 3d Centurie. It would be an eafy thing to bring as ftrong Argu- ments out of T. Livivs and other Authors, to prove, that the Power of a Conful was as great as that of an Emperour, as Mi'.Dodwel or $. S. bring out of Cyprian's Epifties, to prove, that the Power of the Bifhop in the 3d Centurie was as abfolute as the Power of an EngliJI) Bifhop. Thus Livim fays fame where, That the Power of z Pyomxn Conful was infinite* Hence fuch as J. S ¥ might conclude very confidently, That the Power of the Confuis was more abfolute than that of the Emperours afterward, feeing any Perfon will readi- ly grant, that the Power of the Emperours was ne- \;er infinite. Virgil fays with refpeti to Brutus, Confulis Imperium primus accipiet. The Power of the Conful then was as great as the Emperour's, for what had the Empsrour more than Dominion or Empire ? And, quern penes Urban trim funt fajtigia. rerum 7 is what might have been faid of any Conful. And anArgument might be brought from thisPhrafe, as wei£h:y as any propofed by J. S. from anyPhrafe out ot Cyprian. It is frequently faid in fioman Hi- ftories, That fuch a Conjul made fuch x Law\ and hence it may be proven, That the Conjul could by bimfelj) and by hn own firtgular Authority, give Laws to the whole Common-wealth, to the Senate as well as H 2 others 60 An Anfoer to Mr. ChillingworthV ctfxrs, as gp. $, fays with refpeft to the Bifhop in the Cyprunhk Age. / conclude, fays he, that the Bifhop could by himfelf, and by venue of his own fin- gnlar Authority, give Laws to the whole Diocefs, to the presbyters as well as others. After this it might be proven, that the tinman Magistrates were never elefted by the People, with as much evidence as SP. S. proves, that the Bifihops in Cyprian's time were not elected by the People, Some Writers ofthe Reman Hiftoriefay> That their Magiftrates were elefted ^ri^afx^ X ei ^ 0T0Vla ' » i. e. by Suffrages ofthe Tribunes. And tho' the I{o- mxn Authors tell us exprefly, that the Magi ft rates were chofen Suffragio Populi, by the People's Ele- ctive Voice, that is nothing. It is eafy to fay with -j-.S. fp % 392) It muft be obvious to any Man of common-fenfe, that the Plebs, the common People, were everv way unfitted and unqualified to choofe Confute, Generals, Pontifices Maximos, &c. then, that Suffragium fumetimes fignifies quite another thing than Elective Voice ; and fo, when we find it faid in any Author., that the Magiftrates were cho- fen Sufjragio Fopuli, we have no more to do but to fay with *f. S. feeing Suffragium is oft times taken in another fenfe, it is not neceffary that it fignify Ele- ctive Voice in this place : the Sentence will go eve* ry whit as fmoothly and naturally, and much more appofitely, if we underftand no more by it tkan ap- probation or good liki?ig y tfc. And if we had as ob- fcure a Defcription of the ftate of the Roman Em- pire in the I{oman Hiftorians, as we have of the ftate of the Ancient Church in Ecclefiaftical Authors; and if there were Intereft at the bottom, to fet Men's Invention a work, no doubt there would be abundance of Perfons among us to deny wich the grearell confidence imaginable, that ever there was any fuch thing as Democratical Government, ei- ther at Home 0; Athens ; and they would have as pro- Demonfiration of Epifcopacy. 6 1 probable Arguments to prove their Point, as the Prelatifts have to prove, that their Government is :he fame with that of the Ancient Church. CHAP. VI. The Superftratfare) which Mr. Chilling, worth builds upon the foresaid falfe Foundation^ overturned. HAVING thus deftroyed the Foundation of Mr. C.'s Demonftration, and proven, that the Ancient Bifhop had none ofthefe three things he reckons Eflential to Epifcopacy ^ let us now con- iider his Inferences. Seeing^ faith he, that Epifcopal Government is con- fefftdiy fo Ancient. What Epifcopal Government fo Ancient ? Such as is now in England, or fuch as he lefcrives ? Pray, who confelfes any fuch thing ? There was no Epifcopacy ( in the modern fenfe ) in the Church, till the Paftours became Bifhops of more Congregations than one ; and feeing all the Dioceffes during the firit three Centuries were but Congregational Churches, there were no Bilhops in the modern fenfe in the World then} and except- ing l{[»ne and Alexandria, there were not many in the 4th Centurie ; wherefore we may fay, That that which is now call'd Epifcopacy, was carried on by degrees in the 5th and 6th Centuries, \ according as no 516, is exported rhus: itours v all [he prc-bytcra or" the D Siihop's Chuich tfus, and were lent trw. 62 An AnjwtY to Mr. ChillingworthV as Chriftians increafed and Diocefles were inlarged* and it may be doubted, that Epifcopacy was univer- fal even in the 6th Centurie; and if a Negative Voice be reckon'd Eflential to a Bifhop, as it is to a Ring ( for if the Supreme "Magiftrate has no Nega- tive in the Parliament, he can lcarce be accounted a Ring ) 1 can't fay, that ever I faw it clearly pro- ven there wereBiftiops in the Church even in the 7th Centurie. However there was no Epifcopal Government in the Church in all refpefts, like that now in England, no not for a thoufand years after Cbrift. So great a Change could not pojjtbly have prevail'd all the World over in a little time. But there was no fuch Change as he pretends for many hundred years. According to the ordinary Reckoning among Di» vines, there was fome Change made in the Govern- ment turns to officiate in the Country Parodies of the Diocefs. And the 2d Ca- non Counc: Va/ie in the year 5*9, is thus: We thought f.t for the Edification of all the Churches, and Advantage cf the whole People, to give power to the* presbyters tuPreacb, net only in O ties, but in all the Country -Par cctes : and if a Presbyter through ln4ifpcjiti*n canmt preach at a time, a Deacon may read the Homilies of the Fathers. This Canon would have been ridiculous, if the Epifcopal Dioceifes in the 6th Centurie had been in the ltate they are in now, and fcives us to underiund they were but beginning then to fet up the Presbyters as Preachers in the Country-Paroches. And even in the 7th Centurie there were not Paroches enough in the Epifcopal Diocefs for all the Preobyters>as is evident from the 2,7th and 23d Canons of the 4th Counc;- of Toledo in that Centurie. The i-ji h Canon imporrs, That the Presbyters and Deacons put into Paroches, are to pomife to their B'Jhop, th.it they will live re' gularly and orderly. And the 2,3d Canon has refpect to the presbyters and, Dt. icons that d.o not live in the Houfe with the Bijhop.' Wherefore in the 7th Centurie fooie of the Presbyter*, were fix'd in paroches, and livedinthemj others of them lived with the Bifhop, and had no Paroches at all after the Ancient way. And for ought wc know, the greater part of the Presbyters then were without Paroches. And the Learn'd and Judicious Gentleman Sir fa: D.-hymple makes it appear. That Fothad, who was the tirft Biiliopin the modern fenfe that was fettled in Scotland, lived in the year 960. So that what is now called Epifcopacy, was but beginning to take footing there in the 10th Centurie. And after he has told US, That the zd Bifliopnck that was erected in Scotland, was at Murtlacb ( the beat of which Aberdeen was. made fome time after ) in the iixth year of the Reign of K. Malcolm the 2,d An. Don 1010, He fays, Here we may obfrve, that the King in his Charter freely of himfelf difyfes of Churches, which he would not have done without their Conftntj if they hna defended upon any B'Jhop ; that there were Churthes be- fore the Erection cfB'Jhopritks, and that the Extent and SurifJitiion of the Bi* (hoprick* /n Scotland were vttyfmall at the beginning, which is clear, feeing 'till this Bijhoprick git the Jurfdiclion of tee Shires if Aberdeen and Bamii ad- ded by St. David, it was very mean and inanfderable. Collections concern- ing the Scottijh iiiftory, &c. pag. 135. & very curious Book, and well vjuith the Kcadxng. Demonfiration tf/EpifcOpacy. 6} mentof the Church in the fecond Centurie; but this Change was fo fmall and inconfiderable, that it might be made without any difficulty or noife in a very fhort time. True, if a great Change had been carried on at firft or if they had attempted in t-he fecond Centurie to fet up Epifcopacy infuch a hight as it is in at this day, all the Churches might have ftartled at fuch an alteration, nay had certainly made oppofition, and the Bufinefs had mifcarried. 1 But ( as fays a Famous and Eminent Di- * vine) the Devil took fuch cunning mea- JjjJJJf A ^ 1 fures in carrying on his Projeft, that it Propnjom. r was impoffible it could mifcarry; thefirlt ,; p " 301, 1 degrees of Tyrannie and Superftition were fuch an 1 inconfidcrable t.^ing, thatthV it was a Novelty, in 1 neither was nor could be perceived. For exam- 1 pie, what danger could they conceive ( to wit, 1 the Ancient Chriltians ) in paying a refpeci to th~ 1 Memory of the Martyrs, and matting honourable 'mention of them, when they celebrated the My- 'fteries*, how could the Churches be upon their c guard, when nothing was as yet aim'dat, butfome 1 Honours of Precedency betwixt a Presbyter and 'aBiihop, and the Bifhop of one Town and the Bi- c lhop of another 1 I'm perfwaded, that the Myfte- 1 rie of Iniquity was carried on by ways, where the * Apofdes ihemfelves were not fenfible of the Evil, F or aware of the Danger. For inftance it was Cu- c ftomary in the times of the Apoftles, to affemble * now and then in the Cimeteries, and on the Graves c of the Martyrs, I believe Paul had chis Cuftom in 1 view. i Cor. iuld happen . 'u&ht 1 % JJ 66 An Anfrver to Mr. ChillingworthV with the Wine, or their adminiftring this Sacrament to Infants) Gan it enter into our hearts to think, that all the Bi (hops, and other Chriftians then, being the Apoftles Scholars, could be generally ignorant 6f the Will of Chrift touching the Elements of the Eucharift, or the Perfons to whom this Sacrament j fhould be adminiftred? Or dare we adventure to think them fo ftrangely wicked all the World over, as to confpire againft Knowledge and Confcience, •toprophane this Sacrament, by making an addition I to the Elements, or by adminiftring it to thofe,who they knew w^re not capable of it, and to whom ' they knew it was never adminiftred in the Apofto- j lical times? I imagine, that fome or many of the a Bifhops had introduced this Practice, was it pofli- t>ie they fhould atchieve it at once, without any op- pofition or contradiction? And befides that this] Contagion fhould fpreadit felf, and prevail, without] frcp and controul, nay without any noife or roticej taken of it through all the Churches in the WorldJ all the Watchmen in the mean time being fo faft a : ileep, and all the Dogs fo dumb, that not fo much as one fhouid open its mouth againft this Innovati-, 6n a 6;c. And therefore to mingle Water with the? Wine in the Eucharift, being a Practice fo Ancient and Cacholick, mult be granted alfo to be Apoltoli- cal. guod erat demonltrardum. CHAP. xDemonjiration of Epifcopac y* 6j CHAP. VII. The Arguments of the Pre/at ijis for their Bijhops are as weak as the Arguments of the Papifls for Tranfubjtantiation. AFTER all, I can't but fay, our Epifcopal Friends here are put to miterable (hi fits, an<4 their Caufe is at a low pafs, when they make a Parade with fuch a contemptible Sophifm as this pretended Demonftrationj a Sophifm, that will ferve \ to prove any Error whatfoever, which came infenfi- . bly, and without opposition, into the Church, as ! well every whit as the Divine Institution of Modern, I Prelacy, and made ufe of every way to as good par- ! pofe by Mr. Amaud, a French Papift, to prove I Tratifutflantution it felf, as any Perfon may ice, who will beat the pains to read his Book, intitied, Perm petuitc de U toy de VEglife touckent VEucinriftie. Certainly it is a pity that the Perfon, who caufedi Arch-Bithop Vjber's Original of Bifhops and Metro- politans, together with this Demonftracion of Mr. CbiUingmortb, to be lately re-printed at Edinburgh, did not fee Mr, Arnaud's Book *, if he had, he might have fet out the noble Demonftration with confUe- rable Amendments, and ftrengthn^d the Argument with fome pretty little Re-inforcements,as you may fee by comparing the fecond Column here iubjoin'cl with the tint, in which you have Mr. Arnold's words tranilated out of the forefaid Book, pig: 19, 3V. Editi ffarij] Anno 1666. I '4 V 68 An Anjtver to Mr. Lmilingworta s c t TF the Ancient Church TF the Ancient Church t J wasCalviniftical,and ^ was Presbyterian, and c believed Chrift was real- believed, that Paftours I ly abfent from the Sym- acting in parity was a c bols, it could not come Divine Inilitution , it t to that State it was in could not come to that g in Berengdrm's time, State it was in in Aeriufs t without an univerfal time, without an uni- € Change of Belief ; and verfal Change in Belief c it cannot be imagined, and Practice \ and it can't c that this Change could be imagin'd, this Change happen but one of thefe could happen but one of € two ways, which are both thefe two ways, which equally impoffible. (ifl*) are both equaLy impoiii- ( That this Change was ble. (i) That this Change t made in an inftant,fo that was made in an inftunt ; € when allChriftians belie- So that when all Chri- ved till fuch a time, that ftians believed till fuch a Chrift \vas not Corpo- time, the Ctiuirch lhould c rally prefent intheEu- be ruled by Paftours a- charift, they began all fting in parity, they be* * of thsm together to be- gan ail of them together * lieve, he was Corporally to believe, the Church * prefent,and going to bed fhould be rul'd by a Bi- * Calviniits, arofe in the lhop, and going to bed * morning Papifcs,withcuc Presbyterians, arole E- * knowing how, and for- pifcopal in the morning, * getting quite what they not knowing how, and * formerly were. But this forgetting quite what c is fa abiurd, that iftand they formerly were. But * not to refute it. Or this is fo abiurd, that I * (2^/7.) That this Change fraud not to refute it* * was made infcnflbly,that Or (2dly.) That this * fome introduced the O- Change was made infen- ? pinion of Tranfubftanti- fibly, that fome mtiodu- 'atioh; that thefe fome ced the Opinion of Hpif- * had but few Followers copacy; that thefe fome at had Demonjlration of Epifcopacy, 69 x at firft, but at length had but few Followers at this Opinion fptead it firft; but at length this : felf infeniibly every Opinion was fpread infea- where. fibly every where. * According to thisSup- According to thisSup- potition, there behoved pofition there behove.! co to be a time, to win, be a time, to wit, when when this Opinion firft this Opinion firft arofe, in arofe, in which it was which it was followed by : followed by a fmall num- a fmall number of Perfona ber ofPerfons only ; an- only; another time in other time in which this which this number was number was greatly in- greatly increafecf, and e- creafed, and equal'd that cjual'd that of thofe who of thofe who did not be- were againft Epifcopacy *, lieve the real Prefencc another in which this O- of Chrift in the Eucha- pinion was Mafter of the rift; a other in which Multitude, tho opposM this Opinion was Mafter ftiil by many others, who of the Multitude, tho 5 i: were for Presby;ery ;and > was oppos'd ftiil by ma- in fine another time, in ny others, who conti- which it reign d pe . nued in the Ancient ably and without oppouti- . in fine another on; Which is tne ltate in time, in which it reiga'd winch molt Presbyterians ceably and without will acknowledge it was nppolition : Which is the when Ae*im appear'd in b the Cal- the World. is mult confefs it wii when fcrcpgariw ipgin to excite Dif- putes about this Matter. ' if the Opinion ofthe If the Opinion of the Papift* was an Innova- Preiatiits was an Innova- tion, 'tis impoflible it tion, 'tis impoifibie it could come in infeniibly, could come in infeniibly, out palling through without gaffing thru Ibefc .let every thcie degrees. Vcieveiy 1 o::c one yo An Anfiver to Mr. Chillingworth'j c one of thefe degrees con- one of thefe degrees con-i Stains infupportable ab- tains infupportable abfur- * furdities. dities. ' To begin with the Tobe&in with the fir ft: < firft; If the Doftrineof If Prelacy was introduced * Tranfubftantiation was by one or a few Perfonsl « introduced by one or a how is it pofiible theic c few Perfons, how is it Name could remain un« « pofiible their name could known; or that they could c remain unknown ; or propofe fuch a furpiifing t that they could publifh Alteration in the Govern* c fuch a furprifing Novel- ment,withoutanyPerfon's c ty, without any Perfon's being aftonifhed at it, o£ c being aftoniih'dat it, or fetting himfelfto oppofe < fetting himfelf to oppofe the fame I Is it poffible the cit? Is it pofiible the Presbyters,Ruling Eklert < Priefts, the Curates or and Deacons did not an all € Bifhops did not all per- perceive this rifing Ty- < ceive this riling Idola- ranny ; or perceiving it, ctry, or perceiving it, made no oppofition there- c made not the lealt effort to? How is it poffible", t to fupprefs it, or to turn that being perfwaded the c the People from this Er- Church (hould be go- univerfal- is a Divine Institution, « ly received in the thought he propofed an « Church, We can find no Opinion in any thing dif- c proof fcrent Demonftration 0/Epifcopacy. 7 $ proof, that any in pub- ferent from the Common lifting that Chrift is Belief of the Ancient Corporally prefent in Church, or that in his the Eucharift, thought own time, he propofed an Opinion in any thing different from the Common Be- lief of the Ancient Church, or that in his own time. c It was never heard, It was never heard, that that any was publickly any was delated cither to delated to the Bifhofs or Presbyteries or General Councils for having pub- AflTemblies, for having lifted either by word or publifted either by word writing, that Chrift was or writing, that Epifcopa- Corporally in the mouth cy was the Apoftolicai of thofe who receive the Government of the Eucharift, Church. 4 It was never heard, It was never heard, that that any Father, Bifhop any Father, Presbyter or or Council troubled Council whatfoever,trou- |themfelves with oppo- bled themfclves with op* fingthis Opinion, tefti- poling Epifcopacy, orte- •fying there were among itified that they who were the People, who were in advancing it were bring- grofs and dangerous ing in Antichriftian Ty- Error, believing^to wit, ranny into Che Church. That Chrift was Corpo- rally prefent in this World, whereas he was Dnly in Heaven. ' It was never heard, It was never heard, that ithat any Ecclefiaftical any Ecclefiaftical Author ; Author or Preacher com- or Preacher complain'd, ^plained, that pernicious that a pernicious Altera- ulind damnable Idolatry tion of the Presbyterian f.j.reeped in in his time, GovernuienC of tb« j\ ' be- ' Jv Churc. 74 An Anfxver to My. ChillingworthV 4 becaufe many adored Church was made, or be- 4 Chrift as Corporally pre- ginning to be carried on 4 fent under the Species of in his time, becaufe (bme * the Bread and Wine. All were for fecting up BU 4 the dogs were dumb, as ihops. 4 fays Mr. ChiUhigvoorth. 4 Moreover, if we con- Moreover, if we confi-j 4 fider the Belief of the der Epifcopacy in thefe, 4 real Prefence in thefe Chimerical Degrees J 4 Chimerical Degrees, through which it behoved! •through which it beho- to pals according to the; 4 ved to pafs, according to Presbyterian Suppofition,' 4 the Calviniftical Suppo- before it could arrive at 4 fuion, before it could that height in which it^ 4 come to that height in was afterward, the extra-j 4 which it was in the 2d vagance of the Presbyre- 4 Onturie; the extra va- rian Suppofition will ap* * gance of the Suppofition pear yet more infupporta* c will appear yet more in- ble. For it behoved ne^ 4 fupportable. For it be- ceflarily to be,there was a 4 hovedneceffarily tobe,as time in which the Belief 4 wasfaid, that there was of Epifcopacy,which they 4 a time in which the Be- fuppofe was not that of * lief of the Corporal Pre- the Ancient Church, wasl c fence, which they fup- fo mix'd in the Church * pofe was not that of the with the Belief of Presby* 4 Ancient Church, was fo tery, which they think * mix'd in the Church with was the true and ancient 4 the Belief of the real Opinion,that the one hallj 4 Abfence, which they of the Presbyters andl 4 think was the true and People were of the one 4 ancient Opinion, that Opinion, and the othel 4 the one half of the Bi- half of the other* 4 (hops, Priefts and Peo- 4 pie, were of the oneO- 4 pinion, and the other 4 half of the other. 4 Neither Neithej Demonjtration of Epiicopacy. 7 5 c Neither can it be Tup- Neither can it be fup- pos'd, this Divifion of pos'd, this Divifion of O- Opinion and Mind was pinion and Pra&ice was in different Provinces on- m different Provinces only, but it muft be ad- mitted, according to the Calviniftical Suppofiti- on,that in the fame Pro- vinces,Cities, Churches, and Families, the Faith- ful were all divided with refpeft to theEucharift, fome believing Chrift was really prefcnt in it, fome that he is really ab- fent. And that this Di- vifion was not only in the Ionian, but the Greek, Armenian, and Egyptian Churches. 1 If thefe Suppofitions If thefeSuppofitionsbe be join'd with Matter of joinM with Matter of Faft, Faft, which the Prote- which the Presbyterians ftants can't call in que- cannot deny, to wit, That ftion, to wit, That till i\\\Aeiim no Perfon ever Bereng&rim there was no oppos'd Prelacy, or doubt* rupture of Communion, ed of the Divine Inftitu* tion thereof, the greatell ly, but it muft be admit- ted, according to the Pres- byterian Suppofttion, that in the fameProvinces,Ci« ties, &c. the Faithful were all divided with re- fpeft to the Government, fome believing that Epif- copacy was Apoftolical, fome that Presbytery. And that this Divifion was not only in the I{omxn Church, but the Grtekj&c* nor any apparent Divifi- on on account of the Real Prefencqthe great- eft abfurdities will follow that can be imagined. For either it muft be faid, that this horrible and general Divifion re- mained unknown to thofe who were fo divided \ or if it was known, wasne- \ £leaed abfurdities imaginable will follow. For either it muft be fuppos'd, that this general Divilion, with re- fpeft to the Government, remained unknown to Presbyters and People; or it it was known,was whol- ly negle&ed by both, fo that they attempted no K. 2 re- 70 An Anpver vo mr. v^nimng worm s * gle&ed by the Paftours, remedy* But both thefc 1 and did not oblige them c to make the leaft noife c about: it, or to offer the c fmalleft remedy. Yet € both the one and the o- ' ther are fo far contrary * to common Senfe, that I 1 doubt any thinking Man * can believe fuch chings. c To examine the firft * Point, to wit, That this ' Divifion remain'd un- c known. Is it poffible a ■ rational Man can per- * fwade himfelf, there was c a certain time, when in ' the Church Brethren * were oppos'd to Bre- f thren, Wives to their * Husbands, Priefts to * Priefts, Bifhops to Bi- * ftiops, not in one Pro- 9 vince, but in all the Pro- * vincesof the World; not * about a fpeculativePoint, ' which few Perfons con- c cern themfelves with, * but of Practice ; and yet * no Perfon was fenlibie of * c fuch a Divifion; notone * Soul ever knew, that his Suppofitions are contrar/ to common Senfe, To examine the firft, That this Divifion re- main'd unknown. Is it pof- fible a rational Man can perfwade himfelf, there was a certain time when Brethren wereoppos'd to Brethren, Wives to their Husbands, Presbyters to Presbyters,not in onePro- vince, but in all the Pro- vinces of the World ; not about a fpeculative Point, which few Perfons con- cern themfelves with, but the Government of the Church, which belongs to Practice •, and yet no Per- fon was fenfible of fuch a Divifion ; not one Soul , not one ever knew, that his Fa- ther, Friend or Paftour Father, Mother, Wife, was of an Opinion contra- Friend or Bifhop wasof ry to hisown inthisPoint? an Opinion different That this ftrange Diver- f from himfelf? That this c iirange Diverfity of O- f pinion Ibould be wholly * un- Ages. fity of Opinion fhould be wholly unknown, not a Year only, but for many But Demonfiration of Epifcopacy. 77 unknown, not a Year only, but for many Ages. € But if we fuppofe this diverfity of Opinion was not unknown either to Paftours or Laity ; it is yet more contrary to Reafon, and all that can be gathered from Expe- rience, to imagine, that this fo ftrange a Divition made no noife, and ftir'd up no Difputes, that Pa- itours and People, tho' divided among them- felves about a Point of fuch importance as might have caufed them [to look on one another as faemies, could neyer- thelefs remain uniced in Communion and perfeft Intelligence. Certainly if we fup- pofe the Church could live in profound Peace 'in the mean time, when 'her Members were fo ftrangely divided among :hemtelvcs, we mult alio uppofe the People of thefe times were of an- other Species than thefe iSfthe prefent Genera- tion, and were not liable 1 our Paifions. For, all But if we fuppofe, that tkis diverfity of Opinion about Epifcopacy was not unknown either to Pa- ftours or People, it is yet more contrary to Reafon, and all that can be gather- ed from Experience, to imagine, that this fo ftrange a Divifion made no noife, and ftir'd up no Difpuces, that Paftours & People, tho 5 divided a- mong themfclves about a Point of fuch importance as might havecaufed them look on one another as E- nemies,could neverthelefs remain united in Com- munion and perfect Ami- ty, without any thing like I'enilini orBothrvell-bridgs work among them. If we fuppofe the Church could live in profound Peace, when its Members were fo divided, we muft alio fuppofe, that People then were of another Spe- cies than they of this Age. For it is impoflibie Peo- ple now can hinder them- fclves to defend theirown Opinion by Books and Difputes, and to endea- vour the Conviftion or theic yS An Anfwer to MrrChilling worths c the knowledge we can thefe they judge to b< c have of the People now an Error, to accufe th < living,oblig€sustojud^e before Ecclefiafticall c it is abfolutely impofli- bunals, 6cc. which can c ble, thatBi(hops,Priefts ' 1 and People, who look'd •on other as Enemes, * could hinder themfeives 1 to defend every one their 6 own Opinion by Books * and Difputes, and tocn- * dea vour to convince thefe * they judge [o be in an 1 Error, or to accufe them € before the Ecclefiaftical c Tribunals, and condemn € them if they had Autho- * rity, which could not be 4 viithout noifc and rup- * ture of Communion. • It neceffarily follows, * the People of that Age, 1 if they couid continue in * fuch a deep ileep, not- c withftanding fuch Dif- c union, had neither Cha- 1 rity to their Neighbours, 1 Zeal for God, nor £a- ' gcrnefs for their own ' way, that is, they were * not Men, feeing thefe ' Motions naturally carry € People to endeavonr to * imprint upon o:hers the € Notions which they have * themfelves, & to oppofe 6 contrary Opinions with * vehemence. I cannot tell 4 what but occafion noife rupture of Communioi It neceffarily follcj the Men of that Age they could continue fuch a deep deep, notw: ftanding fuch Difuni had neither Charity their Neighbours, Zeal for God, &c. t is, they were not Mer know not what can m« thofe, who are not tou ed by fuch Abfurdities. Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 7 9 what will touch thofe, who cannot be moved by s fuch grofs Abfurdities. I'm perfwaded, the Reader is now beginning to be jifhamM of Mr. Chillingwortb's Demonstration, and [inclines to pity the weaknefs of thefe, who fuffer ( themfelves to be furpris'd by fuch a contemptible Sophifm ; and that our Epifcopai Friends will never trouble us with it any more, nor fo much asfpeakof it before a Man of Senfe : And if they fhould per- fwade the late Publilher of it to be at fome pains to gather together all the Copies thereof he can get, and deftroy them, perhaps they would do him no un- friendly Office. I warrant this Demonftration paf- fes current among the People of the Church of £wg- laTU the Flefh of Re- fits Chrift, the Body of Life ; 'tit the incorruptible Man- na, 'tit the Truth whereof the Manna was only the Figure. Perhaps you will tell me y But I fee another thing: Bow do you affure me, that it is the body oftfefus Chrift which J receive ? That we muft prove* We muft Jhow that it if not the Body which Nature hath formed, -but that which the Bsnedittion hath con fee rated, and that the power of Beneditlion it greater than that of Nature, feeing Na* tureitfelf it changed by Beneditlion. Mofes did hold the fiody and cafi it on the ground \ and it became a Ser- pent. Again he did take the Serpent by the tail, and it re- turn* d into the nature of & Rod. Ton fee, that by the Trophetical Grace the nature^of the $od and Serpent was twice changed. And having mentioned other Mira- cles of this kind, he adds, If humane Benediclion wm^ fo powerful, ar.d changed Nature, what fb all we fay of the Divine Confecration, where the very words of God* cur Saviour do operate? For that Sacrament which yon receive it made by the word of Chrift m If the nor& of Elias wm fo powerful as to bring down f re from heaven, [hall not the word of Chrift be fo efficacious as to change rhe Species of the Bread and Wine ? Tou have read con- cerning the works of Creation, He fpake, and it wat done, he commanded, and they were created : Cannot t e word of Chrift then, which made thefe things- to exift which were not } change thefe things which are into that which they were not ? It requires no lefs power to give ?iew Natures to things, than to change Natures, <$c, And they who are acquaint with the Works of Chry* foftome, know, that there are abundance of Senten- ces in them to this purpofe, and which cannot be brought to a Proteftant ienfe, but with fome difficul- ty ; nay, I may fafely fay, That it is more difficult to get fome of thefe Sentences, which feem to favour Tranfubftantiation, brought to a Proteftant fenfe, than it is to get any Sentences and Modes of Exprefli- on in Canons of Councils, or in the Works of Cyprian, or Demonfiration of Epifcopacy. 8 5 or of any Father that lived before, or a hundred years after him, which feem to favour modern Pre- lacy, brought to a Presbyterian fenfe, as will after- wards more fully appear. Let any Perfon then compare thir Citations with th^rfe that f. S. gathers out of Cypridffs Epiftles, and let hira deny, if he can, that they found as like the Corporal Prefence in the Eucharift, as the o- thers do like the Bifhop's abfolute Power. What would jf. S. anfwer to a Jefuit, urging thefe or the like Sentences for Tranfubftantiation out of the Fa- thers ? Would he not be forced to fay fome fuch thing as this, That the words of the Fathers muft not be always taken in too ftrift a fenfe, and that the ri- gour of the letter muft not be too much urged ? or would he not be obliged to anfwer in Ckryfojiome'% words, We mujt not look only upon the Terms, but the Scope of him that fpeahs, the caufe and occafion oj bis Dijcourfe, and comparing all together, find out the fenfe and meaning of what U there contained? Or that the meaning of what a Father fays in fome Places, cannot be always reached by the tenor of his words there, but mult be gathered by juft Confequences from what he fays elfewhere, when he is fpeaking plainly and pofitively, or from what others of the Fathers fay on the fame head ? And the lame An- fwer do we give to J. ^. r s Citations out of Cyprian, which feem to make for the Bifhop's abfolute Power. It feems thefe things were not in $•. S.'s view, 1 when he faid, There are many very plain Jffertions in the Cyprianick Monuments, which would feem fo clearly to import the Bijbop's abfolute Power of giving Laws to bis own Diocejs, as perhaps it may trouble G. R.or an/ 1 of bis Party 9 folidly to avoid their tendency that way. 'Tis good he faid perhaps, for I hope to let him fee before 1 have done, that any tendency that way, whicn fome Sentences to be met with in Cypriaris I Works, feem to have, may be avoided with the I* 2 jreac- 84 An Anfrver to Mr. Chillingwortlvj greateft facility imaginable, without any thing like offering violence to his words, or torturing them with iirang£ and unufual Gloffes. AN I'm hopeful 5. S. will not be difpleas'd now, if we ea!l Mr. Chining* north's Demonitration a Popiih Argument, notwithstanding all his tine banter on this head in the 9 Ch. of his Vindic. The truth is, he runs on perpetual Miftakesin that Chapter, and rails on usmoft injuftly. We call not an Argument Popiih meerly becaufe invented or improved by Papifts or Jefuits,but that which provesfome Popiih Principle,as well as the thing our Prelatifts adduce it for. If a Pagan or Jefuit invent a good Argument to prove the Existence of the Deity or the like, no Presbyterian rejects it *as Popiih or Heathenifh,but will ufe it as his own with very good will. But if an Argument make as much for the Pope as the Enghjh Prelate, we Pref- byterians will refpect it as Popifh, with 3. S.'s good leave, tho' it be coin'd lately at Oxford by Mr, DiWwe//, and no Papift or Jefuit ever heard of it. As to our King killing Doctrines, &c. which he objects thert, they are but froundlefs Afperfions ; Presbyterians maintain no King-killing Doctrines, ut what the Church of England defends, and owns by her Practice ( for I reckon ihe has exploded the Doctrine oi Non-rep '{lance ) And the Principle! of the Presbyterians or Church of Englands as to this particular, have no affinity with the deteftable Doctrine of Mar iana. Mariana teaches, That the Pope has a Right to depofe Kings when they oppofe his Intereft. But ■will it follow, becaufe the Pope has no Right to depofe a King, the Nation represented in Parliament ( that creates the King, and gives him what Au- thority he has over others ) has no Right to £0 it, when the King breaks the Fundamental Laws, and endeavours to deftroy the Liberty of the Subject, or overturn Religion ? J. S. difcovers as much ill-nature and want of temper in that Chapter, as any where ia his whole Book. See Vindicat. of the Learning, Loyalty, &c. of the Dijfenters, PrfrU. C. S ky Sammi palmer, a judicious and fnelj Author. Demonftrtfion of Epifcopacy. 8 5 APPENDIX, WHEREIN It is made evident^ That not only the Epif copal Dioceffes or Churches^ were (ingle Congregations only in the days of Cypri- an, but that it was reckoned a Crime then, and even to dejlroy a Church, to erect a Congregation in it be fides the Bi- flop's Congregation : By way of Addition to Chap: 5. pag. 47. IT wiJl appear yet more evidently, That the Epif- copal Dioceffes in Cyprian's time, were Congre- gational Churches, and the Bifhops Paliours of one Congregation only, if it be conlidered, that :hetwoSchifmatical Bifhops, Fortunatus and AVji* 'ijiniH, the one at Carthage, and the other at^wr, jverebuc Congregational Bifhops both of them \ and that no Objection was made againft them on that core, either by Cyprian or Cornelius, which they i#ould not have fail'd to have done, if it had been iook'd on as an Abufe, or been a thing contrary to :he practice of the Church at that time, that one Dbould pretend robe a Bifhop, who had but a tingle Congregation under his Charge. In the firft place I fay, that Fortunatus at Car. and Novaxiinus at J{pme 9 were but Congregati- )Ual Bifhops, To begin with Carthage, the Jjchiima- tical $6 An Anfwer to Mr. ChillingworthV tical Church or Diocefs of Fortunatu there, was one Congregation only. This is evident ; for the whole Schifmatical Faclion there, or all thefe thatown'd the Epifcopacy of Fortunatus, us'd to affemble toge- ther for Worfhipin a Mountain, Comminatm quodfe. cum in monxe non communicarent qui nobu obtemperare voluijfent, Epift. 41. But perhaps they affembled themfelves in the Mountain in feveral diftinft Con- gregations. I fay no ; For Cyprian call'd them a Con- venticleonly, or, A little private Jffembly y Nififorit fibi extra Ecchfiam E£ contra Ec defiant conftituiffent Conventiculum perditx fattionis, cum male fibi conjci- erum, Z5 Deura rogare, ac faiUfacere nolentium eatery a confluent, Ep.sc> p. 135. And Bi (hop Fell fays, that the Mountain in which they keeped their Meetings, was a certain Place in the City, cail'd the Mountain^ Et fortajfis, faith he, in ilia Vrbti parte Felicijfmus * covvent'M fuos hahebat : Sp that he reckon'd them to be but one Congregation. Then fays Cyprian^ Ep. 41, Injtintlufuo quietem Fratrum turbans^ proripuerit fe cum plurimis: If the Faftion had confifted oi more Congregations than one, Cyprian would not have faid, Proripuerit fe CVNl PLVHJMIS, but that he did withdraw together with feveral Congrega- tions. And Ep. 52. he fays of Novatm ( another great Carrier on of the Schifmatical Faction) gui apui nos primum difcordi* iS Sclnfmatit incendium feminavit^ qui quofdaiii ifita ex Fratribv* ab EpifcQpo fegregaviti This quofdam founds not as if feveral Congregation! of Cyprian's Diocefs had feparated from him. But if you would have this made more evident or proven, fo as to convince all, even the moil obfti* nate among us, and thofe who are moft prejudie'd in favours of Dioceffes confifting of many particulaf Con- * To avoid confuflon here , it is to be obferv*!, that Feliciffwus the Dea- con, was the principle Ring-leader of the Faction, and it was through h* Inftigatipn mainly, that the schifmaticks did break orffrom tyj*""*, anq when they had remained a Separate Congregation by themfelves for tome time, they made Fottunatvt their Biihop. Demonstration o/Epifcopacy. 87 ' Congregations; turnover to Ep. 59, pag. 137, and /ou will find Cyprian declaring pofitively, that there vere not fo many People in that whole Diocefs, or ichifmaticai Church, as«:here were Bifhops, Pref- >yters and Deacons, in the Synod that condemned hem, Si eorum y qui de Hits priore anno y.i lie ave runt 'umerus cum Vresbyteru ^5 Diaconis computstur, plures unc aftuerunt judicio$$ cognitioni, quamfunt iidemijti ui cum Fortunato nunc videntur ejfe conjuncli. And feeing the Diocefs of Cyprian himfelf was fo mail, that he was acquainred with the particular Circumstances of ail the People in it, knew who vere id a good Condition as to the World, who ^ere poor and could not work, and behoved to be ninuined ottc of the Publick; and who could work little only, and requir'd fome help for their fu- :cntation: Cumque ego vos pro me Vicarios miferira, t cxpungereti* neceffuates Fratrum nofirorum fumpti- wj, ji qui eriam vellenx \um artes exzrcere y additamen- } quantum Jatu tjfet y defiieria eorum juvaretif ; fimul turn xtates eorum, & conditiones, & merit a difcem-:- ntt } ut jam nunc ego cui cur a incumbit, omnesopti- le noffcm, & digncs quoque & humiles & mites ad Ec- \efiajiicx ^dyaimji ration* officia promovercm. -f- See- ig, I lay, the Diocefs of Cyprian wasfo fmall, what pn we reckon the Diocefs of Fcnunatus 9 which was nly a fmall part of cyprian's, but a very httL iftcenH Jderablc Congregation P ^.o tueSchiimaticalChurch.or Diocefs at I{pmc i I was but one Congregation only in like manner. thusCypruH writes to Cornelius in Epili. 52. Chat he forefaid Novatus faiPd to P\ome toovertu n the Church there, rending a Portion of the People from ic Clergy, and ltirnng up Divition among .he Brc Ken \ and that as %me for greacnefs did far furpafi fr Efifi. 41. Ex \(\\< enim qui in pauperum matficull want, ofU. ^nocuiiiGciitiii-u Clericiel -udia fpc:ubjc. O.X09 1 •,' 88 An Jnfwer to Mr. Chillingworth'/ Carthage, fo he created greater Difturbances there. And what was the bufmefs ? gui ifthic adverfus Eccle* fiam Diaconum fecerat, iUtc Epiftopum fecit,that where- as he fetup but a Deacon at Carthage, he fet up a Bifhop at Home. And if the Schifmatical Diocefs at Home had confifted of feveral diftinft Congregati- ons, would not Cyprian have as readily faid, That whereas he fet up a Faftion at Carthage confuting but of one Congregation, he fet up a Fad ion at l{omc confiftingof many Congregations? Then, when No* vatianus wrote to Dionyfius Bilhop of Alexandria, ex- cnfing himfelf as if he had not been the caufe of the Diforders in the Church of Home, he faid to him* That he was forced to take the Epifcopal Office ul pon him there, by fome of the Members of that Churches Eufebius gives Account, Eccl.Hift.i. 6. c.45# 'E7reiJ"ri aV m j£io~yM,To{ Trqiyzaiv \iroieiTQ q$S ctcf"zA$£y: rrtvds, c-U /« v^U ojjt^j' am t£V ihft&v \k$i%icL'j}j. ( <.vq$* If Nov ati anus could have faid, That feveral Congre- gations of the Church of ^ome forced theEpifcopacy Upon him, that would have tended much more to his juftification; wherefore if he had had feveral Con- gregations there on his fide, he would not have con- tented himfelf with faying only, That fome oj the Bre* thren vioknted hinii But that the thing may be put beyond all doubt* ):-t the 49 Ep.be confider'd, which is from Cornelius to Cyprian \ therein he gives him account of the re* turn offeverals of the Schifmaticks to the Church, and of the way and manner of their Reception } and he tells Cyprian in the firft place, That fome of the Brethren informed, that thefe Schifmaticks were beginning to relent. Then he gives account, that two of them came to fome of the Presbyters, and fignified, that they were defirous to be received in- to the Church. And this not being fatisfadory, it was judged requiiite, that the Schifmatical Bre- thren fhould come p^rfonally, and declare out oi their, Demembration fl/Epifcopacy. 89 their own mouth, thefe things which they fignified by the perfons they did fend : Ex ipforum ore C? con* ftjfione, ifta <{ux per Ugaxhnem mzndi-jerunx, pUcuit dtidiri % When all this was laid before Cornelius^ he called together the Ptesbyrery; Omni igitur aclu ad me perlato, faith he, placuit comrahi Presbyterium. After the Affair was laid before the Presbytery, and was fully debated and confulted there, it was brought to the People to be ratified, or concluded by their Suffrages; Quod er it con[e({uens y fays Come lius^ Om- nU hie Jfrus Pofulo fuerxt ir.finu&ndus* And when the Church was conveen'd, or the People did mee r , the Schifmaticks appeared before them, and own'd Cornelius's Epifcopacy publickly, Nos, fay they, Cor. Valium EpifcopumfancliJJima Catholic" Ecclefix, eltclum a. Deo Omnipotente, C? Cbrifto Domino noftro fcimus , and confefled their Fault before the whole Church, Nos 9 fay they, error em nojtrum confixemur y r.os impo- fiunm pajJijumuSy circumventi fumus perfidiatf lo\ni~ crime captiofa, &c. And upon this fair ConfelTionj and publick Profefiion ot their Repentance, they wcreabfolved, and received into the Peace of the Church, by the Votes or Suffrages of the whole Fraternky; Jguapropxer Maximum Prcsbyxerum locum J'uum agnol'cere )uQimut y cxteros cum iyigemi populi fuf~ fragio recepimvA +. This is fo very clear, that I think no Man of fenfe, or common honcfty, will deny, that Comelim\ Church, Or the J^man Diocefs, was a M Con- /. 8. N:c n.n Tarqu n um tiefium fcrfenni juhhi tare, lr'&eni/ And he fay*, u Lt'thire were an Oppotition' between'/ fo that if they admitted them with joy, they could noc be [ n.n iiii^-u n urn tjet:um r; rjtnm j uv**Ji tpcrt, rn£. 51.) he fays, Merito illosre- vertentes fummo ut fcribti, gaudio o Clerus C? Plebs & Fratemitas omnis excepit. Who will imagine, that all the People of a Diocefan Church of the modern Fafhion, were conveened, to receive a few Schifmaticks into Communion? It is notorioufly e- : vident then, that the Church of Home, or Diocefs < of Cornelius, was a Congregational Church} and much more was the Diocefs of Novxtianut fuch, , which was bur a fmall Portion of Cornelius's Diocefs. Neither did it ever enter into the thoughts of Cy- frian and Cornelius, to objeft againft Fortunatns or 1 jstovaxixnus, that their Dioceffes were Angle Congre- gations only ; or to pretend on that account, that they were not, or could not be reckoned Bifhops: They did lay a hundred things to their charge, they left no ftone unturn'd, they omitted nothing they could invent, to perfwade ail the Chriftians in the world to difown them, and to look on them as no Bifhops. Cyprian in his Ep. to Antonianus fays C pag. 104 ) That Cornelius was made Bifhop by the judg- ment of God and of his Chrift, the Teftimony of the Clergy, the Suffrages of the People, and by the College of the Bifhops; and that, when there was bo Bifhop of H*me at the time, when the Place of fabi- T)emonftrAtion 0/Epifcopacy. 9 1 Fabian, that is, of Peter, was empty, and the De- gree of the Epifcopal Chair was vacant. And hence he concludes, that Novaxianus could not pretend to be Bifhop of Rome. Quo occupato, faith he, de Dei voluntdte, atque omnium noftrum confenfione confirmato, quit qui* )am Epifcepus fieri voluerit, for is fiat necejf* eft \ nee babeat EcclefiafticamOrdinationem, qui Eccle- fi# non tenet nnitatem ; quisquis ille fuerit multum de fi licet jaclans, <3fibiplurimumvindicans y prof anus eft % alienus eft, foris eft; $5 cum ptft primum jeeundus efje nonpoffit, quisquis poft unumqui Joius effe debe'at, fa* &us eft, non jamfecundus ille, fed vullus eft. In like manner, C$melius in his Epiftle to Fabius Bithop of Anxiocb, (which you have Eufeb. Eccl. Hift. /. 6. c. 43. ) fays a world of things againft him. But it ne- ver enter'd the head either of Cyprian or Cornelius, to to acquaint the Churches, that the Diocefles of Fonunatus and Novatian, were only fingle Congre- gations; a thing which it is notpoflible they would have omitted, if it had been an unufual thing in thofe |days, or any way contrary to common praftice of the Church, to ordain Bifhops who had but one fingle Congregation for their Diocefs. If it be thought, that Fortunatus's and Novatianus's Diocef- l.-s, being fingle Congregations only, proves not, that all the Epifcopal Diocefles in the world then, were only Congregational Churches; I anfwer, That their Diocefles, and Cyprian's and Cornelius's too, being only Congregational Churches, proves it; and that Fortunatus y s and Novatianus's Diocefles being fingle Congregations both of them, and no Objection being made againft them on that account, by any in that Age, even their greateft Enemies, proves to a Demonftration, that according to the Principles of the third Age, perfons may be bi- (hops who have but Congregational Diocefles; and that it is nothing but jgnorance, ct meer obfti- cacy and wickednef?, that hinders ibme among us M 2 IQ 92 An An fiver to Mr. ChillingworthV to believe, that the Presbyterian Minifters, are real proper Diocefan Cyprian id Bifhops. Then, what think you could induce thefe Schif- matical Churches we are fpeaking of, or thefe two Congregations, to kt up Bifhops to themfelves ? Might they not have fatisfied themfelves with Pref- byters, asalmoftall the Parilhes or Congregations in the world do now? Certainly, their fettingup Bifhops to themfelves is an undoubted Evidence, that Presbyters were not look'd en as Paftoyrs,and did not officiate as fuch then,in the ChriftianCongre- gatjons or Aifemblies, and (hew, that it was then . the common and univerfally received Principle,/ that every Affembly, or diftinft Congregation what- foever, fhou-d have a Bifhop, a Presbytery, and an Altar or a Communion-Table, Thus the Donati- ftical Party at Home, tho a very fmall and inconfide- ' rable Congregation, fent for a Bifhop from Africa, one Vitior farber.fis, \ui illos colligeret, as fays Optat. 1.2. that is, that he might affemblc them, or offici- ate as Paftour among them. Nay I will fay more : Not only were all the Epif- copal Dioceffes in Cyprian's time Congregational \ Churches, but it was reckon'd a Crime in thofe days, ' fo much as to offer to divide an Epifcopal Diocefs in- to particular Congregations; it was look'd on as a very wicked and abominable thing then, to have more Congregations than one in a Diocefs, or any Congregation in it befides the Bifhop's Congregati- on. And this is evident, becaufe Cyprian caite $he letting up that feparate Congregation in his Diocefs, x A dividing of a Portion of the People with him, CuvH Epifcopo fonionem Plebis divider e % i.e. faith he, A Pajion oves,^) filios a Parente feparareg) CloriUi Mem* bra dijjipare, £p % 4i. It will be anfwer'd, That Cyprian calls not the fettingup a feparate Congregation in the Diocefs, to divtdi a Portion of the People with the Bifhop, tnd to dif> Demonjlration 0/Epifcopacy. 9$ iflipatetbe Member .t of Chrift • but the fetting up a *parate Congregation independent on the Bilhop, nd which refufes Subjection to him. Thus, where- s Ignatius fays, One Altar to even Church, and one lijhop and Presbytery^ they tell us, that Ignatius is owife contradi&ed, tho ten thoufand Altars fhould e fet up in every Church, providing thefe Altars e all of them fubjeft to the Bilhop, and fubordinate 3 his fupreme Altar. But this Anfwer is as groundlefs and impertinent, s that which they give to the faying of Ignatius. r ery true it is, that feparate Congregation which ehciffimus did ereft, refus'd Subjection to Bifhop \}pridr, but it is as true, that FeliciJJimus's feparat- ig thac People from the Congregation of Cyprian, id caufing them aflemble apart, would have been a ividing a Portion of the People with Cyprian, tho ley had remained in fubjection to him. If a Bi- lop had a Congregational Diocefs, and if it became ;> numerous at length, that it could not convenient* ' affemblein one Place, if he fhould divide it into vo parts, fhould preach and adminifter the Sacra- sents to one part thereof hirafelf, and kt upaPref- (ter to preach and adminifter the Sacraments as aiiour in Ordinary to the other part thereof, af- mbling always in another Place; would not that i to divide the People between himfelf and thac resbyrer, and would not that Presbyter divide a ortionof the Flock with the Paftour i The taking part of the Bifhop's People then, and aifembling icm feparattly and by themfelves, or in a diftinct Ration, is what Cyprian callM, to divide u For- yn oj tte People with the Bifiop, whether they re- ain'd in fubjeition to the Bilhop as to Govern- cnt or not. in the next place, If this Anfwer be relevant, or if the fetting up a •ongregation independent on the Bilhop as to Go- * rnment, be the thing that Cypr'un calls, Jodnide d 94 An Jnfrver to Mr. Chilling worths a Portion of the People with the Bijhop, the injury done to Cyprian did not lie in Petting up a feparate Con- gregation, but fetting up a Congregation indepen- dent on him as to Government. But fo it is, that Cyprian never complains, that they fet up a Con- gregation independent on him as to Government, but that they let up a feparate Meeting, and af- tembled apart by themfelves : he never diftinguifh- es between the fetting up a feparate Congregation, and the fetting up a Congregation not owning fub- jeftion to him : He never fo much as infinuates, that he was not offended at their feparating or fet- ting up a Congregation by themfelves, but at their fetting up a Congregation that was not lyable to his Jurifdi&ion: But where ever he has occafion to complain of the injury, he complains of it in words, •which level direftly at their fetting up a feparate Meeting, another Congregation, and which touch not a Congregation not fubordinate to him,asfuch, or becaufe it refufed Subordination or Subjeftion to him. And this is further evident, becaufe he calls the fetting up a feparate Congregation in the Diocefs of P\gme y Apulling away a Portion of the People from the Clergy, Ep. 52. p. 97. E^mam quoque adevertcn- dam Ecclejiam navigans, fimilia illic & paria tnolitm e(i y a Clero portionem Plebis avelkns, Fraternitatu beneftbi cobarentu Q> fe invicem diligentU concordiam fcindens. If the thing Cyprian complains of, was the fetting up a Congregation independent as to Go« vernmcnt on the Bifhop, he might have call'd it a pulling away a Portion of the People from the Bi« Ihop, but not a pulling away a Portion of the Peo- ple from the Ckrgy. For when a new Congregati on is erefted in an Epifcopai Diocefs, the People o it are always taken away from the Clergy, howeve: dependent "they remain as to Government on cb Bithop. For example, the People in Newcaftl Demonftration of Epifcopacy. 9 5 Jepend no more on the Clergy in Berwick and An- vick, than the People in Berwick and An wick depend >n the Clergy of Kewcaftle. Then, Fratemitatk >enefibi tobxrentis & fe invicem diligemis concordiam cindens, makes it appear, that the fetting up of here People into a Congregation independent as to jovernment on the Bifhop, was not the ground of he Complaint, but'the parting of them from the Congregation they were in before. There is a Co- erenccy as Cyprian expreffeth it among the People /ho affemble in one Congregation, and communi- ate at one Table, and receive the Myfteries from »ne hand, and by their mutual Chriftians converfe, ccafion is given to the exercife of mutual Brother- l Love among 'em. But there is but very little Coherence between the Chriftians in Berwick and he Chriftians in Durham, tho' both thefe Places be nder the Jurifdiftion of one Bifhop; ar\d there is s little occafion for the exercife of Brotherly Love mong the People in Durham and Berwick, as among he People in Durham and Tork. Then, that the Crime the Schifmaticks were uiity of, did ly in their fetring up a feparateCon- negation, ana not in withdrawing from obedience the Bifhop, or meerly in fetting up a Congrega* on independent on him as to Government, is yet archer evident from what was propoied to them, Ind required of them in order to their being receiv- id, and admitted again to the Church, and from vhat they a&uaily did when they return'd to the church. It their Crime did ly meerly in withdraw- ing from obedience tc tne Biinop, and fetting up a Congregation independent en him as to Govern- aent; no more would have been required of them, r propos'd to them, buc a returning to the obe- lience ot the Bilhop, their fubjerting themfelves to lis Government, or putting tnemfeives under his Lpifcopai Jurifliftion, they remaining a feparate 96 An Anjwtr td Mr.Chillihgwoi-thV Congregation ftill. But that was never pi opos'dto them at all, nor fo much as motion'd direOly or in- direftly. It was never proposed to them to make their Congregation fubjeft totheBifhop ^ as other Congregations in the Diocefs were) or tto conde- fcend that it (hould be under his Epifcopal.jurifdifti. on. It was never propos'd to them, that tney (hould put away the Schifmatical Bifhop and F resbyrers, and admit or receive another Presbyter or Presby- ters in their room, that would be fubjeft to the Go Vernment of the Bifhop. It was never propos'd/ that the Schifmatical Bifhop (hould content himfelt with the rank of a Presbyter, that hefhould contif nue to officiate as Paftour in that new Congreg&f tior, on condition that he would aft or officiate therein in fubordination to the Bifhop as other Presbyters. Nothing of this I fay, or like this wai 1 propofed to them, or required of them. But the thing that was propos'd to them, and urged always? was this and this only, that they (hould return tol the Mother Church, from which they had feparat-. ed themfdves by letting up a new Congregation. Thus Cyprian to the I(oman Confeffours, who had fc- parated from Cornelius, Ad matrem revertamini unify prodiijiis. Ep. 4** Let it not be thought, that by returning 10 tb? Churchy CyprUn undcrfrood no more but a returning to the Bifhop's ODedieace, or a putting their Con- gregation under the Epifcopal Jurifdiftion again. This returning implied a diffolving the feparat* j Congregation, and a joining themfelves to the Bi> | (hop's Congregation, remaining conftant Mem ben thereof for the future, and partaking of the Divine \ Ordinances difperfed by him. This is evident from Cyprian** Threatning, Ep.41. Sed # quifquis fe con- fpirmoni £? fattioni ejus adjunxerit \ fctat je in Ecck- jia. Nobifcum nan communicaturum: If they returned then, they were to communicate with Cyprian in the Demonjlration ^Epifcopacy. 97 the Church asother Members of his Congregation. And this is further evident from what they did actu- ally, or from the way they were received, when they did return. Cyprian gives account thereof to Cornelius in Ep. 59. fi pojjes, Fratcr canffme, iflic interejfe nobifcum y cum pravi ifti Q> petvitfi de Sckif* mate revertuntur, videres quis mihi labor fix peffuaders patientiam Fratribus noftris, ut avjmi dolors fopito, 1 recipiendu malti curandifque confemiant. Namque ut gaudent & I at ant ur cum tolerabilestf minus culpabiles redeuntjta contra fremunt Cf reluciantur quoties protervi 2? facrificiis contaminati, fie ad Ecclefiam r erne ant y ut bona intus ingenia cert ump ant. Vix Flebi perfuadeo imo extorqueo, ut tales patiavtur aimitti. When they return'd to the Church then, they returned to the Bifhop's Congregation, and were received to be "Members thereof, as they were before they fepa- rat. d. Moreover, that the Crime of tbefe Schifmaticks I" did lie precifelv in their fetting up another Congre- gation in the Diocefs, befide that- of the Bifhop, might be made further to appear from feveral things^ which Cyprian drops here and there in his Epiftles, Thus in Ep 9 43. he fays, Dcus unus eft, & Chriftus unus, 8j ' unaEcclefia, & Cathedra una, fuper Fetram ' Domini voce fundata,aliud Altar e conftitu?, autfacerdr- tium novum fieri prater unura AItare,& unum facerdoti- urn non poteft. guifquti alibi collegerit, ipargit. By alibi colligere here Cyprian underftands the fetting up another Congregation bdides that of the Bifhop. And he fays not, Quifquis alibi coUtgerit invito Epif- copo 9 or, ^uijquit alibi collegerit ccetum independent temab EpiJ'copo 9 but, Ouijqui* alibi collegerit. Where- fore he reckons the very fetting up of another Con* • gregation betides that of the Bifhop, to difperfe the Brethren, and to fcatter them from ftfus Cbri\x k And he fays, gui/quit, that is, Whoever that Per- fon may be^ qui alibi collegerit, or who gathers an N AP 98 An Anftver to Mr. Chillingworth^ Affembly out of the Bifhop's Congregation, or afts as Paftour therein, whatever Title he may take to himfelf, whether that of Bijhop or Presbyter, fpargit 9 he is a Difiipatour and Scatterer of the People of the Lord. And in the fame Epiftle he fays of thefe Schifma- ticks, Vt a nobU nm ejetti, ultro fe c)icercnt. He calls their fetting up a feparate Congregation, Vitro fe ejicere, viz. ex Eczkfia, a throwing themfelves out of the Church ; And it is evident that he calls their fetting up a feparate Congregation, and not a Congre* gation independent on the bijhop m to Government, to throw themfelves out of the Church. For if ultro fe ejicerent be interpreted, They fet up a Congrega* tion independent on the Bijhop, then the other words, a nobis non ejefti, muft be interpreted, Tho* we did not content that they jbould feparate, and did not ere ft them into a Congregation independent as to Govern- penu And if this be the meaning of a nobis none)efti y it will follow according to Cyprian, that if aBifhop ereft a Congregation in his Diocefs independent on him as to Government,he throws that Congregation out of the Church. But there is no reafonto think that the erecting a Congregation in a Diocefs inde- pendent on the Bifhop as to Governments a throw* ing it out of the Church, more than to ercft a Con- gregation in a Diocefs independent on the Bifhop as to the preaching of the Word, and adminiftrati- onofthe Sacraments, is a throwing that Congre* gation out of the Chitrch. It is evident then, that the precife thing for which Cyprian blam'd thefe Separatists, and on the account of which he exclaim'cl fo much againft them, was this, that they erefted a feparate Congre- gation, fet up a Congregation in the Diocefs befides the Bifhop's Congregation. And he not only ex- claims againft dividing a Diocefs into diftinft Con- gregations, or the -having more Congregations in Demonjlration of Epifcopacy. 99 a Diocefs than one,as anunufual thing, a thing con- trary to the Pra&ice of the Univerfal Church hi- therto; but he exclaims againft it as a very great Wickednefs, and a moft deteftable Crime. He 'calls it not only to divide a Portion of the People with the Bifhop, but to diflipate the Members of Jefus Chrift, Ei Chrifti membra dijfipare untavcriu He calls it to tear the Concord of the Fraternity. Fr& temhaxis bene fibi cohxrenii* concordiamfcindere. He calls it Sedition, and a difturbing the Peace of the Brethren, guiciem Fratrum lurbans^proripuerit fe cum plurimU y ducem fe faclionufS fedhionU Trincipem teme- rari$ furore conteftxns. Ep. 41. A Perfecution & Ten- tation, Perfecuiio eft hxc alia, $? alia rentatio y Ep. 43. A Confpiracy, Sed & qutiquti fe con/pirationi <5 facti- ,cnie}vA adjunxerit. Epift. 41. A driving themfelves out of the Church, ctnjurdtifS fcele*ati!d$ Ecclefif \ffonte fe feller enx. Ep. 43, He calls it Schifm, Cum frgvi ifli C? psrverfi de Scbijmate revertuntur. Here- tic, El fe hxreticx faBioni adjuuxerit % Ep. 43. An overturning of the Church, Upmam ad evenendam Ecclefiam navigans. This he calls Kovatus's going to ^ome y and being inftrumental in fetting up a (eparate Congregation in Cornelia's Diocefs, Ep. 52. He calls it, Conira facerdotium Dei portionem rupue Era- ttrniiatU armare y OV. From all which Expreflions, (and many more of this kind might be gathered to- gether ) you may judge what a Crime it was in the Opinion of Cyprian^ and horrible wickednefs, to liave more Congregations in a Diocefs, than the Bifhop's Congregation. And the venerable Synod of Aniiocb (which was affembTd there, about 16 years after the meeting of the Nicene Synod ) was of the fame Opinion with \ Cyprian as to this Particular; They reckoned it an 1 intolerable piece of infolence, to have moreCongrc- I gationsina Diocefs than the Bilhop's Congregation, .1 call'd the fetting up a feparate Congregation to def- N 2 pile i co An An fiver to Mr. Chillingworth^ pife the Bifhop, and look'd on it as a Crime punifli- jtble with an Anathema : This is evident from their 5. Canon, which is thus: Si quit Tresbyxer aux Diaco- %m x Epifcopum proprium contemners, fe ab Ecclefiafe- grciav(srit t £) privatim, apud fe colleftit popults AU lire eager e JVSVS , FVEItJT ( d concitans Eccleftam, per earn qua forU eft poteftatem, hunc tanquam fedixiofum corripi oportet. It will be told us herein like man- ner, that this Canon prohibits only the fetting up a Congregation in a Dioceis independent as to Go- vernment on the Bifhop, or an Altar not fubordi- nate to the Bifhop's fupreme Altar. But this Anfwer is plainly ridiculous. It is a known and true Maxim, Non dislinguendum eft ubi Lex non diftinguix. If persons may be allow'd todittinguifh where the Law diftinguitheth not, by this means, any Law may be render'd' ineffeftual. Thus the Law of God prohibits giving of Divine Worfhip to the Creature: And when we urge the Papifts with this, and tell them, That they fhould not worfhip the Virgin or the Saints : They anfsver, That they worfhip not the Virgin or theSaints,with the worfhip of Latrie. But fay we, You muft not diftinguifh where the Law diftinguifheth not: The Law fays not, you muft not worfhip Creatures with the Worftup of Latrie, but, you muft not worfhip Creatures. We give the fame Anfwer to the Prela- tifts. The Canon of this Synod prohibits not the fetting up a Congregation independents to Govern- ment on the Bifhop, but prohibits the fetting up a- nother Congregation ; it fays not a Youfhall not fee BB an Altar that isnot fubordinate to the Bifhop's Altar f Demonftrtttion of Epifcopacy. i o i Altar; butyoufhall not fetupan Altar, to wit, in the Bifhop's Diocefs or Church. Then the Synod prohibits any Presbyter to fet up an Altar,or ereft a new Congregation in the Diocefs dejpifivg the BiJhop y that is, withdrawing the Peo- ple from his Congregation, on pretence, he is not qualified fufficientiy for the Paftoral Work, or the like: But fays nothing of defpifing the Presbyters, or }f withdrawing the People from their Congrega- :ions. Wherefore they manifeftly fuppofe, That the Presbyters had not peculiar Congregations, or that :here was no Congregation in the Diocefs, be- jides that in which the Bifhop himfelf officia- ted as Paftour. And they call a Presbyter's etting up a Congregation in a Diocefs diftinct from he Bifhop's Congregation, Defpifing the Bifhop, ka- -&:<>ov{]C3T3 % a $f> cvva.ycoyiiv ) Qv conitant Paftours, unlefs it be fuppos'd, that all Bilhops then were profane, or l'uch as that it ->uld not beexpeftcd,the People would be edify d by Che if i Ox An Anfvoer to Mr. ChillingworthV their "Miniftery: for it was in that cafe allenarly, thatit waslicent to any Presbyter, to have a Con* gregation in a Diocefs diftinft from the Bifliop's Con- gregation. If any Presbyter, fays the Canon, fet up a feparate Congregation and ereft an Altar, having no- thing ofimpieti or injuftice to lay to his Bijbop's charge^ let him be depos'd. 2. Wherever there was a Chriiiian Congregation in thofe days, having an Altar of its own, or Com- munion-Table; rhat Congregation had Government, or the Exercife of Difcipline in it. This neceffarily followeth from the words of this Canon ; for if it had been otherwife, a Presbyter who fet up a Con- gregation diftinftfiom the Bifhop's Congregation* could not be condemn'd co$ % and the Presbytery was the fame we call the Qrk'Seffion, or Pargcbial Presbytery : And I defy any Man to prove, that the Bifhophad moie power in the Presbytery then, than theMiniflerhat in the SefTion now ; and you fee Archbifhop Vjher grancs, he had no more* Nothing was.then done in the Church without the knowledge of the Bifhop, (Igna. to Pfl/yr.) and as little is done in the Pariih now without the Minifter. Neither are^thefe Presbyterians, who acknow- ledge, that the Churches in the 1. and 2. Century, fuchasthe Church of Hgme y Corinth, i$c 9 were ma- ny Congregations affociated for Government*, CO of Bifhops eonftdefd. 107 (4) much difficulted with what the Archbifhop fays; for they will readily grant, there were fuch Bifhops as he pleads for, or Prefident Bijhopr, in the fecond Century. But if it be inferr'4, Seing there were fuch Bifhops in the fecond Century, therefore there were in the fir ft, and fuch were of Divine Inftituti- cn. They will Anfwer, That will no more follow, than it will follow, Thatbecaufe Water was mixM with the Euchariftical Wine in the fecond Century (A) therefore this was a Divine Inftitution ; Or, be- caufe they Adminiftred the Lord's Supper to Infants in that Century, therefore this was done in the Apo* ftolical Times. There were, fays the Archbilhop, fuch Prefident Bifhops in the Aportolicai Times, becaufe the E- piftles in the HcvcUtion are direfted to the Angels of the feveral Churches, and to take thefe Angels in a Colle&ive fenfe, is fuch a manifeft wrefting of Scripture, that Be\x himfelf could not bear with it. But it ihould have been proven, That to take the ! word Angel Colleftively, to w/t, for the Presbytery, ; is a wrefting of Scripture. Item's Fancy is no Ar- gument. But let it be granted, ( will thefe Pref- byteriansfay) thatAngelin thefe Epiftles fignifieth the Moderator, or Reprefentingthe Presbytery or Church, how will it appear, that thefe Moderators were conftant or perpetual then, and what we call Prefident-Bilhops ? Tkn is evident, fays the Archbilhop, from the cletr Jejtimonics of Ignatius, &c. who wrote about twelve Years after. O t Let (a) Presbyterians in the late Time* were of this Opinion, fuch as Mr.Kv- ■ ±,6illlfpie> Durk:m t the Itnion Miniiters, and generally in bvih (*) Then after this we all ftand up and offer Prayers, which being ended, Bread, and Wine, and Water, as was (aid, is brought, thenthepre prays with all his might, and giTesThanhSj fays Jujiin Martyr in hi» rirft Apologie, vrhich was prefentcd 10 the Emperor Anttnmt P/«/ # toward ih- middle of the fecond Century. 1 08 Archbijhop Ufher'i Original^ &c. Let it be granted, there were perpetual Mode^ rators in the Church when Ignatim wrote, how is it evident, becaufe there were fuch then or a little be- fore, of neceflity there were fuch before the Deatl* of the Apoftle fohn ? O, fay they, 5 Tis impoflible fuch an Alteration could have been made in the Government in fuch a ihort time, (0 without noife or oppofition. This is all they have to fay. But why impoflible, pray ? greater Alterations might have been made in 12 or 14. Years time. The fqrefaid Alterations in the Eucharift, and others al- io might be inftanced, were made as foon, or quickly after, and with as little noife or oppofition } neither is the precife time, nor the Name of the Author of thefe Innovations known. If fuch Alterations in the Eucharift ( a Point about which the Pra&ice of all Chriftians was daily concern'd) were made fo foon after the Apoftolical Times, let any Man give folid Reafons why Annual Moderators might not be changed into perpetual Prefidents about the fame time, and that with as little noife or din, THE (c) The Apoftle fcbn died Anno ioi,and Ignatius, according to the learn- ed Bifhop Vloyd and Antonius Vagi died Anno no",, having writ his Epiftlcs Vy the way, when he was going to Rmt, in order to be put to death. io9 The Bifhops in Cyprians Time had neither Abfblute Power, nor a Negative Voice in their Churches. CHAP. I. The State of Epifcopacy in the Days of 'Cy- prian, or an Account of the Power that the Bifhops had then : The Difference be* tween the Bifhops in thofe days, and theft which the Apojlles left in the Churches, and the Degrees by which it may be fup- pos'd y the Alterations that Epijcopacyfuf- ered } were carried on. IN the Anfwer to "Mr. CbiUivgr*ortb*s Demon- stration, we have proven, That the Epifcopat Dioceffes during the firft three Centuries, were only Congregational Churches, or what we call Parifhes ; and it muft be acknowi*dged,that tq prove that, istofmite Modern Epi&ojacy under the Fifth Rib; and evident it is, chac no Power a- bovt the Presbyters, or Prerogatives that can be Conterr'd on the Prelates, will be able to heal the Wound, if their Jurifdiftion be confiaM within fuch nar- no The Cyprianick Bijbop narrow Limits : And it will be found, that they who plead for the abfolute Power of Bifhops in Cfprian'% time,( feing tliey were only Congregational Bifhops) plead for abfolute Power, not to the Modern Pre- lates, but to the Presbyterian Minifters. Wherefore we may fay, that when we contend with the Prelatifts about the Nature of the Power the Bifhops had in Cypna w's time, Whether they had abfolute Power then, or only a Negative Voice, or neither of them, we play at fare Game withrhenv: For if we overcome, or make it appear there is no reafon to believe the Bifhops had more Power in Cy- prian's time, than the Paftours of our Pariihes have now, we obtain a total and moft compleat Viftory ; and if they overcome, and it remain proved not- withftanding all we have to fay, that the Bifhops •then had abfolute Power, or ac leaft a Negative Voice in the Church ; Not they, but we will gain the Prize, and reap the Fruits, or all the Advanta- ges of a Conqueft. Whether the Bifhops in the CyprUnick Age had re- ally fuch power in their Churches as the Prelatifts pretend, is what we are now about to confider ; and that we may go the more orderly to work, it will not be amifs to premife fomething anent the State of Epifcopacy in thofe days, and the Alterations that were made with refpeft thereto after the departure of the Apoftles, ( which indeed were not great in the 2d, 3d, or 4th Centuries ) and the Steps or De- grees by which it may be probably fuppofed fuch Al- terations were carriedon. In tte Ancient Church we meet with three kinds of Ecclefuftical Officers, Bifhops, Presbyters, and Deacons \ the Bifhops were an Order fuperior to the Presbyters, and the Presbyters fuperior to the Dea- cons, and very foon after the departure of the Apo- ftles, thefc three diftinft Orders appeared in the Church. This i$ a thing fo evident, that it cannot be bad not a Monarchical Pomr. 1 1 1 be denied without manifeft abfurdity. But the dif- ficulty will be to (hew, what way the early Praftice of the Univerfal Church as to this Particular, qua- drates with Scripture. The Arguments which our Prelatifts propofe for this end, are very contemp- tible. The Arguments taken from the Levites and the different Orders of the Priefts under the Old Teftament* or from the Twelve Apoftles and Se- venty Difciples, and the fictitious Epifcopacy of 77- tnothy and Titus, are fo very weak, (as has been de- mor, lira ted to them a hundred times) that they can fatibfy none but thefe who arc refolved to befa- tisfied, be the thing right or wrong. And lb much has been faid agamft the Argument from the An- gels of the Churches, in the Book of thGl{eveUuo?j, as renders it wholly ineffectual. Neverthelefs, that the Practice of the Univerfal Church as to this Particular, ( or their having three iiftinft Orders ef Church-Officers, Birtiops, Pref- Dvters, and Deacons ) fo foon after the Times of the Apoftles, fhoulcl contradict Scripture, or Divine In- ftitmion, is a thing which appears to me to be alto- gether improbable. And I'm of Opinion, that there s one place of Scripture ( uhich the Prelatifts over* ook, or rather which they confider ordinarily as leftruaive of their Caufe, and which therefore they lave tortured with a thoufand impertinent Gloiies) in which the diftinct Order of Bifhops and Presby- ers may be rationally founded ; and which confer uently makes it to appear, that the Ancient Church, y coniideringj:he Bilhops as an Order diltind from ;iePrcsbyters,& fupcriorto them, did not contradict criprure or Divine Inftitution, fo much as many *arn\i and pious Men have imagined. This Text > i Tim.j. 17. there the Apoftic faith, Let the Elders or Presbyters, thit J{u!i- mnted. roortky of double Honour, cfpeciallj xbey it .> ibour inVVori and Do&rim. Hence it is evid. thac ii2 The Cyprianick Bifiop that in the Apoftolical times, and by their Appoint* ment, there were two Orders of Presbyters in the Church, fome who not only Ruled, but were alfo what we call Pafhurs, and laboured in Word and Do* drive ; others who Hulcd, but were not properly Paftours, and laboured not in Word and Doftrine as the firft Order of the Presbyters did, it being their ordinary and proper Work to Rule the Church, or to aft in the Affairs of Difeipline, And this I fay, is fufficiently evident from this Text, notwithftanding the many Tricks that have been us'd to render it ob- fcure. And common fenfe may inform us, that a greater or fmaller Number of both thefe forts of Presbyters were fet up in each particular Church or Congregation, according as it coniiftedofa greater or fmaller Number of People; fo that in fomeChurch-* es there mighc be many Presbyters of both kinds, in fome fewer, and in other leffer Churches perhaps but orie Presbyter of the firft Order, or one Faftoun Presbyter, that is, but one Presbyter, who laboured in Word and Dodrtne, together with fome Presby- ters of the fecond Order, whofe conftant and ordi- nary Work was not to Preach and Adminifter the Sacramen s, ( that being the Province of thefe who laboured in Word and Doctrine ) but to fi&le, or aft in the Affairs of Difcipline. And certain it is, that the Bijhops were they who afted as Pajiours in the Churches after the departure of the Apoftles, and perform'd the Work of daily and conftant Preaching, and adminiftred the Sacra- ments,and were the principal Ecclcfiaftical Officers, and were fuperior to all others; And confequently they were the Perfons whom the Apoltles pointed at under the Defignation of thefe who laboured in Word and Dor Olne j and who in his Opinion, were worthy of double Honour efpeciallj. And feeing they who were call'd Presbyters in the Ancient Church, did fit in that Court which was call'd the Presbytery, and afted had not a Monarchical Power. 1 1 3 afted in Affairs of Discipline, or Ruled the Church together with the Bifhop, but did not labour in Word and Doctrine, they were undoubtedly the Of- ficers which the Apoftle pointed at, under the De- foliation of the Presbyters, or Elders that Ruled well. But to make this a little more evident* to vtit^ That the Bifhops in the Ancient Church were thefe we now call the Pafcours of the Parifhes, and were the Perfons that laboured in Word and Do&rine ; and that thefe,who were call'd the Presbyters in the An* cient Church, were not properly Paftours, and la- boured not in Word and Doftrine as Paftours, (tho they preached and adminiftred Sacraments now and then, or in an Occaficnal way, in cafe of neceffity, r dc ) and were not reckoned Pafcours even in Cypri- an's time; to make this, I fay, fomething more evi- dent before we go any farther, let it be confidered in the firfc place, That the Bifhops in Cyprian's time, and all his ; Presbyters, however numerous they might be, had but one tingle Congregation in Charge among them: And feing, as we lhewed before, the Bilhop officia- ted as ordinary and conftanc Pafcour in the Congre* gation, preached the Word daily, and admini;tred the Sacraments himfelf, ( nee de aliorum mime q:ur>i Prxfidentium vel Epiftoporumfumimia, vi^ Eucbarifii- am) the Presbyters could have little or nothing to do, but to Rule anl take notice of the Convention of the People •, and tho they had a Power to preach the Word, and adminifter the Sacraments, they had a power to do that inan occafional way only, in cafe otnjceflity when the Bifhop was abfent, or the like; Ifo that perhaps they would not have occalion gene- rally to meddle wich the Work of Preaching or dif- pealing the Sacraments, once in feven Years, and fome of them may be never all their lifetime. Where- fore they who were called Presbyters inC^r/^s time, were not what we now call Paftouj^or were noc like* P thefc 1 1 4 The Cy prianick Bijhop thefe who are called Presbyters [in this Generation, but chefewhoare called Presbyters now,are the fame who were called Bifliopsin Cyprian's time, and they who were called Presbyters in Cyprian's time, were the fame thing that we call Ruling Elders now. So that the Bifhop and Presbytery in Cyprian's time,was the very fame thing that we call, theMinifter and Kirk-Seflion in this Age. Confider in the next place what Cyprian fays, Ep. 69. p. 136. A Portion of the Flock u committed to eve- ry Paftour, which he is to J{ule and Govern, being to give account of hu Adminijtrations to the LORD. By £ aft ours here he under ftands Bijhops, as is evident from what he adds immediately after: Wherefore, faith he, thefe over whomwe are fet, Jhould not run to and fro, and Jet at Variance the harmonious Concord of the Bijhopsby their fraudulent and deceitful Temerity *. Seing by Pafcours here, Cyprian underftands Bifhops, and feing he affirms, that a convenient Part or Por- tion of the Flock, that is, the Church Univerfal is committed to every Bifhop as Paftour, it is evident, be thought, that noPertion of the Univerfal Church was committed to any Presbyter as Paftour, ar.d confequently, that no Presbyter then had a Congre- gation of his own difcinftfrom that of the Bifhop, in which he afted as Paftour in ordinary, feeding it by the preaching of the Word and Adminiftration of the Sacraments. Certain it is, that a particular Congregation is a Portion of the Fiock, and that a Presbyter who is intrufted with the Charge of a par- ticular Congregation, has a Portion of the Flock committed to him as particular Paftour thereof. And I fay, that no Presbyter had a Congregation in the 3d, Century, committed to him as particular Paftour of it 5 for if it was fo, it will follow from thir words * Et fmgulis Paftoribus portio Gregis fit adfcripta, quam regat unuf- quifque & guberner, rationem fui actus Domino ledditurus > oportet un- que eos quibus praefumus non Circuracurfare,nee Epifcoporuni Concordiam coh&rcmem fua fubdoU & iallaci temcriute collidcre. W not a Monarchical Power. 115 words of Cyprian, that Presbyters not only preached and adminiftred the Sacraments in their particular Congregations, but had a Government in them di- ftinft from that of the Bifhop, and as independent on him, as his Government was on the Synod, Quam regat £5" gubernet unujquifque rationem fui aclus Domino redditurv* ; And confequently, that every Presby- ter had a particular Presbytery in his particular Congregation, which is notorioufly falfe, becaufe there was no Government then but where there was a Bifhop, and no Presbytery but the Bifhop's PreL- bytery, in which he perfonally prefided. And if Cyprian look'd on Presbyters as Paftours, the Definition he gives us of a Church, in his Ep. 66 7 to wit, Plebs facer dotiadunata, & Paftorifuo Grex adherens, that is, A People united to their Prieft, and a Flock adhering to their Paftour, is notorioufly fenflefs ; for if Presbyters had Congregations com- mitted to them in Cyprian's time, would not the par- ticular Congregation of each Presbyter have been a People united to their Prieft, or a F Jock adhering to their Paftour 4 as well as the Bifhop's Church. In like manner in Ep. 41. he calls Felicijjhniu's fetting up a feparate Congregation, To divide a Por- tion of the People to it h the Biji.op, and. to feparate the Sheep from the Paftour, not from the Paftours, but from the Paitovrthe Bifhop, wherefore helook'doa the Bifhop as fole Paftour, and did not reckon the Presbyters Paftours at all. If it be faid, He takes no notice of the Presbyters here, and calls them not Paftours, becaufe they were only Inferior Paftours, and fubordinate to the Bifhop. Why may it not be as well faid, Thathefhouki not have call'd the Bi- (hep a Paftour either, feinghe was as much fubor- dinate to the Synod and more too, than the Presby- ters were to him? And therefore fhould not have cali'd leliciffimm fetting up that feparate Congrega- tion, a parting of the Sheep trom the Paftour, but P 2 a n6 The Cyprianick Bijbof a parting of the Sheep from the Synod. If the Hy- fothefisof our Adverfariesbe good, Cyprian would not only have faid, That FellciJJimus did feparate the Sheep from the Bifhop, but that he did break in \ upon the particular Sheepfolds, and feparate the Sheep not only from himfelf, but from their imme- diate Paftours, and he would not have fail'd to infift upon this and to aggravate it, feing according to the Suppofition we are fpeaking of, thefe People communicated with the Bifhop, only by communi- cating with thefe fubordinate Paftours, and if they were join'd to Cyprian the Bifhop, thefe Paftours were the Glue by which they were join'd to him. What needs more, the thing is as evident as can be defir'd, from what the Presbyters in Home fay to the Presbyters in Carthage, ( Ep. inter Cypr. 8. ) in a word they deny themfelves to be Paftours. The Chair of H2 me was then vacant by the death of Bifhop Fabianus, and the Chair of Carthage was in a manner vacant too^ by reafon of Cyprian's Retire- ment, in the mean time the Presbytery of Horns writ to that of Carthage, and expired themfelves thus, Etcum incumbat nobis qui Videmur ejfe Prxpofu ti 9 r <) Vice Paftoris cuftodire Gregcm, that is, We who feem to be Bijhops, and watch the Flock in (lead oj the Paftour. They were not Paftours then more than they were Bifhops, they were only perfons who kept the Flock and watched it in the abfence of the Paftour, when there was not a Bifhop among them they/eem'ito be Paftours, but when they had a Bi- fhop among them, they neither were Paftours nor feem'd fo to be. In a word, they were no more look'd on as Paftours, than the Deacons were look'd onasfuch, that is plainly, they were not look'd on as Paftours at all. And /. S. will inform you, that the Title of To//xMj>or Paftour, is chit which Eujehi* ogives ordinarily to the Bifhops, which he would jiop h^ve done if the Presbyters had been Paftours in had not a Monarchical Power. 117 in a proper fenfe as well as they. Seinjj then the Bifhops were the Paftours of the Congregations or Churches, and laboured in Word and Doctrine, they, I fay, were certainly the Presbyters which the Apoftle reckoned worthy of double Honour efpeci- ally. And feing the Presbyters in the Ancient Church were not Paftours fuch as laboured in Word and Doftrine, their ordinary and more proper Work being to a\ule or aft in Affairs of Difcipline, they were the Officers which the Apoftle points out by thefe words, let the Presbyters that j\iile y Sec. But that we may explain this Point fomething more particularly, and fhew in the mean time, what Al- terations were made in the Government of the Church, between the Apoftolick and Cyprianick Times, I fay, 1. There was a real Difference between Bifhops and Presbyters, or ifyoupleafe, Bifhops wereOrfi- :ers fuperior to the Presbyters in the time of the Apoftles, and by their appointment, tho they had mt one Name then, or were call'd Bifhops or Pref- Dyters indifferently, and had but one kind of Ordi- lation. 2. There were in the Apoftolical times many Bi- hopsand Presbyters, or feveral Presbyters both of he Firft and Second Order in many or moft particu- ar Churches, and very probably but one Presbyter f the firft Order or Paftour-Presbyter, together vith feme Presbyters of the fecond Order, in the male; or leffer Populous Churches. If it had been s much contrary to the Apolcolical Practice as to the practice of the Church in the Cyprianick kgc, to fet up more Bifhops than one in a particu- ir Congregation or Church, Paul would not have lid, Lei the Presbyters that J\iile well be counted wor- ; double honour, especially they rvhe labour in Vori and Doctrine, but would have faid, Efpcculy he at laboureth in Word and VoftrilK* And this is very 1 1 8 The Cy prianick Btfhop very agreeable to the Conftitution of our Church, for tho we have but one Bifhop or Paftour, or Pref- byterofthefirft Order, in moft of our Congregati- ons or Parifhes, yet we have twoBifhops in many of them, and would be content to have 5 or 4 in fome more numerous Congregations, if that could be conveniently done. But how they came to dream in Cyprian's time, that there could be but one Bifhop in a Church at one time, or that to fet up two Bi- fliops together would be to make two Churches, it is not eafy to guefs. It is even as much contrary to Divine Inftitution, or to the Nature of the Thing, to have two or three Bifhops in a Church at a time, as it is contrary to the Nature of a City to have two or three Phyficians in it together. And Cyprian might have (aid with as much Reafon, That there being two Confuls in %omc made two Common- wealths, or there being two Kings in Laccdemon, made that City two Nations or Kingdoms. 3. The Name Biftop, might begin to be appropri- ated to the Presbyters of the firft Order, foon after the Apoftolical times, when as yet there were many^ or more than one Paftour- Presbyter in many particu- lar Churches. And I reckon, thattheConfufionin the Order of the Succeflion of the firft Bifhops 0! licme might arife from hence } and more than pro- bable it is, whatever fome Great and Learned Men may fay who write to ferve an Hypothefis, that Clc mens, Linus, Cletus, and Anacktu* y were Bifhops oi Rome not fucceflively, but at one and the fame time. 4. It is very probable, that the Name Bijhop did firft begin to be appropriated to the Presbyters ol the firft Order, or Pafcour-Prcsbyters, in thefc lefil populous Churches, in which there was but one Pref I byter of the firft Order placed by the Apoftles. 5. When an Apoftle, or fome extraordinary Offi- cer C Ex % g*i timothy or Titm ) did refide in a Cuurcfe for a time, as Paul did at Corinth one and twenty Months had not a Monarchical Power. 1 1 9 Months, no doubt all the other Paftours in that Church gave place to him, and he was the perfon that preached alwife when the Church Affembled, and in this he refembl'd him who was after wards cal- led Bijhop \ ( a: d this was the Reafon that many of the Fathers call'd the Apofties or Evangelifts Bi- fhops cfthefe Churches in svhich they remained a confiderable time, and died, as Mark Bifhopof Alex* tndria^ Paul and Peter Bilhops of I{ome ) And when the Apofties and other extraordinary Officers were removed, it is very probable that all the Presbyters of the firft Order 3 or Paftour-Presbyters in a Church, might give place to him who had the moft edifying orlhining Gifts among 'em, or was moft affeded by the People ( or in other Churches where there was no great difparity among the Paftours with ref- peft to Qualifications, perhaps he who was the eldeft or firft ordain'd Presbyter might be pitch'd on ) partly being ace uftom'd tofucha Pra&ice, when an [Apoftle or fome extraordinary Perfon was among them, partly being indue'd hereto by the Contri- vances and Intrigues of fome fore ward and ambits dos Men of the temper of Dmnpbes\ and they might be the more eaiily brought to this, to wit, to '-.he letting up of one of the Presbyters of the firft Order as lble Paftour, by the Example of thefe other Churches ia which the Apofties fee up but one Pa- tour-Presbyter. However, to this we may refer tferom's, loto Or be ieeretum eft» , By this means now, whereas before' there wer~ . Presbyters of the firlt Order, or Paftour-Pref- ; in many or molt panicular Churches, one of :i became Conftant or fole Paft^ur, and preach- ed ordinarily, or always when the Church did af« and he was very loon d'ltinguifhed from reft of his Colleagues,or the rpft of the Pr, ers of the firft Order, by getting the Name Bi . ppropriated tohimfelf. And thus all the Presbyters of 1 20 The Cyprianick Bifhop of the firft Order ( excepting him who thus remained Paftour and was call'd Bifhop ) were in a manner de- graded, and brought down to the Rank of the Pref- . titers of thefecond Order, not that the power of preaching and adminiftring Sacraments was taken from them, but the ordinary Exercife of it only +5; fo that they afted not as Paftours as they did before, nor preached ordinarily or iti a ftated way, but oc- cafionally only, not in the Church when the Bifhop j was prefent *, but to a part of the Congregation ] fometimes, to wit, when it did meet by Parcels,- as T in the time of hot Perfecution, or when there was. not aHoufe large enough to contain the whole Mul- titude, as at Alexandria before the great Houfe was built, which Athanafim fays was large enough to hold them all. And thus the Diftin&ion between the Presbyters of the Firft Order and thefe of the- Second, which was fo confpicuous in the Apoftolical Times and after, was taken away, and at length quite forgotten. And of the Difference between I Bi- t This agrees very well with the Account Jercnt gives of the occafion of the Alteration we are fpeaking of, PoflfluafH vert unnsquisque eos qucf fopti' •■favtrat, fucs putabat tffe, r.i,n Ckrijti , m tcto ctbe detutum ej} } ut unus dt Presbytens e/eciui fuperpsneretur Coeterti, ad quern omms Ecclejia: cura prtine- ret, <& Scbifrnatum femina tol/erentur. When there were many Paiiour- Presbytersor Bilhops in one Church, feing they all preached and admini* itred Sacraments Tour about, every one of them would have Perfons in the Church which they might claim a peculiar Interelt in, as being baptiz'd by them > but when one of thefe Presbyters became fole Paftour, and was made Bilhop, he baptiz'd all in the Church himfelfj and by this means thefe Seeds of Schifm ferom fpeaks of, were indeed taken away etfe&ually. * Thus the Council of Laodiced, which in the opinion of fome was more Ancient than that of Nice, but holden about the middle of the 4th Century according to others, in Can. 56. Or/ '« JV? TfS7/3 y ' TlgxS *7T%Q <$ CHfOtPu T« EV/ff^flJK \lHiVcUL )y KcL' 6V££ M.a%ii confuclunrit s'd that they granted this Power to the Presbyters, :ho they had it not by vertue of the Primitive Infti- :ution of their Offices. Nay, their granting this Privilege to the Deacons neceflitated them to grant t to the Presbyters alfo, for otherwife they had nadethe Office of the Deacons fuperiorto that of he Presbyters or Ruling- Elders, which by Divine nftitutionwas inferior thereto. 2. To grant fuch 1 Power to the Presbyters, tho it did not belong to hem by the Original Inftitution of their Office, vouid be look'd on as a fmall Matter then, when ven Lay-men were fometimes imploy'd by the Bi- hopsin the Work of Preaching. " Origen retir'd 1 into P&lcftine ( fays Du Fin ) and being come to • fettle in the City of Cafarea y theBilhopsof that • Province defir'd him to expound publickly the ; Scripture in thac Church, and to inftruci the : People in their prefence; tho he was not yet a j Presbyter; To which Requv: ft of theirs he com- ; plied. Now whether Demetrius ( who wasBifhop ; of Alexandria, to which Church Origen did belong) 4 envied him this Honour, or whether he was per - faded that they had violated che Rules of the • Church, he wrote to tlxfe Prelates, telling them, < ; Tluc 12(5 The Cyprianick Bijbof " That it wasa thing unheard of, and that it had ■ never been prattis'd till then, that Lay-men " fhould preach in the prefence of Bifhops. But| cc Alexander of few falem, and Theottifiu* of Cxfare a, " writing back to him, proved by feveral Inftances, " that this had been often put in praftice. In the Life of Origen. And fays Hilary in his Comment.] on Ch. 4. Epiftle to the Ephefians, Vt ergo crefceret Tlebs 2? multiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia conceffum eft 3> evangeli\are^ S£ bapti^are, $5fcripturM in Ecclefia explanare. It would be an eafy thing at firft then to 1 the Elders or Presbyters to get this Privilege w£ arefpeakingofinto their hands, and when once it became Cuftomary that they (hould be employ'd in that Work, it would not be difficult to them to keen peffeffion, feing they were Church- Officers, and the principal Church-Officers too next to the Bjj fhops. Then it contributed mightily to the Eafej of the Bifhop, that the Presbyters (hould remain in poffefiion of this Privilege, becaufe they would not! be tied tofuch punftual Attendance on their ChurcH es, feing the Presbyters might officiate for them id their abfence. Moreover, in Cyprian's time when anEpifcopal Chair was Vacant, one us'dalwife to be chofen out of the Number of the Presbyters to fill that Poft, wherefore they might allow them fuch a Power to preach as we are fpeakingof, in order to qualify them for the Epifcopal Fun&ion, tho no fuch power belong'd to the Nature of their Office. Further, Tertullian informs us, that in this time there were fome in the Church who were only concern'd in the Affairs of Difcipline, and had nothing to do with preaching the Word, or difpenling the Sacraments, guodfi&iftiplinafolm Officiafortim es.Lib.de Pudir, c. 21. And whether it may be inferred hence, that, in his time fome of the Presbyters had not the povr er either of preaching or adminiftring Sacraments,] leave to the Judicious to conlider. had not a Monarchical Power. j z j Secondly, If the Affembly of this Church (hould al- ow to all the Ruling-Elders that are Qualified, and nave Inclinations to the Work, fuch a Power to Dreach and adminifter Sacraments as the Cyprianick Ruling-Elders had, in my Opinion, the Alteration vhich thereby would be made in the Conllitution >f this Church, would be very fmall and inconfide- ■able +. But to return to our Purpofe ; Seing the Cypria- 'Uk Bifhops had no more power but that we have nention'd, it is evident, they were only fuch Bilhops s the Presbyterian Bilhops in Scotland are at this ay. i. The Presbyterian Minifters are Paiiours f Congregations as well as the Cyprianick Bifhops fere. a. As to Ordination, they have the power hereof as much and more than the Bilhops either p the days of Cyprian or a hundred Years after had. h Cyprian's time, the Bifhops alone laid on hands at tie Ordination of a Bifhop ; in like manner now, 'hen a MinifterisOrdain'd, none but Minifters lay n haads,thePresby tery of the place is intirely exclu- ed from thatWork. And whereas,the Elders orPres- y ters in Cyprian's time and after,did lay on hands to- ether with the Bifhop in the Ordination of Presby- >rs, our Presbyterian Minifters will not at all allow leir Presbyters,or Elders andDeacons to be ordain'd by t Perhaps/. 5. will laugh at fuch a Saying, and tell u« of the Cobler of try, and Weaver at ihc Weft-Kirk; But let him fay whit he will, there e many Ruling- Elders better qualified for Preaching, thjn mar.y Bnhops :he day* of Cyprian ; And there are abundance belonging to that 'der in this Church both Gentlemen and I whoir they were ll'd to go about the Work cf Prayer, could acquit themfelves to fuch cx- llent Purpofe, that they would defcrve to be admired, and would n very evident, that they ftood in no need of a Set-Form. Here 1 : Commend 3 Canons of the Council of Cartb*gt t Anns 398, to the Confi- \i f ihefe who think it a mighty Scandal, that Trado-men ihould be »de Llders of the Church, importing, that they who belong to the infe* .^yiuall earn their Living by an honeft Trade, how abiefoever •y maybe -, The $c Can. of that Coun. i«, Cltritmr, puntwm Hum quorr.it. The $1 Can. :. ?ntum iultura y abf-ju in. is,0»ifl nor a Negative Voice in the Church in thofe days. CHAP, II. That the Bifhop had not jbjolute Power U\ the Church. THey who fet up for the Bifhop's Abfolute Pow* er, as they are few, fo they are extravagant and I cannot tell if it be worth the while tf notice them. Certainly nothing can be advancec more contrary to Scripture than fuch a Pretence Ike J^jngs of the Gentiles, faith our Saviour, Lufc 22. 25, 26. exercife Lordfl)ip over them, and tbey tbi txercife Authority upon tbem 7 are call'i BemjaSor. had not a Monarchical Power. 129 butjejball not be fo y but be that it greateft amongjou let bim be M the younger, and be that U chief, oa hi that dotbferve. They ordinarily tell us, that our Saviour doth not here difcharge Superiority among Church Officers. Be it fo. But lure 1 am, if he does not difcharge whether Aportles * or other Minifters to exercife Abfolute Power over the Church, he dif- charges nothing at all. Will it be faid, That to ex- ercife Abfolute power, is not to exercife Dominion and Lordfhip, or Authority over Perfonsr That is ridiculous, femg to exercife Abfolute Power, is to exercife Lordfhip or Dominion in the higheft De- gree. Who will deny, that the King of orni/>/ex- ercifeth Dominion and Lordfhip in thefe Ifles, or Authority over us, tho he has no Abfolute Power at all ? Will it be faid, He onlydifchargeth theex- ercifing Dominion and Lordfhip, or Authority in an Imperious and Tyrannical way ? But it is Dominion and Lordfhip it felfthat he difchargeth, and not the way and manner of it; He fays not, Ye (hall not exercife Dominion and Lordfhip in an imperious and tyrannical Way, but ye fhall not exercife Do- minion. Or will it be faid, That when he difcharg- eth the exercifing of Dominion or Lordfhip, Mdttb. 20. 25. hepropofethhisown Example, buthehim- felf had Abfolute Power, therefore he doth not dif- charge his Minifters to exercife Abfolute Power t But feing it is evident from what has been faid,Thac our Saviour does indeed difcharge the Exercife of Abfolute Power in this place, if it be faid, That he allows his Minifters in the very next Sentence to exercife Abfolute Power, on pretence, thachepro- pofes the Example of himfelf who bad all Power,he will be made to fpeak Contradictions. Wherefore R it hfcharge the Apoftlcs to take upon them | lute fewer in the Church, 1 ihn.ic they u.ay be reckoned very llufl Men who attribute fuch rower to BuLiopb. ^ inn* turn "i-ii- i~t>,si. p.m. 130 The Cyprianick Bijbop itmuft not be faid, That he propofes his own Ex- ample here in the full latitude thereof, ( as he had all Power in Heaven and Earth, the Keys of Hell and of Death, the Key of David that open eth and no man ihutteth, and fhutteth, and no man openeth, $5c. ) but that he propofes his own Example in his prefent Circumftances, that is, as he was in the Form of a Servant, and came not to be miniftred un- to, but to Minifter,or he propos'd his own Example with particular Regard to the prefent Aftion of walhing his Dilciples Feet. To the fame purpofe Peter, Neither m being Lords ever GOD's Heritage^ but being Enfamples to tbs Flock. Will any rational Man fay, That they who claim an Abfolute Power over GOD\ People, do not claim Lordfhip over them ? Is not the Queen our Sovereign Lady, tho fhe has no Abfoluce Power over us ? Then our Saviour not only difchargeth Domini- on and Abfolute Power in the Church, but all Names or Titles that might bethought any way to import fuchPower^asi^/^Mrf/fer^otfor/jr the like.-M4f.23. And he difcharges the Apoftles themfelves to affume fuch Titles, much more Bifhops or other ordinary Officers. And on the contrary ,fuch Names or Titles are given to them in Scripture as have no Affinity with Sovereignty, and imply quite another thing than Abfolute Power, or their having Authority over the Church as Lords and Princes. Thus they are call'd Ministers or Servants, Col. 1. 17. 1 Cor. 3. 5. 2 Cor. 4. 5. SiV. And 1 Tim. 1. 12. Paul thanks Chrift, not for making him a Sovereign Lord, or giving him Abfolute Power, but for funing bin into the Minijtery. They are call'd JmbaQadors, MeJ~ fenget-s, Stewards, Labourers, 8k, And what proba- bility is there, that Chrift would have given them fuch Titles, and abfolutely discharged any that might be Conftruftcd to import Lordfhip or Domi- ... nion, had not a Monarchical Power. 1 3 1 nion, if he had intended they fhouldbe Monarchs in the Church, and inverted with an Abfolute Power. Moreover this Opinion, That Bifhops (hould have Abfolute Power, is not only contrary to Scripture, but to common fenfe nay is impious* For they who fay, That Bifhops fhoukl have Abfolute Power, fay, that we (hould give them Abfolute Obedience, but Abfolure Obedience is a kind of Adoration, and that becaufe we are not capable to give a higher kind of Obedience to GOD, nay a higher kind cannot be imagined; to give Abfolute Obedience is to go to the very outmoft Point; it is a boundlefs and un- limited Submiflion, and in a manner infinite. They who love any Creature as much as they can love GOD, or with the higher!: Degree of Love, make that Creature equal with GOD,or efteem it as much as Him, andconfequently by fo doing, become guil- ty of Idolatry : And to give the Biihops Abfolute Obedience, is to give them the higheft kind of Obe- dience, and to honour them as much as God Al- mighty, and to make them equal to him in that refpeft ; And confequently, if Bifhops claim Abfo- lute Power, they are guilty of downright Rebellion againftGOD; and if Presbyters and People yield Abfblure Obedience to them,they do thereby become guilty of manifeft Idolatry, This then is a wicked Opinion, and in a Word, I know not what could have been invented more de- ftruttive to Chriftianity, or pernicious to the Churth, GOD has no where obliged himfelf by Promife, to guide the Bifhops by a Spirit of Infalli- bility, nay nor to keep them in a ftate of Grace; wherefore they may make Defection, and become Enemies to Jefus Chrift. Every body knows what fort of Men the Bilhopb were before the Reformati- on, and what has been may be; and if fuchPerfons have an Abfolute Power, it is eafy to conjefture what a Pats the Elock will be brought to in a very R 2 ihort 1 3 1 The Cy prianick Bljhop fhort time. No Man who underftands any thing ei- ther of Religion or common fenfe, can think, that yefus Chriji has fo little regard to thefe whom he has pnrchafed with his Blood, and to whom he faith by his Appftle, Be riot ye the Servants of Men, as to throw them away, that they may be fubrervient to the Lufts or fecular Intereft of a Set of Men, to whom he will for ought we know, fay one day, Veri- ly J never knew you. It is a certain thing, that; Chrift has made the Bifhops for the Church, and not the Church for the Bifhops, wherefore if they make Defection, and become fo far from being fer* viceable to the Ends for which heappointed them, that they difcourage Religion, and endeavour to draw away Peoj lefrom the ways of GOD, andfim- plicity of the Gofpel ; there is no doubt, but the Church has a Power to throw them out as Salt that has loft his favour, and to fubftitute others in their place : Wherefore it can never be fuppofed that they have Abfolute Power, and the Church has no Right to call them to an Account for their Aftings. Neither do the Fathers countenance this Opinion f, none of them affirm, that the Bifhops either had or (hould have fuch a Power. Particularly as to Cy- frian, it would be eafy to make it appear, by innu- merable Paffages in his Epiftles, that he never pre- tended to any fuch thing. Take but one Example in Epift.34. Where he declares, that he could not tlone * the whole Community, and confeqiuntly is a latter of the greateft importance in the Govern- ent : Wherefore if any perfons pretend to fuch a rivilege, they muft produce their Commufion, and ake good their Title by very clear and undeniable vidence. We have all the iUafon in the World len to inquire, How is it evident, thac tiieBijhop Iiould have fuch a Prerogative? Where doch his ommiflion ly t To i}4 The Cyprianick Bijbop To pretend to prove this by ambiguous Expreffi- onsto be met with in Cyprian s Epiftles, or here and there in the Writings of the Ancients, or by obfolete Phrafes, the true import of which is perhaps forgot- ten fome hundreds of Years ago, is but a Jeft. What; would be faid to a Man whoThould think to prove,. That the Prefident has a Negative Voice in the Sef- fion, becaufe he has a more plentiful Salary, the Door, has a Chair ereftcd in the middle, and the reft of the Lords fit in a Semicircle about him; or becaufe in fome ancient Records or Hiftories, there is mention perhaps made of the Prefident's Place and Degree in the Seflion, he is faid to be exalted to the Sublime faftigium 9 or higheft Rankamongft the Sena tors of the College of Juftice; or becaufe Power is attributed to him, or Jionour, Authority, Dignity, Vigor y or Providence , or the like? Nothing but an exprefs and pofitive Aft of Parliament will be able to found his Right to fuch a Privilege, or bear the weight of fo great a Prerogative. We reckon then, that nothing below Scripture Authority can be fufficient to found a Right to fuel a Privilege; and if theBifliops be deftitute thereof will look on their Pretences as vain : And who car 1 quarrel us for rejefting their Pretences to thl Privilege, as groundlefs and unreafonable, if the' cannot produce one Text of Scripture from which i may be clearly proven, or fo much as probably in ferred, that fuch a Privilege is their due? If th Council \n Scotland (hould receive one as Commiff oner or Viceroy, who could produce no Commiffio from the King, or Warrant under his hand for til effeft, would they not Forfeit their own Commifl ons, and be looked on as guilty of breaking their A legiance to hisMajeity? Or who would blame tt People, if they (hould refufe to own fuch a Preteni er to-be Viceroy, and deny Obedience to him ? then the Bifhops can produce no Commiffion frd: Jef had not & Monarchical Power. 135 Jefus Chrift, noPaffage of Scripture bearing than they fhould have a Negative Voice in the Church, nopcrfoncan blame our refuting them this. Privi- lege, or our rejefting their Pretences thereto. Tho' the greater part of the Fathers in the firft 5. or 6. Centuries, of whofe Writings we have any knowledge, fliould pofitively declare, That the Bi- lhops fhould have a Negative Voice in the Church, and that the Apofilcs themfelves appointed this by Orders fromjeius Chriit ; this would be no furfici- snt warrant to us, it being acknowledged on all bands, that the Fathers were not infallible, and certainly known that aft ually they did err in feveral :onfiderable Points. Indeed if we had no Scripture, lone of the Writings of the Apoftles themfelves to :onfult, the Teftimony of the Fatfeers might perhaps te thought fomethiiig coniiderable as to thisParticu- ar.But feing we have theScriptures among our hands confult and look to with our own Eyes, and fe- ng the Fathers themfeives own theie Scriptures to ;e pci icc^and to contain all things neceffary,3nd po- Jtively declare, That no regard is to be had to what hey fay in their own Writings, but in fo far as they >rove it by thefe Divine Scriptures ; if we rind that he Scriptures are wholly fikntasto this Preroga- ive of the Bilhops, the truth is, 1 fee not what ftrefs jo'uld be laid on the Teftimony of the Fathers, with efpefl thereto, even tho it fhould be found to be manimous, and very clear and poiicive. However, r the Fathers fay no fuch thing in any of their Wri- rigs, if our Prelatical Brethren cannoc produce much as one Father of the ririt 5 or 6 Centuries, Ioiitively affirming, that Chrill or his Apoftles ap- ointed the Bilhops to have a Negative Voice in he Church, or expreily declaring, That they aclu- 11 y had this Prerogative in their time, whoever i*y might be indebted to for it; With what con- tempt i-$6 The Cy prianick Bijhof tempt and difdain, think you, fhould Pretences t Aich'a Prerogative be rejetted by us ? In fine, if they could lhew us Canons of fome ar cienc Councils appointing the Bifhops to haveth't Prerogative, or allowing them a Negative Voice i the Church, this would amount to no more but hu mane Right, and might juftly be rejefted among c ther Innovations. But if we can defy them to pre duce one Canon of any ancient Council, whethe Univerfal or Particular, exprefly appointing ther to have fuch a Voice, nor fo much as clearly fuppc ling, that they had it actually in the Church, w will have great reafon to conclude, that fuch a Pre tence as tins is one of the moft unjuft and groundle: that can be imagined. Wefaythen, that this Privilege is imaginary an altogether groundlefs, it has no Foundation at a either in Scripture or Antiquity ; There is no Tes of Scripture from which it may be evidently cor eluded, or fo much as probably inferred, that B ihops fhould have this Prerogative; no ancient F t ther affirms it either dire&ly or indireftly; no C; nonof any ancient Council, either gives them, c fuppofes them to have fuch a Prerogative. Jrirft then, there is no word in Scripture of fuc a Privilege belonging to any one perfon in tY Church, Presbyter or Bifliop. There is no wor in Scripture of the Prerogatives the Bilhop of Kon claims to, whether of being univerfal Bithop, fi preme and infallible Judge of Controverfies, Hea of the Church, or the like ; and all Proteftants, an even the Prelatifts themfelves, think this a fufficiei Argument to prove, that the Pope has no Right 1 fuch Privileges, and is a Tyrant and Uiurper : pretending to them. And feing there is no moi Ground in Scripture for the Bifhop'sNegative Voic than for the Pope's univerfal Supremacy, orlnfall bilitv* Bfa why fl^uld we not condemn and reje. thei hfid not a Monarchical Power. i j> 7 them both, why (hould we not look upon thefilence of Scripture as as ftrong an Argument againft thd Bifhop as it is againft the Pope P why (hould we not look onthefe Bifhops as Tyranrs and Ufurpers for pretending to unfcnptural Prerogatives, as well as we look on the Pope as fuch for the very fame Rea- fon? Promulgation is neceffary to the eftablifhing of a. Law, or in order to the requiring of Obedience thereto. If the King and Parliament make a Law, and intend, that the People give Obedience to it* they will publifh that Law to the Nation, and fet it down in Record among their other Acts; and if this be not done, no Perfon will be blam'd for breaking fuch a Law. Wherefore if Jefus Chrift had intended* : that the Bifhop (hould be an Ecclefiaftical Monarch* or have a Negative in the Church, would he not have made known his Pleafure herein ? would he not have caufed this Law to be promulgated, or fet down in Record in Scripture, which is the Re- gifterof all the Afts of Heaven ? Would he not have furnifhed his Ecclefiaftical Monarchs with a clear and authentick Commiflion in his Word, that no ftubborn Presbyter might conteft their Right, or ftiff-necked Proteftant Churches refufe them their due ? And feing there is no fuch thing on Record in Scripture, have we not reafon to conclude, That it never intended the Bifhops fhould have fuch a Privilege 1 Who can blame the Council of CM don for granting to New ' Zomd or Co?i(iu?jti>wp!e the fame Privileges with Old I{omc, feing t^e Scriptures fpeak nothing of the Preheminence of the Bifhop of \%omc to all other Bifhops? Or the Council of Mile* vh in Africa, for condemning and prolijiting Tranf- marine Appeals, feing there g to be found of the Univcrtal Supremacy of the Bifhop:* of l{ome m the word of God ? In like manner, lein^ Chert is as little in the Word of Cod concerning the N S 1 38 The Cyprianick Btjbop tive Voice of Bifhops, how can the Church of Scou land be juftly blam'd for refufing to their Bifhops firch a Prerogative ? And if it be pretended, that a Negative Voice is granted to the Bifhops in Scrip- ture, we would be content to know where, or what Texts this peerlefs Privilege may be inferred from +. In Scripture, the Apoftles frequently take occafion to treat of the Church, fpeak ot its Nature, Order, Unity, Edification, and Government ; of the Offi- cers t Some think, that the Bifhop'a Negative may be inferr'd from Titus i. 5. For this cauje lift I thee /?j Crete, that thou jhoulieji fet in order the things that are wanting, and ordain Elders in every City, as I bad appointed thee. The Elders in Ore, fay they, could not ordain without Titus, eife it would have, been needlefs to leave Titus there for that end, and if they could not or- dain, and fet in order the things that were behind, without him, he wtejmq tju. non, or had a Negative among them. 1 thai) not infill on this, that Titus was an Evangelift, and that an Argu- ment from an Evangelift to a Biihop will not follow. Nor take Advantage by denying that there were any Presbyters or Elders at Crete at that time. Neither fhall I infift on this, that if Titus had a Negative as to Ordination, he had a Negative as to Election, which belongs to the People, but that he had a Negative with refpect thereto, is contrary to Scripture and Antiquity, Quandc tlebsiffi maxim habeat Votejiatem vrl dsgnos S^cerdotes eligendi, vet indignos rejiciendi. Neither fliall I lay the iirefs of my Anfwcr on the Confl- deration that Crete was a large IOe, in which were many Diocefan Churchy* according to the Frelaticai Suppofition 5 fo that if Titus had a Negative, with refpect to Ordination in every City, that is Epifeopal Church, the Inference will be, not that the Bifhop had a Negative in the Presbytery, with refpect to the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, Iever one Reproorco any or them tor ulin^ i: unfea- ly, and to die difadvjntage of the Church: Ne- er one Limitation let ro this dangerous PriviLgc: >Ievcr one Caution ro manage it fo as roc toabufe it o the ruine of the Church ; efpecially coniidering vhat Advantage the Bifhops would nave thereby order things *d libitum, and to difpofeaU Ecclefr ftical Concerns to their own Gra; I tempo* al Advantage, to the ruine ot Difcipline, i. on of Chriftian Liberty, growth of SupefAUioD, leafy, Profanity, (5r. Being then, the Scriptures are totally fileot as to lis Negative Voice ot the Bil jp o word thereof direftiy or inaircftl ngsof the Apoftlesj can thefe be bium'u wl 142 The Cyprianick Bifhop jeftor fet themfelves to oppofe it? No more cer- tainly, than they who rejeft a Doftrine that cannot be proved by Scripture, or refufe to fubmit to the Pope, pretending to a Power Chrift never gave him, of being UniverfalBifhop,fupreme and infallible Judge of Concroverfies, or the like. We have alJ the rcafon in the World to reject this Epifcopal Prerogative, the Fathers themfelves being JudgeSe Let Hermogenes make it apfear that it u written. C faith Tertullian) or if it be not written in Scripture, let kirn be afraid ofthatVVo again ft thofe who add or tafo away,{kc.(a) And LaftamivAjbefe things have no Foun- dation and Solidity, which are not upholden by any oftht Oracles of the Divine Scriptures, (b) And Auguftine, I about Chrift, or about bit Church, or about any othe thing which concerneth our Faith and Life, J will not fa^ we, who are no wife comparable to him, who f aid, Altb we, but even as he going on did add, If an Angel fror Heaven fhould tell you befide what yon have rece : ved in the Legal or Evangelical Scriptures, let hir be Anathema c. Secondly, As the Scriptures are wholly filent as t 1 this Privilege, fo alfo are the Fathers; not fo mucj as one of them for many hundred Years after Chrilj affirms, that the Prerogative of a Negative in tH . Church or Presbytery is the Bifhop'sdue, wheth<] by Divine or Humane Appointment, or that the B fliops actually had fuch a Privilege in their day, the judicatories Ecclenaftical. A thing aUogeth impoinble, if the Bilhops really had fuch a Rigl and exerted the fame.. LI (a) Scriptum eiTedoceat Hermogenis Officina. Si non eft fcriptum, j meat v.* inud adjicicnubus aut deirahencibus deitinatum. Tcnul. a I Kermog. c. i-. , , ] : uiium fundamentum aut finmtatem poilunt h30cre quae nil diVinaruta vocumfulciumurOracuiii Lad. Kb. 7. >ect. 1. c Promde five deChrifto,five de ejusEccleiia,i:ve de quacunque alia re/ pertinei adriderc vitamque noltr^tn.nondicam nasnequaquam compare "ei qui dixit, I.icetji wcx,fed omninoquod fequutus adjeciigr/btgelus rd Trfos-ctasofAiva, vttI th ta*9*{ If theBifhop had fuch a Prerogative as they pretend, Clement could not have exhorted any of the Corhithians to obey what (hould be enjoin'd by the Multitude or Church, for theBifhop miaht have interpofed with his Negative, and ditanull'd their Commands, and render'd them ineffe&ual; fothat it would l>ave been finful, nay Rebellion againft the Eccltfiaftical Mo- narch, to obey them. And as Clemens Romanus was wholly ignorant of ^theBifhop's Negative Voice, fo was Clemens Alexin- drinus. Otherwife he would not have fa id, That the Difcipline of the Church whereby Men are made better, was Penes Presbyteros, in the Power of the Presbyters, Strom, lib. 7. If one (hould fay, That in Scotland to make Laws is in the Power 01 the Parliament, he would fpeak an untruth, ieing the Parliament has but the one half of that Power, the other half thereof being lodged in the King, 16 jthat without the concurrence of his Authority, the Act of Parliament is r.o more Obligatory, than the jUt of a private Perfon would be. Wherefore if the Bifhop had a Negative Voice, Clement could pot without fpeakingan Untruth, have fait!, That the Difcipline of the Church was in the power of the Presbyters. Unlefs you will fay, That he was writing laxely, and not intending to give a nice , Account ot the Affair. J Lookto/^wanw, every body knows he was not for ; diminilhing the Epifcopal Prerogatives j but on the T con- 146 The Cyprianick Bifhop contrary, was a moft zealous Afferter of them, and for carrying them as high as he could, and doth fre- quently and fervently inculcate Obedience to the Bilhop on all Occafions, and I may fay even to ex- cefs, as if Religion, Salvation, and All depended u. pon it, fo that his Zeal doth fometimes carry him to Expreflions which are not very decent, and can't cafily be defended •, but as to this Monarchical Poor- er, and Negative Voice of the Bifhop, not one word about it in any oHiis Epiftles. And certainly nonfe who will read the Epiftles of this Author, whoever he was, and confiders the Humour he was in, will think, that he would have negiefred either to men* tion or recommend this Negative Power, if he had ever heard of, or known fuch a thing. It ifc true, Jgnatim fays to the Church of Smyrna, Let no Man do any thing of what belongs to the Church without the Bijhop. But it cannot be concluded from this or the like Sayings in Ignatius Epiftles, that the Bilhop had a Negative Voice then. It muft be remembred in thefirft place, That/^ natius is a Writer whofe words muft not be alwifc urged too far, or taken in too ftrift a fenfe, e.gr. He fays in his Epiftle to Polycarp, If any think thai tie knows more than the Bijhop he is ruin'd. If this be^ wli3t will become of tbofe who have fuch a Bilhop as was Vap'w of whom Eufibim fays, That he was a Man of very weak Judgment? In the next place, it was appointed by the Canons, That the Bijbops of the Province foould do nothing with- out the Metropolitan. In the 4th Canon of the Coun- cil of Hice we have thefe Words, The validity of what it done in the Province depends on the Metropo- litan. And fays the Council of Antioch, Anno^i. in their 9. Canon, That the Bijhops in the Province Jhould reverence the Metropolitan, and do nothing of Conference without him. Yet the Metropolitan had no Negative Voice in the Synod of Bifhops : And J the had not a Monarchical Power, 147 the learnd Dr.Barow proves very folidly, he had Jo fuch Voice there. See Pop. Sup. p. 314. in l narto. And fays the famous Mr.-Poiwe/, The mofl ancient Metropolitan Higbts pretended to by the Primi- tive Chriftiavs % were not of any real 'furifditlion, but only of \anY and Order. One Altar, £5V; p. 254. And this isvery evident from the 6. Canon of the Council of Nice, which appoints, That if two or three makeOppofttionjke Suffrages of the Plurality jh all cany it. For if the Metropolitan hada Negative Voice, the Suffrages of thePlurality would not have carried it;if he had interpofed with hisNegative not only thePlura- lity would not havecarried it,but the unanimous Suf- frages of the wholeSynod would not have carried it. And many of the Fathers call'd Peter 9 Prince of the Afojiles, yet they knew very well, and affirmed frequently, that all the Apoftles were equal, and that Peter had no Negative Voice over them. But if the Metropolitan had a Negative Voice in the Synod of Bifhops, how ridiculous was this Canon of one of the Councils of Carthage, which forbids the Metropolitan to affume the Title of Prince of the Priefts 9 $r the Sovereign Prieft, and declares, That no other Name ought to be given to him, but that of Bijhop of the firjt See. If Peter who had no Negative Voice among the Apoftles, was ftiled by the Fathers, Prince of the Apojiles, they could not in Reafon have refufed the Title of Prince of the Bifhops to the Metro- politan, if he had a Negative Voice among the Bi- fhops of the Province. Then if the Metropolitan had a Negative in the Synod of the Biihops, the Epifcopai Office could not. reafonably have been cali'd the Sublime lop of the Pnejihood ; neither could 'j-erom have fa id, That all Bifhops are equal +. On the contrary, if the T 2 Me- t Si Autorius qu*ncur, Orbis major eft Urbe, ubicunquc fuenr B| pus, live Rom*, live Lububn, live Conitanrinopoli, live Khc^n, iivt a- fexandri.e, live f urns, cjuldcm menu, c) .idem efl ^ iaceidom, poienM* diviturum, & paupenaus humilius, vel fubUouorem, vclmfcxic i pifcopum uoa ucu. lliuo. kvj^r. £p. ?s. 148 The Cyprianick Bifhop Metropolitan had fuch aPrincelyPrerogative,hc was equal to all the Bilhops in the Synod or Province. Wherefore feing ir cannot be infer r'd, Than the Metropolitan had a Negative Voice, becaufe no- thing was tobedoneinthe Province without him, as little can it be concluded,that theBifbop had a Nega- tive, becaufe nothing was done without him in the Church Diocefs or Presbytery. And let it be remem- bered here, that ordinarily the Presbytery was to do nothing i n* the Bi {"hop's abfence, tho when he was prefent, he had no Negative Voice at all, and this fatisfieth the Expreffions in Ignatiufs Epiftles^^* And what Probability is there, that the BifhopS had a Negative Voice in Ignatim's time, feing they had no fuch Prerogative many Ages after, not in Jfodore's time who was Bifhop of Sevil in the 7th. Century, unlefs ye will fuppofe he fpoke wonderfully, eareleily and indiftinfctly with refpeft to the Pref- byters, in his fecond Book of Offices, when hefaid, That they pre fide over the Churches, as the Bifiwps do confe crate the Body and Blood of Ckrift, and preach the Word of God as they do y but that Ordination is refdfr ved to the Bifiops to maintain the Authority andSplen* dour of the Priefibood, and to prevent Divisions. How Could it have been laid, That the Presbyters prefi- dedover the Churches as theBithops did, if the Bi- lhops had a Negative Voice in the Churches? And does he not fpeak of Ordination as the only thing * in the Government of the Church, or Matter of Dif- Sipline wherein the v-7n$oyj) of the Bifhop did ly ? Summo facerdoti Clericorum Ordinaxio rejervata, tie a mult 14 Ecclefix Difciplina vendicata, concordiam folverit ; fays he. Xq the fame purpofe the 2d. Council of Sevil Anno 619, * To The fame pur pofe Cbryjbftotn and 3erom i Quid fecit excepia Ordinati- cne Epjopu! quod Presbyter non faciat . And Augujtine thought, that this, jrehc-iuinence which the Buhop had in the Presbytery, was fuch a fmall and inconfiderable thing, that hefaidthe Biihop was greater than a Pref- fey tc- only Sscunium honor um Vmabula, in an Epiftle to Jcrowt. had not a. Monarchical Power. 149 619, againftfome Presbyters who had been allow'd by Agapiv/s a Bifhop, to incroach upon the Epifco- pai Prerogatives, or had taken upon them to do fonue things which could not be canonically done but !>£,&-. Bilhop, did make an Aft, and rid Marches between the Bifhops and the Presbyters, thus, Ahho, fay they. Presbyters have J ever al Functions common with the Bijhops, there be fome forbidden them by the EcclefiajUcal Laws, ( quaedam novellis & Ecclefi- afticis Regulis fibi prohibita noverint) fuch wtbc Confecration of Presbiters, Deacons, or Virgins, the ereclion of an Altar , the bleffmg oj the Vnftion ; That they cannot con jeer ate an Altar or a Church, nor confer the &Qly*Gbofi by impofition of hand s, on the baptifed or on heretical Converts, nor confe crate the holy Chrifm, nor anoint the forehead of the baptised therewith . nor fo much as reconcile a Penitent in a publick Mafs, nor fend Circular Letters ; That allthefe things are for bid~ den to Presbyters, hecaufe they have not the fupreme Degree of the Sacerdotal Dignity, which by the Autho- rity of the Canons i* appropriated to Bifhops only. And they add* That Presbyters are not permitted to enter into the Baptiflry, nor to baptise before the Bijlwp, Mr to reconcile Penitents without his Order, nor to confe- crate the Body and Blood of Ch'ift, to Preachy to blefs >orfalute the People in the pre fence of the Bifbop. Perhaps the greater part of the Epifcopal Diocef- fes in Spain confiftcd of more Congregations than one in thofedays, yet it fetms they were but fmall, and did not conlift of many Congregations even then -, for if they had, the Bifhop could not have Tent Orders to a Presbyter every time a Peni- tent was to be reconciled, as fays this Council. And the Bifhop was ftill look'd on as fole Paftour of the Diocefs according to the ancient way ( feingthe 1 Presbyters could not adminilier the Sacraments, or blefs the People in his prefence, that being a Work •incumbent upon him)tho he could not without great ab- i$o The Cyprianick Bifhop .abfurditybe look'd on as fuch, when the Diocefs came to comprehend many diftmft Congregations. However in thefe things did the Difference between the Presbyters and their Moderator the Bifhop ly at that time, and if he had any other Advantages a- bove them in the Presbycery, it feems they were fo very irconfiderable, that this venerable Spanijb Council thought them not worth the mentioning, wherefore it is nowife probable, that he had the princely Prerogative of a Negative then. But, 1 believe, the main Strefs oftheCaufe will belaid on Cyprian, thoin vain, for there is clothing in his Works from whence this may be inferr'd j but there are many Paffages in them from which it may be clearly proved, that the Bifhop had no Ne- gative Voice at all. If Cyprian had a Negative Voices he had as much Power as the Church, the Church^ Power and his was equal; but it was not fo, thq Power of the Church was greater than his, as h< declareth pofitively and exprefly, Ep. 39 *, whenj to himfelf as Bifhop he attributes Suafio only 9 bu to the Church he attributes compulfio and coaftio and of the Church he fays Cui plus licuit % i.e. Wboj\ Authority was greater, and which hid more power thai I the Bijkop, who am but a Minisleror Seryant. In ai Monarchies, the Right of creating Officers Civi^ or Military, refideth in the King. If then tQfprtaj was Monarch of the Church of Carthage, hov cam,' Celerinm torefufeto take upon him fo much as th, Office of a Lector by vertue of Cyprian's Authority, How comes it that the Admonition of the Churcl, tho but in a nofturnal Vifion, compelled hin, when Cyprian's Authority had no Influence on hi at all. This is Demonftration, that Cyprian w; no Monarch, and had no Negative. And I dare fajfc That Cyprian did not imagine, that Chrift inveftc * Qui cum confcntirc dubitam, Ecclete ipfiu* admomtu & hortatu Tifione" pernoaera, Comtu/fus eft ne ntgani tub* fuadtnt'bus 3 cw ftus lu itfUieiStcMgit. had not a Monarchical Power. 151 the Bilhops with this Privilege when be faid, Ep. 14. Ad id vcro fuod Jcripferunt mibi Compresbyteri Donatus, kc. Solus re fcribere nihil potui, quando aprimordio, E- nfcopatm mti ftatuerim nihil five Confilio veftro, ^5 fine onfenfu Plcbp/, mea privatimfenxentid gerere, fed cum id vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iu qua velgefia unt vel gerenda, in commune tradabimus. If he re- blvednevertodoany thing without their Counfel md Confent, he rcfolved never to exert a Negative Voice without their Confent, that u, in effect, ne- 'er toexercany Negative Voice at all, if the 7W- vnes could not interceed but when the Senate con- en ted,t heir Prerogative of interceeding was intirely ruftrated. It fignitres nothing to fay, That this lefolntion was voiuntarCondefcenfion in Cyprian $ dv that was voluntarily to renounce his Prerogative: Vnd if Chrift really invefted the Bifliops with the derogative of a Negative Voice, fuch a Refoiution, r voluntar Condefccnfion, wis impious, it was plain Rebellion, a fruftrating the Defignsthat Chrift had, ►linveftingthe Bilhops with this Prerogative. If ne Bilhops really had a Negative in the Church, Ihrift faid to Cyprian upon the Matter, / intrujt )H as Brjbop rciih a Negdtive Voice, in the Church Carthage, which you are faithfully to exert as oft • my Glory and the good of that Church requires it, nd that as ye will Anfvoer at the Great Day. And hat Anfwers Cyprian in the words here cited I 1 ivertfolved^ fays he, //am the beginning of my Epif- pacy % never to take upon me a Negative Voice at all. iys/. S. this muft be imputed to the felf denied lan's voluntary Condefcenlion to his Presbyters id People. But fhouid he have rebelled againft bit fcviuur, 'or betrayed his Trull, or fruitrated the engns Chriit had, by intruding the Bilhops with Negative Voice, that he might condefcend to the resbyters or People ? But Cyprian was of no fuch emper-, wherefore we may conclude, he knew no- 152 The Cyprianick Bifbof nothing of the Bi (hop's Negative Voice. Further if Cyprian had known, that he had the Prerogative of a Negative Voice, no doubthe would have made ufe of it, when the diforderly Presbyters did moft precipitantly, nay impioufly, admit the Lapfers to the Table of the LORD, before the time appoint- ed by the Canons, before they difcovered any Evi- dences of Repentance; and even when their mouths and hands were yet warm with the blood of the Sacrifices they had offered to the PagJh Idols* Certainly, if ever it was neceffary, that a Bifhop fhould exert a Negative Voice, that was the time; and if Cyprian did not fo much as pretend to inter- pofe with a Negative at that Occafion, we may fafely coaclude, that he never did it all his days, and never knew that he had fuch a Princely Prero- gative. But fo it is, that it never entered intoCy- prian's thoughts, to interpofe with a Negative on that Occalion. The firft notice that Cyprian takes of this Affair is in his 14. Ep. which is direfted ro the Presby- ters and Deacons. Itfeems, the diforderly Presby- ters had written to him, propofing, That the Lap- fers might be received as was faid, without the for- mality of making publick Profeflion of Repentance for fome time, according to the Canons, and de- firing to know his mind, and if he would confcnt. Cypnan anfwered in the words cited a little before, jis to what ray Co-presbyters, Donatus, &c. have writ. ten, I (done could give no Anfwer^ for I determined, rvkenlfirft entered into the Epifcopal Office, to do no* thing by my [elf without your counjel, and the Confem of the People. Which is \iker to an Anfwer from* Magiftrate in a Republick, than a Monarch Witt Abfolute Power, or a Negative Voice. In the three following Epiftles, to wit, the 15, 16 and 17. which were all written at the lame time he fpeaks of it by way of Complaint, as a thin; had not a Monarchicd Power. i<$$ already done, Sed nunc cum maximo animi dolore cog- nofco/5c. fays he. And inEp. 17. Audio tamen quoj* dam de Tresbyieru, nee Evangelii memores, &V. jam cum Lapfis communicate ccepijfc, SV. Wherefore if it be faid, That Cyprian interpofed with a Negative Voice on this Occafion, it muft ei- ther be fuppofrd, that he did it by a Letter, written "between the writing of the 14 and 1$ Epiftles, that is by a Letter not now extant; or that he did it after the thing was done, that is> after that the un- duly Presbyters had begun to admit the Lapfers, and actually had admitted feveral of them, andcon- feqnently that he interpofed with his Negative Voice unfeafonably, and not to thepurpofe: Or it muft be fuppofed, that he did it by fome Proxie of Vicar without anEpiftle, for he wasabfenthirhfelf at that time from Carthage. In the firft place, If it fhould be faid, That he made ufe of a Proxie, or exerted his Negative Voice by a Vicar, that would be a Suppofition altogether groundlefs; Cyprian fays nothing any where, either" diredtly or indireftly, from whence fuch an Inference may be drawn; the Presbyters might have excep- ted againft him, or rejefted him, unlefs he could have produced his Commiflion, or an Epiftle under Cyprian's hand. But it is needlefs to debate on this Head •, for if Cyprian exerted any Negative at all on this Occafion, he did it by a Letter, as is evi* dent from the Account he giveth of his Conduit in the whole Affair to the Presbytery of Rome^ in Ep* 20. Et quid egerim y fays he, loquuntur vobn Epijtola pro temper i bus emijf* 9 numero tredecim, quat ad vos tranfmiji, in quikut nee clero covfilium, nee conf efforts but exhortatio defuit, &< m Literal feci quibus Martyres £? conjefjercs confilio raeo quantum pojjem ad Dominica pr&cepta revocarcm. Item, VresbyterU S? Diaconibus von dejuit Sacerdotii vigor, ut quidam minus Difciplinx memores Sterner aria fejiinattone frxcipites, qui cuni U Laf 1 54 The Cyprianick Bijbop Lapfis cmmuntiare jam cxpcrant, comprimerentur f ititcr cedcntibus nobis. Our Prelatifts have no Argument to prove, that Cyprian interpofed with a Negative .Voice on this Occafion, but what is founded on thir words, Interceientibm nobU ; and feing the Inter- ceflion Cyprian here fpeaks of, whatever theNature of it may be, was by Epiftle, we may fafely con- clude, that if he did not exert his Negative Voice by an Epiftle, he did it no way., But if it be fuppos'd, That he exerted his Nega- tive Voice by an Epiftle in due time, that ti } be- fore the Presbyters committed the Crime, or re- ceived the Lapfers the way we have faid f it is evi- dent by what is already faid, that this Negative be- hoved to be exerted by an Epiftle written between the 14. and i$.Epiftles, that #,byan Epiftle which is now loft, and which no Perfon ever heard of, or mentioned, or faid that they did fee. I lay to this, i. What probability is there, that this Epiftle alore fhould be loft, when fo many other Epiftles which Cyprian wrote on this Occafion to the Pref- bytery, Confefibrs, and People, are ftill extant ? 2. If Cyprian had any where affirmed, That he did oppofe the diforderly Proceedings of the faid Presbyters, by making ufe of his Prerogative of a Negative Voice againft them, there would be reafon for faying that he did fo, and that the Epiftle where- by he did it, is loft. But when Cyprian rfays no fuch thing in any of his Works, to pretend that he did fo a&ually, but that the Epiftle whereby he did it is loft, is plainly ridiculous. Why may not the Prel- byterians pretend the fame way, That Cyprian own'd himfelf to be inferior to the Presbytery, and promifed Obedience and Subjection thereto, and that the Epiftle is loft in which he did fo ? .3. If ever there was fuch a Letter, whereby Cy- prian exerted his Negative Voice after that the 14. and before the 15. Epiftle was written, it muft ne- cef- had not a Monarchical Pofter. 155 ceffarily be fuppofed, that it was one of thefe he mentions in the 20th Epiftle, which is dire&ed to the Presbytery of J{ome 9 that is, that it was one of the 13th he mentions in that Epiftle, and of which he fenta Copy to that Presbytery. For he fenta Copy of thefe 13 Letters to the Presbytery of %ome t on purpofe to Vindicate his Conduft during the time of his abfencefrom Carthage, and tojuftifie his Management, efpecially with refpeci to the Lap- fers, or to clear himfelfas to the undue Reception of them, contrary to the Laws of the Gofpel and the Canons of the Church. And this Letter ( if fuch there was ) was certainly more confiderable than any of the reft, gave Account of the moft im- portant Step he had made in the whole Affair, ma- nifefted his Diligence and Paftoral Vigilance, made his Faithfulnefs in the difcharge of the Truft com- mitted to him to appear, and was the moft Authen- tick Evidence he could give of the Vigour of his Epifcopal Office, which he fays, he manifefted on that Occafion. When then he fent to the Presby- tery oi%ome % a Copy of the feveral Letters he had written during his Retirement, to the Confeffors, the Presbyters and Deacons* and to the People of Carthage, that that Presbytery might have a punctu- al and exaft Information of his whole Procedure, of his Aftus, Dijciplina, and Diligentix ratio as he expreffesit; we may look on'c as certain, that this Letter we are fpeaking of was one of them, that it % one of the 13. And if this be obftinately denied, let a Reafon be given why it fhould be fuppofed, that he would fend to J{ome a Tranfcript of all the Letters he wrote to Carthage during his Retirement, and negleft to fend a Copy of that principal and moft confiderable One, on which his Juftificacion or the Vindication of his Conduft did wholly depend ? That is to fay, Let a Reafon be given why it lhould be fuppofed, that Cyprian was a Fool. But there U 2 was I $6 The Cyprianick Bifbop \yas no fuch Letter fent to Home : All that were lent thither were to the number of 13, and all thefe 13 are frill extant, as the Learn'd Bifhop of Chejter makes evidently to appear in his Cyprian: jinnalivide ad ann; 258, Varagr\ n ^ 12. And fays the Bifhcp of Oxford, Ordintm prxcedemium 13 JEV piftokirum, qua hie deinceps fei{uuntur ( vif in Epi- ftola 20. ) mirifice confirmant. It is evident then,that (here never was fuch a Letter. Wherefore I fay, feing no Letter can be produced, whereby Cyprian did exert his Negative Voice againft thediforderly Presbyters before they admitted the Lapfers to Communion ; and feing there never was fuch a Let- ter, it is evident, that he did not interpofe with 3 Negative Voice at that time. 4. If it will ftill be fuppofed, contrary to theOpir jiionof theBifhops of Chefter and Oxford, nay con- trary to Truth and plain Matter of Faft, thatQ- frian did exert his Negative Voice againlt the faid Presbyters by a Letter between the 14 and 15 Epiftles, and that a Copy of that Letter was fent to P\ome among the reft, and that Cyprian was guil- ty of an harmlefs Miftake, like that I. S. fpeaks of p. 236, thaxu, mifcounted the Letters, and faid,that he fent 13, when he fhould have faid 14, itmuftalfo be fuppofed, That the faid Presbyters difregarded Cyprian's Negative Voice, and afted contrary there- to \ for they did admit the Lapfers to Communioji the way before faid, negle&ing Cyprian's Authority and Prerogative, as is evident from the i$, 16 and 17 Epiftles . But if this was, how ccmes it that Cyprian takes no notice of it at all, either in the 15, 16 or 17 Epiftle, which were writ immediately jrfter this fuppofed rebellious Aft of the diforderly Presbyters, or their flying in the Face of his Nega- tive Voice? How comes it, that he does not fo priuch as once complain of that notorious Piece of Inmftice ? How comes i What he doe§ not complain, " ' that had not a Monarchical Power. 157 that by thismeans he was rob'd of that Prerogative he was alwife in poffeffion of before, and which be- longs to all Bifhops as their unqueftionable Right ? How comes he tells them not,that fuch a Proceeding was an overturning the Difcipline, and a fetting up a new kind of Government, to overturn the Mo- narchy, andtofet up an Ariftocratical kind of Go- vernment in the Church, to bring in Parity contrary tothelnftiru'ion of Jefus Chrift, and the uniform and perpetual Practice of all the other Churches in the World ? Or that he did not ask them with what Face or Confcience they could pretend to bereave him the Bifhop o{C*rtbige 3 of that Prerogative of a Negative Voice, which Caciliu6 9 Primxt, Polycar- pus, NwxxuA) and all the other little Bifhops of Afri- ca, had in their refpeftive Presbyteries and Chur- ches without Contradiction ? If Cypritn's Negative Voice had been trampled upon, it is impoflible he could have miffed to fail into fome Complaints of this kind, inthefe Epiftles at leaft which he wrote immediately after ; but nothing of this kind is hint- ed, or in the leaft infinuated by him, there is nothing in any of thefe three Epiftles that looks like a com- plaining, That his Negative VoLe was difown'd or Datfled by thefe diforderly Presbyters. If the Par- liament lhouid Petition the King for his Aifent to an Aft e. gr % for a Triennial Parliament, and if, notwithftanding his refuiing his AtTent thereto, the Parliament fhould pafs the Aft, would the King, chink you, take no notice of the Affront in his next Letters or Speech to the Parliament ? Would there never be one Complaint of invading the Royal Pre- rogatives, of bereaving him of that Privilege all his Prcdeceffors before him did enjoy? On the contrary .vould he not tell them, That that was to dhfolvc :he Government, S5c A Man would be laughen it if he fhould make fuch a Suppofition as this : Yet 1 King might more eafily pare with his Negative .Voice, i $8 r The Cyprianick Bifiop Voice, than Cyprian could have<*one, if he had any; for if he had it, according to the Suppofition, he had it as a Truft committed to him by God and Jefus Chrift, and confequently he could not part with it without betraying his Truft, and being guilty of Rebellion againft God Almighty. Cyprian does indeed migi tily condemn, and cry. out againft this wicked Procedure ofthefe Presby- ters, in the i$Ep.direfted to the Conieffors, he fays, That to admit the Lapfers to Communion aften that manner, was to deceive them, it was fo far. from doing them good, that it rendred them more guilty before God, &c. Ea enim concedere, qua in perniciem vertant, decipereeji, nee erigiturfic lapfu^ fed per Dei ojfenfam magU impeUitur ad ruwam, &c t And in Epift. 16, to the Presbyters, Sed diffimulandi loom nunc non eft, quart do decipiatur Fraternity noftra\ dquibufdamveftrum, qui dum fine ratione reftituend* falutti plaufibiles ejfe cupiunt, magi* lapfis objunt, &c And in Epift. 17. to the People, Nam cuminminori> bus delitlU— pxnitentia agatur jufto tempore, 8> exo* mologefis fiat infpc&a vita ejus qui agit pxnitentiam. nee ad communicationem venire quispoffit; nifi priu&iU\ db Epifcopo 2> CJero manwifuerit impofita^ quanto magi in his graviffimU & extremis delicti* caute omnia 0» mo derate fecundum Difciplinam Domini objervari oportet But he does not complain, that they received then after he had interpofed with his Negative Voice, 0: that his Right was taken from him, and Preroga tive trampled upon by their receiving them afce that manner. Perhaps it may be faid, That Cyprian did complain that they afted contrary to his Negative Voice, am deprived him thereof, becaufe he faid, That byre ceiving the Lapfers after that manner, they did no referveto him the Honour that was due to him 2 Bifhop, That they forgot their own Station and di not mind his Degree as Frapofiw. Thus he fait had not a Monarchical Power. 159 In Epiftle 16, dire&ed to the Presbyters and Dea- ;ons, guando aiiqui de PresbjterU, nee Evangelii,nec vci fuimemores, Jed neque futurum Domini Judicium, nque nunc fibi prxpofitum Epijcopum cogitantes, quod wnquamomninofub antecefforibm factum eft , cum con* umelia & contemptu Prxpofiti totum fibi veniicent ? \nd in Ep. 17, to the People, Audio tamen quofdam \t Presbytcrpf— nee Epifcopo bor.orem Jacerdotii fuisS Zatbedrx rejerv antes jam cum Lapfis communicare ex- ijfc, &e. And to the fame purpofe in Ep. 15, to he Confeflbrs, Nee timorem Dei, nee Epifcopi homrem ogit antes, Dr. But it cannot be inferr'd hence, that Cyprian had iterpofed with a Negative Voice, and that he omplains, that the diforderly Presbyters had re- lfed him the fame. And 1. As to the Honor Sacer- otii and Cathedra, which Cyprian fays, the diforderly 'resbyter's rob'd him of by their Procedure; how it proven,that the robbing him of thatHonour was robbing him of his Negative Voice ? I affirm, iat itimplieth no fuch thing. As to his faying in ie2. placc,ofthefe Presbyters, Totum fibi ven die ant. 'befe words would indeed imply, that the Presby- :rs robbed him of his Negative Voice, if he had cha Voice; but I hope it mult firft be proven, iat he had a Negative Voice, before it can be faid, iatthefe words imply, That the diforderly Pref- /ters robbed him of it. Suppofe, that the King ranted a Commiflion to the Earls of A, B, C, D. k manage the Affairs of the Treafury, and fuppofe iat the Earls of A, B, C, confpired together, and Managed thefe Affairs by themftlves, not permit- -iig the Earl of D, to meddle in the Bufmefs, it sight very well be fa\c\,Totumfibi vendicant cum con- faipmiScomumelia ofthe EarlofD. Butit would ytat all follow thence, that the Earl of D, had a ifegative over the reft. it 160 The Cyprianick Bijhop Itmuftberemember'dhere, that tho theBilho? had no Negative Voice in the Presbytery, and all things there were carried jby Plurality of Voices, yet, as was raid, he had this Prerogative in the days of Cyprian, that the Presbytery was to do no- thing of Conference in his abfence, nothing with- out advifing with him, (thus the diforderiy Pref- byters, as diforderiy as they were, fent word to C>- prian, and advifed with him, before they admitted the Lapfers, as is evident from the clofeof the 14. Epiftle) and according to the Canons, fome things behoved to be delayed till his Return, unlefs there was a Neceflity of doing otherwife. Thus the Pe- nitents ufed to be received again to Communion by impofitionof the hands of the Bithop and Clergy* Wherefore if the Bifhop was abfent, the receiving of a Penitent us'dto be delay 'd till his Return, ex- cepting in cafe of Neceflity. Si incommodo alic[uo & infirmitati* periculo occupati fuerint, non expethti praefentia noftra, apud Presbyterum qiiemque prxjemem* velfi Presbyter repertui nonfuerit, apud Viaconum %uo\ que exomologefin facer e deli ftijui poJJlnt y ut manum in pcenitentia irnpofitA veniant ad Domtnum cum p&ce t Now when the Presbyters admitted the Lapferj to Communion forthwith, before the time appoint* edby the Canons, before the Return of Cyprian^Cy^ prim was by this means flighted, he was deprived of his Privilege, to wit y of receiving the Penitent* himfelf, and of laying his hands on them ; and thii was the Honor Stcerdotiitf C&thedra, which he com 1 plains, that the diforderiy Presbyters by their hafl} and precipitant receiving of the Lapfers, deprive* him of, by this means Cyprian was excluded froi concurring in laying on hands on thefe Penitent! in conjunction with the Presbytery or Clergy, art therefore he did exclaim againft thefe Presbytd had not a Monarchical Power. 161 ruod mumfibi vendicant cum comemptu 2? contumelix Epifropi. And that this was the Honor Cathedra & Sacerdotii, which Cyprian complains thefe Presbyters deprived him of, and that he had nothing of a Negative Voice in his head, I {hall not only affirm, but prove* and I prove it thus ; Cyprian declares in his i6 Ep : which is directed to the Presbytery, that the Confef- fors did not treat him fo unhandfomiy as thefe Pref- byters had done. For whereas, fays he, they de- prive me of the Honour of my Chair and Priefthood, the Confcffors on the contrary, referve to me the Honour of my Chair and Priefthood. And what -way did the Confeffors referve the Honour of his Priefthood and Chair to him ? Becaufe, fays he, tho they petition'dfor the Lapfers, yet they did not pe- tion for their Reception before the ceafing of the Perfecution, and before my Return. Therefore then i the receiving of the Lapfers to Communion before , his Return, and without the impofnion of his hands • as bifhop, was the Difhonour he complains thefe Presbyters did to him. Vt cum Mi (Martyresnempe) rnemores loci nojiri ai me liters dircxerhft, 3 pexi* erinx tunc defideria lux examinari <5 pacem ian^quavdo ip ft ante Mater nojira Ecclifia pacem ds mifericordix Domini prior fumpfer it & nos Divina proreftio reduces ad Ecclcfiam fuam fecerit, hi ( Fresijteri vf^.) fub- lato honore, quern nobh beaxi Marxyres cum conjejjbribtts fervantj contempt a domini Ugt C/ obfervaxior.e y quayn iidem Marxyres & cenfejjbres tenendum mavdanx, ante \exxtnclumperjecuxion;> mexum ante reditum noftium, | anxe ipjura pene Marty rum cxcejfum 9 communictnx cum lapfis 'S offer an r, tf Eucbariftiain Q its ~] truAunt. Seing then, no Letrcrof Cypiiun\ can be^produ- ced, whereby he did exert a Negative Voice againft the difurderly Presbyters, before they received the Lapfers to Communion; nay, feing there never inch a Letter, feing that in the three Lerters, | X 1 62 The Cyprianick Bijbop the 15, 16 and 17.) which were written by Cyprian immediately after the diforderly Reception of the Lapfers, and confequently immediately after the fuppos'd Rebellion againil his Epifcopal Prerbgative or Negative Voice ^feing, I fay, that in thefe three Letters, Cyprian fpeaks nothingof thefe Presbyters their rebelling againft his Negative Voice, or dif- anulling his Prerogative, and makes no Complaint about it directly or indirc&ly, either to thePref- bytery,or to the Martyrs or People; we may fafely conclude, that he exerted no Negative Voice at that time,and that fo to do was not at all in his thoughts,- and confequently that he had bo fuch Prerogative, feing he did not think of making ufe of it on fuch a neceffary Occafion. But if it be fuppos'din the next place, ThatCy- prian interpofed with his Negative Voice fome time after, that it, after that many of the Lapfers were- attually admitted, for it can't be fuppofed that they were ail admitted at once ; or that he did not in- tend wholly to hinder that profane and fcandalous Admiflion of the Lapfers, but only to put a Stop to the Progrefs of that Affair. I fay, 1. Time a Day for Cyprian to come with his Ne- gative Voice after the Affair was in a great mea- fure over, after many of the Lapfers werea&ually received, after the Table of the Lord was profan'd by Idolaters, and after that thefe miferable Lapfers had through the perfwafion, or by encouragement from the profane Presbyters Eaten and drunken Dam- nation to themfelves, ana had done that which in Cyprian' sown Opinion, was pernicious to their Souls, qua in pemicem \iertant. Wherefore if Cyprian had a Ne^at^e Voice, to fuppofe, that he did not put it in execution till the time of his writing the 15, 16 and 17 Epiftles, is to fuppofe, that he was as guilty as the prolanc Presbyters themfelves, that he was a profene abufer of the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup- per, had not a Monarchical Power. 163 per, and that he was guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord, and guilty of the blood of the Souls of ma- ny belonging rohis Flock, whom perhaps he might have hinder'd from that horrible abuiingof the holy- Sacrament, if he had interpofed in due time, and before they were admitted. But Cyprian was no fuch Man, if he had known that Chrift had intrufted him with a Negative Voice in that Church whereof he wasBifhop, he would never have been fo faithlefs, and unconfcientious, or treacherous in the managing of it. He was a moft vigilant Paftour, and if he had thought that he had a Negative Voice,he would certainly have nicked the Opportunity, and watch'd the tiue Seafon of putting it in execution, and ta- ken care* that his Flock might not fuffer thro' his negle&ingtomake ufe of his Prerogatives^ and ex- ert his Monarchical Power. If he had known that his Saviour had intrufted him with fuch a Preroga- tive, inftead of faying in theclofeof his 14. Epiftle, Adidvero quod [ctipfirunt mihi Cempresbyteri yioftri, Donatus E? Fortunatus, Novatus & Gordius, folvA refcribere nihil potui ; he would have told them plain- ly, that if they profaned the holy Sacrament by ad- mitting the Lapfers after that manner, they ihould do it in contempt of his Authority, and over the brllv of his Negative Voice. 2? We delire, that the Letter may be produced. or pointed at, whereby Cyprian either actually exer- ted that pretended Negative Voice ; or in which he fays, that he did fo. No (uch thing can be inferred from his faying Intercedentibta nobu in the 20th. Ep. as will afterward appear. 3. If that Negative Voice was exerted, it muft ( as we have faid ) be fupposM, that it was exerted before the writing of the 20. Epiftle, which is di- I reded to the Presbyters of J^owcr, ( for it is therein that he fays, Vt quidam miyim Difiiflm* manor cs torn* nimerentur intercedentibus nobis ) and after the X 2 wri- 1 64 The Cy prianick Bifhop writing of Epiftle 14, that it, either by the 1^ or 16***7, i-8, or 19 Epiftle. But tie e^rted no Ne- gative by the 15 and 17 Epiftles.< £i3w fane For f/V//, In them there is nothing but Com- plaints againft the procedure of the faid Presbyters, and "Arguing* againft the wickednefsof the* thing they did ; but nothing either directly or indire&ly of putting forth a Negative Voice againft them, cither of his having done it already, or his intend- ing to doit afterward, or his aftual exerting it at the time by any of thefe Epiftles. Secondly, There are feverai things in thefe Epiftles which look not like his thinking to exert a Negative Voice, or his being confeious, that he had a Right or any Power to do it. Thus in Epiftle 15, directed to the Martyrs, he expreffes himfelf in thefe words, Oro vos, quibus poifum precibus, ut Evangclii rnemores, 3" confider antes qua 3 qualix in prateritum Jntecejfores vefiri Mar tyres C0NCESSEI{INT 9 quam foliciti in omnibus fuermt > vos quoque foiicite 3 cants petajtium defideria ponder etit*" Nc fi quid abrupte iS indigne, vel a vobis commijfum y vel a vobis fattum jut* rii, apud Gentiles Quoque ipfos Evclefu nofira erubefcere invipiat. The Bufinefs was this, the diforderly Pi'ef* byters knowing that Cyprian was a Conscientious Man, and would never condefcend, that the Lapfers ihould be admitted before the due time, atleafif be- fore they evidenced the fincerity of their Repen- tance; and refolving to have the thing done, whe-, ther he would or not, they fet theConfefforsa-work, or ftirrM up the Lapfers to importune tbem to Pe- tition, to wit, That they might be received again to Communion forthwith, the Confeffors having this Privilege granted to them for their Encourage- ment by the Canons, that thefe of the Lapfers for whom they did Petition, fhould be received again to Communion before the time appointed, accor- ding to the Difcipluie of the Church. But thejf were had not a Monarchical Fower, 165 were only to Petition for the Reception of fuch of the.Lapfers, as in all humane probability were truly penitent, and weighted with a fenfe of their Crime. But through the inftigation of the difordcrly Pref- byters, theConfeffors did abufe this Privilege, and Petition'd for the Reception of many, who they had no Reafon at all to think, were any manner of way affected with the feme of their fin. When the Confeflbrs did thus Petition for the Admiflionofthe Lapfers, many of which were ma- nifeftly impenitent, Cyprian was highly difpleas'd, as he had reafon ; but what did he fay to theConfef- fors/* Did he tell them, that he would not notice their unjuft Petitions, or threaten, that he would Imakeufe of his Negative Voice, and by this means difappoint both them and the diforderly Presbyters who impofed upon them ? No. But he falls a be- feeching and intreating them, that they would be more mindful of the Laws of the Gofpel, more coniiderace in their Petitions, and take more nar- row infpeclionofthe Behaviour, and better ponde- rate the Merit ofthefeof the Lapfers in favours of, whom they interpofe. lnfpiciatu d Actum JJf Opera, & Mentajingulorum, faith he. In like manner,when he wrote to the People about this Affair, in Epift, 17. he fays, Audiant quaefo parienter Confilium no- ftrum, expzclenx regrejjionem nojtram, ux cum ad vos per Da mifericordiam venerimm t convocati Coepifcopi plures, fecundum Domini Difciplinam y & confejjorum. prxjdvtum, be axorum Marty rum titer** & defidcna exa- minee pojfimui. Wherefore we conclude, thatCj- prian exerted no Negative Voice by the 15. and 17. Epiftles. As little can it be faid, That he exerted any Ne- gative Voice by the 18. or 19. Epiitle; for bed* dares himfelf in the 20 Epiftle, that the lmerceffion he made, whatever the nature of it was, was made by him before the writing of the i8and 19 Epiftles. It* 1 66 The Cyprianick Bijbop Liter u feci (fays he in the 20. Epiftie) quibuiMar. tyres $5 Confejjores Confilio meo quantum pojfem a i Dominica Pracepta revocarem^ that was the 15. E- piftlc. hem Vresbyteru £? Diacombm non defuit Sacer- dotii vigor, ut qui dam minus Difciplina memores £? te* merariajefiinatiOne pracipites, qui cum lapfis communis eare )am cceper ant comprimerentur intercedentibus no- bis \ that was the 16. Epiftie. Pkbi quoque ipfi quan- tum potuimu* anirrws compofuimus, 6? ut Ecclefiaflics Vifciplina fervaretur inftruximus* that was the ij. Epiftie. Toftmedum vero cumquidam de lapfis, five fua fponte, five aliquo incitatore, audaci flagitatione pro- rumptrent, &c. de hoc etiam bis ad Clerum liter o/s feci ; thefewere the 18. and 19 Epiftles. W hat needs more, you fee that Cyprian himfelf declares to the Presbytery of Rome, that the Inter- etffiotj he made,whatever it was, was by his 16 Epiftie, wherefore if he exerted any Negative Voice at all, he. did it by that Epiftie. But fo it is, that there is nothing in that Epiftie that looks like his exerting aNcgacive Voice, or that has any affinitytheire- with. 1 appeal to the Epiftie it felf. Andbeca-ufe this is a Matter of great Confequence, and decitive of the Cont rover lie, for the fake of thefe who have noi the Works of Cyprian at hand,tho it be fomethierg troublefome and tedious, 1 (hall fet down the Epiffte intire in the Margine +. When you have read th& + CYPRIANI EpiJMa XVI. Cyprianus Vreibyteris <& Diacanibut Frattibu^faluttm. DiU patwnuam meam teuui, Fratres chariumi, quafi verecundum C- leutium noitrum proriceret ad quietem. bed cum quorundam lmmo- deraia ^ -brupta prxfumptio temeritate fua>& honorem Hartyrurn. ficConfefloftltn pudorem.ScPlebis univerte tranquilhtatcm turbare coneturli ncere ultra Don o^ortet, ne ad penculLm & piebis pariter & noitrum ta-i citurnitas ninna procedat. Quod en im non penculum metueredebemuj de ofienfa Domini j quando aiiqui de pre s bytcns, nee Evan&elii, nee loci fui memores, fed ne^uc t'uturum Domini judicium t neque nunc libi pric- rofiturr Epifco|nrai cogitar.tes, quodnunquam orrnino Tub Ameceilbribu* ficiumeft, cum contumelu & couiemptu Pnepcuti toturn iibi vendicent ; At^uc utiuam non contra Fratrum noitrorum faiuiem iibi omnia vendica-, rent had not a Monarchical Power. 167 he Epiftle, you will Tee, that after his blaming the ^onddct of thefe dirorderly Presbyters, andhisdif- )Uting againft their Procedure by fcveral Argu- . nents, hefalh a tirr'eatning them, but fays nothing lirctfly or indirectly aDout exerting a Negative Voice againft them. And he threatens, that fn the mean ;nu Conrumeliam Epifcopatus noftrt difcrnulare 5cferre pollum, iicut iiiimulavi Temper ck pertuli ; Scddiflimularidi. locus nunc non eft; quan- o decipiarur Fraternitas noitraa quibufdam veltrum, qui dum line ratiQ- •ne reftituend* faluusplauiibiieseiTe cupiunt,magUUapfisobfu>it. sura- lurri eniro delictum efle quod perfecuno commitu coegit, fciunt lpfictiatn' ui commif-ruru * cum dixent Dominus Sc Judex nofter: Qjfme con* •llus fuerit coram homimbus, 5c ego ihum ccniitebor coram Pu;rerKeoqui t Coelis. Qui autem menegaverk. Sc ego ll'.un. negabo. Et uerum dix- it • Omnia peccata remktentur nhis hommum Sc b!afpnenn Sc qui erigere fe pctfenr, p'us cadant. Nam cum in minoribus pec- tis ag^nt peccatores pcenitentiam jufto tempore, 5c fecundum D.fciplin.t rdinem ad exomologerin veniaij', Sc per manus impofinonem, Epifcopi Clen,jus Communicationisacc:puni: Nunc crudo tempore, perfecua- e adhuc perfeverante, nondum reftituta Ecclefi* ipfius pace, ad Com- jnicationem admittuntur,Sc o£>rtur nomeneorum, & nondum pcenitentia :a, nondum exomologefi fj&a, nondum manu lis ab Epifcopo ScClero pofica, Eucharifhailiisdatur, cum fcriptum i:t : Qui edent pane ffl ; >eri? calicem Domini indigne, u us erit corporis Scianguinis Domini, 'ed nunc illi rei non funt, qui minus Scrip-ur.s le^em tenent ■, crunt au- qui pr*funt, Sc hare 'Fratn bus non fug*erunt, ut initructi aPr.*- fltjyfeciant omnia cum Dei timore, Sc cum cfata «beo Sc prarfcripta ob- v ne. Exponuntdeinde invidiae beatos Martyres 5 Sc gioriofos fervos i cum dei faccrdote committunt, ut cum illi memore? loci noftri ad me rrdsdarcxeriat, Sc petiennttunc defideria fua examinari, 5c pacem dan, ipfa ante mater noitra Ecclefia pacem de mifericordia Domini prior npferit, Sc no$ divina Protettio reduces ad Ecclefiam fuam fecerit j hi lato honorc quern nobis beau Martyres :um ConfeiToAbud fervant.con- 3 pta Domini tegeSc obfervatione, quam iidem Martyres Sc Conre'.fores rndam mandant, ante exrin&um perfecutioms metum, ante Reditum Irum, ante vpfum pene Marryru-r ex:e:fum. communicent cumlapfis Sc rant. Sc Euchanftilm tradartt: Quandoetiam fi Martyres per Calorem life Scrlpturam minus contcmpl ,/fs, conrra Lfcgem Dei plus aliquid >erenr, a Presbyteris 5c DiaconiS r g^erentibus admonehdeberei per in prarteritum factum eft. Caliigaxe nos itaque Divina cenft) tibus definit, nee dicb QOdunus enim rifiones, per dies que.impletur apud nos Spintu fando puerorum innocens Jftai, qu^ in ifi rider oculis,Sc audit, Sc loquitur ea quibus nos Dominu- inonere 5c -ueredignarar. Et audietis omnia quando ad ves red . ir.us rir, qui ut fecederem jufiit. Interim temerarii 5c incau:i5c tumidi qui- inter vos, qui hominem non co^iter.t, vcl Dcum timeanti fci- mam fi ultra in nfdem perfeveraverint, i.rarea admonition?^ }ominm jubet ■, ut interim prohibejntur offerre, acturi 5c apud i Confeifbres ipfos. 5c apud Plcbem univerfamcau icrmittentc, in fnum Matris E^cleli:e colltgi c De hoc tyres ScConfcirores, 5c ad Plebem literas feci, q vobit Opto vos, Fratrcs cun^mi ac defiderati.T.mi in D: bene valcrc, Sc noitri mcrrunilc- V^lete. 1 68 The Cyprianick Bijbop mean time they fhall be prohibited to Offer, and fhall be obliged afterward, to give Account of their Aftions to himfelf, the Presbytery, the Confeffors, and to the whole People. Bu{ perhaps, Advantage may be taken of Cyprian's faying in this Epiftle,' Vt interim prohibeantur offerre. If Cyprian could fufpend the diforderly Presbyters, or prohibite them to Offer, that u 7 to adminifter the Sacrament of the Eucharift, it: cannot in Reafon be denied, that he had a Negative Voice in the Church. In like manner, he fent Orders to the Presbytery and Church of Carthage, to Excommuni- cate any Presbyter or Deacon who durft prefume to Communicate with the Lapfers before their Ab- folution : Jntereafi quit immoderatus & praceps, five dc yojtrvt PresbyterU vel Viaconibva^five de peregrinis^ aufm futrit ante fententiam nottram communicare rum lapfis y a Communicatione noftra arceatur, afud om- nes rws caufam ditlurus temeritatU fu hith he, C cum difciplina fecifti*, Fratres cbirijfimi, quoi confelio Collegarum meorum qui prxfentes erant, Gaio Diiienfi Presbytero 3> Diacono e)VA cenfuiJiUnoyi com- municandum, Ep. 34. But may be* all this was of Cyprian's Gentlenefs, and the eafmefs of his Nature, and muft be attributed to his Voluntary Condejcevfion 5 perhaps the other Bifhops were offended at the Presbytery of Carthage, and judged that they exer- ted a Power Rot competent to them. Not at all. So far was this from being true> that the Bilhops, who were prefent at Carthage at the time, advifed them to do what they did. Quod confilio Collegarum meorum qui prafentes erant y OV. Wherefore, I fay * in the 4. place, That if Cyprian fern Orders to the Presby* tery andChuich of Cartbage> to Excommunicate any Y 2 Pref» 172 The Cyprianick Bijbop Presbyter or Deacon- who (hould Communicate with the Lapfers before theib. Abfolution, he fent fuch Orders zsThemiftocles did, when he Tent Orders to the Common-W. or Magiftrates of Atkens,to appre- hend the Lacedemonian Ambafl£dors,and detain them asPrifoners until he (hould return home in Satety« The Bufinefs was this, The Lacedemonians fent word to the Athenians, jhat they would not permit them to build up the Walls of their City, which they had begun already to c\o\Thcmiftocles advifes them to go on with the Building withallDiligence,notwitbftanding thisMeffage from Laced&mon, and withal,to fend him- felf to Lace demon together with fome others asAmbal* fadors,to excufe the Thing. When Themijiocles came to Lacedxmon, he delay'd as long as he could to ap- pear before the "Magiftrates there and to deliver his Commiffion , fomecimes pretending one Excufe, fometimes another, delaying on purpoie, that the Athenians might have time to raife the Walls to a juft heighth. When feverals from other places came and inform'd at Sparta > That the Athenians were frill carrying on the Work with great fpeed,fo that the Walls were already- very high; Ibemillo- clcs appear'd at length, and with great impudence denied Matter of Eatt, telling the Lacedemonians, That they (hould not give credit to every body who i came with News to them, but ihould iendfome of their own Number Amoaffidors to Athens, that they might be Eye-witneffes, and bring a certain Ac* count of things which they might depend upon. Themijiocles fent word to Athens privately, that the Ambaffadors were coming, and ordered the Atheni- . ans tofcizeuppn them as Toon as they (hould arrive, and keep them Prifoners till he and they who were witn him came fafely back, being atraid left the Lacedemonians upon the Return of their Ambaffa- dors, (hould detain him as Prifoner, and punifh him for putting fuch a Trick u^oii tb«n. Tbemifto- cles, had not a Monarchical Power. \ j ^ cles denied the Fa&, fays Plutarch *, bidding them tojend to Athens to fee whether it were fo orno\ by which Delay 9 he got time for the building of the Wall ; and ordering the Athenians to \ei\e upon tkofe who were fenvy and keep them oa hofta^es for him^ And r ays JhucydideSy Themiftocles fent word privately, Th&xbe Lacedaemonian Arab affadors were coming, and ordered the Athenians to detain them with m little goije m they could y and not to let thenvgo, tiU he and they who were with him returned. Kai in^i ojjtcov o O^/ro- oSlS 70/V A'dtircUolS K^vpti. Ti^.TH KihdjWV CO$ %X,i7€t ilTIQcLVtff K AT &%&V 9 KAi (JLY1 uLl&VAlV^iv AVAUTOlTaL\tV toyL'£2t C^thage , were of the fame Nature ; that is plain- y, the Orders he fent amounted to no more but 7ounfeI m Cyprian did not pretend to fend Royal E- i£h or Imperial Commands to Cinbage, only he tivifed the Presbytery there to do fo and fo. And his is further evident from Cyprian's next words in he very fame Epiftie, DefideraftU quoqueutde Phi- imeno S5 Fortunato hypodiaconi* & Favorino Acolytho y ui medio tempore recetferunx, <5 nunc venerunt quid uihivideatur rcr/cr/ta/rt, cui rei non potui me folum wdicem dare, SV. The Presbytery delired his ikdvice only with refpeft to Fortunatm and Pbilumc- us 9 Vt quid mihi viieatur refcribam, not that he lould fend Commands as a King. And he fends lem word, that he being alone where he was, )uldnot take upon him to fend pofuive Advice to lem in the Affair, it being of Confequence, wan.- I nui me folum Jud'ncm dure, E3V. tAnd mere particularly, with refpeft to CyprU faying in this Epiftie, Vt interim probibeantur of. in Life of Tb. VoL I, Ensi. Ed. Ami 1700, 1 74 The Cyprianick Bijhop Offerre. This prohibiting the diforderly Presbyters to offer or adminifter the Sacrament, doth not imply adepofing them, nay nor a fufpending them from the Exercife of the Functions of their Office, or a debarring them from fitting or afting as Ruling- Elders in the Presbytery. It muft be remembred, that the Bifliop and his Presbyters had but one iingle Congregation in Charge among them all; and feing the Bifhop was the Paftour, the Presby- ters could have no accefs or power to Preach and Adminifter theSacraments in his Diocefs or Congre- gation, but when he thought fit to imploy them ( as none can preach or adminifter Sacraments in a Con- gregation in Scotland now,but they who are imploy'd by the "Minifter of that Congregation ) wherefore Cypri an's faying, Vt interim probibeantur Offerre, will import no more but this$ That Cyprian who was the Paftour, would put this Task upon the diforderly Presbyters, That he would not permit or allow them to preach in his Pulpit, or to adminifter Sa- craments in his Congregation, but would imploy the other Presbyters only in that Work. If there were 7 or 8 Ruling- Elders in a Congregation in Scotland , licenfed Preachers all of them, the Paftoui or Minifter could imploy or not imploy any of their j to Preach in his Congregation as he thought fit,and if they were impower'd to adminifter Sacraments, ht could do the fame. I fay, 6. Tho we ftiould Voluntarily condefcend, or grantj by way of Compliment to our Prelatical Friends, that Cyprian's faying, Vt interim prohibe antur Offerre . implieth, That he exerted a Negative Voice by this Epiftle, or did fomething equivalent, it wouh do the Party no fervice ; All the Inference the;i could make would be this, That a Bithop may exer; a Negative Voice , when he is appointed to do i by immediate Revelation from GOD. For Cypri an you fee pretended to immediate Revelation fo hin had not a Monarchical Power. 175 hindering the diforderly Presbyters to Offer, he fbeaics of Nofturnal Vifions, and Warnings by in- fpir'd Children, and fays he, Qui bominem nonmctu- antvei Deum timeant, unAVtarc* admonitione qua meuti Dominusjubet. If any particular Miniiter in Scotland, Presbyterian or Epifcopal caninftruft, that he has immediate Revelation for it, he may exert a Negative Voice in the General- Affembly, and they would be beafts that would pretend to hin- der them. It is notorioufly evident then, thatQ- prian exerted not a Negative Voice by his 16 Epiftle, and confequently that he did not exert it at all upon this Occaiion. But that if it bepoflible, it mav appear yet more evidently, that Cyprian neither did nor pretended to put forth or exert a Negative Voice upon this Qc» cafion, I defire that the following Particulars may be attentively confidered. if If he exerted a Negative Voice by Epiftle 16, he did it very impertinently, and his Conduct was ridiculous; for he fpeaks nothing at allot his Nega- tive Voice, and offers not in that Epiftle to inter- ?ofe therewith, but threatens, that the diforderly Presbyters fhould in due time be call'd to an Ac- count of their Proceedings, by himfelf, the Presby- •ory, and whole Church: Whereas, it was time c- { iough to threaten, after he had put a Legal Stop to heir Procedure by his Negative Voice, and after ^•hey had llighted it, or continued to Communicate *i*ith, or receive the Lapfcrs, notwithftanding there- of, to r, what did he know but they would have de- jMtd, if he had interpos'd with his Negative in a al, or it you pleafc, a Canonical way ? And if •hey had, they would have atted according to the • : lethod of Difcipline, and Cyprian would have had o Reafon to complain. But fuppofing that he was f xerting no Negative Voice, and pretending to no ich Prerogative, his threatning that they lhould be 176 The Cyprianick Bijbop be obliged to give Account to himfelf, tothePref- byteryand Church, and be prohibited in the mean time to Offer, was very rational and pertinent. 2. If it be iuppos'd, that Cyprian made ufeof a Negative Voice by his 16 Epiftle, and that the diforderly Presbyters flighted it, ( for they did urge the receiving of the Lapfers after that ; the other Presbyters who join'd with him, and were Enemies to, and opposM the Proceedings of the diforderly ones, would not have fail'd to fend word to him im- mediately, and inform him of the illegal and rebel- lious Proceedings of thefe Presbjtejs, or their aft- ing contrary to the Authority of his Negative Voice. But fo it is, that theyfent no word at all to Cyprian after they had received his 16 Epiftle, and had no thoughts of writing to him, till he forced them in a manner by Complaints, and importunate Intreaties, as is evident from Epiftle 18. And one would think, that Cyprian would have been very in- quifitive anent the Succefs of his Negative Voice which he had paffed, defirous to know what Influence it had in the Presbytery, and whether the diforderly Presbyters had due regard thereto or not. But be hold, the very next time he writ to the Presbytery orinVis 18 Epiftle, he does not touch the Affai. dire&ly or indirectly, makes no Enquiry at all anen the Succefs his' Negative had, and does not at al defire, that the Presbytery might fend any word t him about it. This was very ftrange, if Cyprian di exert a Negative, as is pretended. 3. When the Presbytery was at length prevail' upon to write to Cyprian and to inform him aboi the ltate of Affairs at Carthage, it might have bee expected, that they would have faid fomething^wil relpeft to this Affair, either that the diforder Presbyters rebeil'd againft his Negative Voice, ai a&ed as if he had noc interpos'd therewith, or th due Obedience was given thereto. But they wri v.. had not a Monarchical Poiver. 177 iaothing about it dire&ly or indireftly, as i$ evident from i*.)prfun*s Anfwer to them, Ep. 19; it did not e/iter into their thoughts to inform Cypnar whether the teid Presbyter* regarded his Negative Voice br difregardedit, fubmitted to it, or trampled upon it. At leaft it might have been expefted, that Cyprian would have complain'd mightily in his 19 Epiftle, or reproved them ftiarply tqr neglecting to give him notice about an Affair of fpch importarice, and. which did fo nearly concern his Epifcopal Sovereignty. ■But Cyprian writpsirothing to this purpofe at all. This was odd, or rather mad Conduft. if Cyprian ex« erted a Negative Yoice by his 16 Epiftle. The Presbytery did indeed fend word to Cyprian , that their wholefome Counfels were not wanting, That they advifed that the Lapfers might not be received toohaftily, and that notwithftanding their Advices, it was ft ill urged that they might be received imme- diately, and defir'd a Form from Cyprian, or Advice how they fhould carry with refpeft to that Affaiu An&Cjprian fcnt them word, thatthcfeof the Lap- fers who were fickand indanger of death, and were recommended by the Martyrs, might be received immediately •, but as to the reft, that their Recep- tion might bedelay'd. But neither did the Pref- bytery fend word to Cjpria?? y that they advifed Compliance with his Negative Voice $ neither did he complain of their neglccling to advifefuch Com- pliance-, and neither did he or they ever mind that Atfair again, or touch it direftly or inclireflly in any Epiftle. It is ridiculous then to fuppofe, that Cyprun exerted a Negative Voice by his 16 E~ °1 piltle. 4. In the 27. Epiftle, which is direfted to the *J Presbytery of P\omt f after Cyprian had &iven phem e ; Account of the lmpertinencies of the Martyr tu* ij cianus, he tells them, That their Letter to the : '" Clergy came in very good fcafgn, kni vs as not' a if 2 ' little ■ 178 The Cyprianick Bifbdp little helpful to him : Laborantes hie nos 7 EJ contra invidix impetum totis fidei viribus refittemes, multum fermo vefler adjuvit, tfc. But gives them no Account either of the Rebellion of the diforderly Presbyters againft his Negative Voice, or the Influence their Letter had toward the making them comply there- with ; which isfo much the more ftrange, that he ufed to fend them word about the fmalleft Occur- rences: Thushefaysto them in Epiftle a<« Et di- letlio communis ^ C ratio expofcit, Fratres ' chart jftmi % N nihil confeientix veflra jubtrahere de hit qua apud nos geruntur, &c. If Cyprian had exerted a Negative Voice by his 16 Epiftle, and the diforderly Presby- ters had rebelled againft it, and trampled on the Au- thority thereof, he could not have miffed to fend word to the Presbytery of J{ome about it, either iq Epiftle 20, in which he fays to them, Quoniam compc- ri y Fratres charijjimi^ minus fimpliciter ■£? minus fideliter vobti renunciari, qua hie a nobis £? geftajunt w gerun- iur y necejfarium duxi has ai vos liters facer ?, qui bus vobif alius noftri, & Difciplina, & diligentia ratio red* demur : Or in this 27 Epiftle, wherein he tells them, Foftfattaa advosliterat, Fratres char ijfimi, qui- but aftus nofter expofitus, 0> difcipiina ac diligentia quantulacunque ratio declarataeft, aliud accejfir 9 quod Tiec ipfum latere vos debuh ; and would have defired their Advice, or craved their Afliftance about it And it cannot be doubted, that the J{oman Presby ters would have written to Cyprian anent the Affair, or to the Carthaginian Presbytery, condemning the Temerity and Rebellion of their diforderly Mem- bers> or their deftroying the Method of Difcipline, by refufmg to Cyprian that Prerogative which all the other Bifhops in the World were in peaceable pofleffion of, and which did belong to the Epifcopal Office from the beginning. But it never came intc Cyprian's head to fend any fuch word to theism** Presbyters, and they write no Letter relating tc this- had not a Monarchical Power. 179 this Affair either to Cyprian himfelf, or to the Car* tbaginian Presbytery. 5. The Rgman Presbyters in their Anfwer (Ep. 30) tell Cypri an y That they declar'd their Opinion very freely both, Adverfos eos qui feipfos in fi deles iUicita nefariorum UbcUorum profeftione prodiderantfec. And likewife, Adverfus illos qui acceptafecif]snt 9 licet prxfentes cumfuerent non affuijfent, cum prafenti am fo- am utique ux fie fcriberentur, mandando fecijfent. And, Contra illos quoque qui iUicixU facrificiis manm foot ax* que ora polluerant, &c. And may we not think it odd, that they never thought of telling him among other Compliments, that they teftified their ab- horrence of the Rebellion of the diforderly Presby- ters \ and their unlawful and unaccountable Proce- dure, contrary to the Authority of his Negative Vcice, if ever fuch a thing had been ? 6. In Epiitle 31. which is from the tinman Con- feffors to Cyprian, after thefe Confeffors had com- mended him highly, for his Faithfulnefs and Dili- gence in his Office, they add, Sed quod nos ad majorem Ixtitiam robuftiui provocavit, tacere nonpofo fumm 9 quin omnti vocps noftrje teftimonio profequzmur. AnimadvertimvA enim te congruente cenfora, '3 eos digne objurgate, qui immemores delitlorum foorum % pacem a Presbytery per abfentiam tuam fe ft in at a <5 prxcipiti cupiditate extorf.jjenty & illos qui fine refpeBu Evangel it j 'anftum domini cavibus 9 # Margarita* porcti, proj ana facilitate donajfent, &c. Here you fee they commend Cyprian greatly, for his chiding and re- proving the diforderly Presbyters, becaute of their admitting the Lapfers to the Table of the Lord, and the Lapfers themfelves for their Precipitancy and too great hafte. And if Cyprian had exerted a Negative Voice, whether by Epiftle 16 or any other, what probability is there, that they would have neglefted to mention fuch a thing, or to give him due Prailcs for fuch a Piece of Service i There L 2 is 180 The Cypriattidc ftijhop is no Ground at all to think, that they did under- ftand his exerting a Negative Voice by the Conve, yjente Cenfura they fpeak of : For who knows not that Cenfura fignities ^eprooj ? And does not the word Objurgajfc determine it to this fenfe here? ^ndifany win without probation,havethefe words to import, That Cyprian inflitfed fome Cenfure on tlje diforderly Presbyters, how will they prove, that the Cenfure was his oppofing them by a Negative "Voice ? Nay, they could not underftand hereby his pppofing them by exerting a Negative Voice ; For tpinfiift a Cenfure is one thing, and to exert a Ne- gative Voice is another ; the Tribunes did not inflict a Cenfure on the Senate, when they interpes'd by Jnterceffion ; nor does the King on the Parliament, when he retries his Aflent to an Aft. Then Cyprian Cenfured the Lapfcfs Who violently extcned Peace from the Presbyters, the fame way hecenfur'd the diforderly Presbyters, who did caft the Pearls be- fore Swine; But he Cenfured the Lapfers no way but by Reproofs, and his chiding them in his Let? ters. Ergo, <5c m 7.' Cyprian in Ep, 34. direfted to his Presbyters and Deacons, complains not, that che diforderly Presbyters trampled on his Negative Voice, hin- der'd it to take effeft, or afted contrary thereto ; but only that his Salubria & vera Confilia nihil pro- jnovent, dum blandhiu & palvationibmpemiciofis Ve- ritas impedhur^patitur lapforum fancia £? agramsns. &c, It is very ftrange, that Cyprian fhouldcall his Negative Voice Salubria yioftra r d vera confiUa. "8. In Epiftle 35, Cyprian giving Account to the Presbytery of %ome, that fome of the Lapfers refui fed to enter intoafiate of Penance, pretending thai they were already received to the Peace of the Church-, through the means of the Martyr Iuiidus jays, Quod fi ultra temeritas eorum nee meti nee veflri Uteris comprejfa fuew> nee cohfiUis falmribm obtempe ra had riot & Monarchical Tower. r&r raverit, ageihm ea qux fecundum EvangeliuM Domir.v agere pr xcipit. Why docs he not fay, If the? be not reftratrfd by a Negative Voice, or Abfokife Epifcopal Sovereignty? Or if he had a Negative Voice, how comes he to fuppof-, That an Epiftle from the Pref- bytery oil(om? might prove as etfe&ual towards the ^teftraining them, as his own Letter? "^^In Epiftle 36, the Roman Presbyters Anfwer Cyprian^ and tell him, Tu tamen Frater nunquam pro tua cbaritate defi/la* upforum animos terhpetare ft er- ranii'jMprxjtare mediciriam -jeritatu, &c. Is't not a wonder, that they advife him not here to reftrain them by exerting his Negative Voice? but you fee, they directed him to Methods quire different, and if they knew that he had a Negative Voice in his Church, they were guilty of a very ftfange O- verfight when they added, guod fpatio produtliorv temporu impetu ifto confenefceme, this looks not like their being Confcious, that Cyprian had the Privi- lege of a Negative Voice in his Church. I'm afraid they will be forced to have recourfe to Voluntary con- iefcenfion here. 10. In Epiftle 43, Which is direfted to the Church QfCanbage, Cyprian fpeaking of this Deed of the disorderly Presbyters, or their admitting the Lap- fcrs contrary to the Difcipline of theCHUrch, calls it a Rebellion, not againft his Negative Voice, (which he would not have fail'd to have done, it he had exerted any on this Occafton) but a Rebellion againli the Refolutions of the Church o\ Carthage, the ConfelTors, of the Presbytery of Kome, and of all the Bifhops of Africa, and beyond Seas. Cumque femel placucrit, fays he, tarn nobu quam Confejjbribus, C Clericu urbicu, item mttvcrfii £[>ijiopit vet in noilro Pro-jincia, f vel trans mure con- fit- • i$ ridiculous to conclude, that Cypri.:n was Metropolitan, becuuO he l'pciki Qt Epjcofit in FrovincwnvUu tonjMiffi. What more ordinary ihan 1 82 The Cyprianick Bijhop fiitutUy ut nihil innovetur circa, Upforum caufm, nifi cmnes in unum convcnerimus, & coBati* confiliu cumdif* ciplinapariter £? mifericordiajempsratam fcntentiamfix- erimwi ; contra hoc Confilium noftrum rebelletur, ££ 0m- 71U Sacerdotal^ Jutoritas ® Poteftat, fatliofis confpi- rationibm deftruaxur. 11. Cyprian in Epiftle 59. direfted to Cornelius Bifhop of %ome, gives Uim a punftual Account of the Crimes of thefe Presbyters, and their impious Behaviour with refpeft to the Lapfers ; Quod a prima ftatim perjecutionu die, cum recentia delinquentium facinora ferverent, G? facrificij* nefandis non tantum Diaboli altaria, fed adhuc manus ipfa lapforum at que era fumarent) communicare cum lapfis & pcenitentia agenda intercedes non defliterunt : And he fays a little after, Nosin ipfo perfecutionis tempore de hoc ipfo liters mifirnm^ nee auditi fumui. Pray, why did he not inform Cornelim y that he interpos'd with his Negative Voice on that Occafion, and that they rebelled againft the Authority thereof; if he did fuch a thing, and they were guilty of fc fuch Rebellion ? In a word, let any perfon read the Epiftles that were written either by or to Ciprian during his Retire- ment, in which there is any Occafion to (peak o! the diforderly Admiflion of the Lapfers, and h* will find no mention at all of Cyprian's Negativ< Voice, either of his a£lual exerting it, or of his ha ving a Right to do it ; but will find fomething ii almoft ail tbefe Epiftles from whence it may be con eluded, either that he exerted no Negative Voic on that Occafion, or that he had no Power or Righ to do it. And I thint no more needs to be faid t] make ic appear, that Cyprian exerted no Negativj Voic I than for an Inhabitant to call the Town in which he lives Our 7*cwn, oil private Perfon to call the Army Our Army, in lihe manner, Lypnan mifl call the Nation or Province in which he lived Nojrra Prwirwa, tho heh J no Authority over it as Metropolitan. In a word, w tf have no Keafon allto think, that there were any fuch Creatures as Metropolitans in 1 fays of Cyprian. had not a Monarchical Power, 18$ Voice againft the diforderly Presbyters, and thac he had no fuch Prerogative in his Church. Yet there are feveral things in Cy/jrzrfw'sEpiftles which the Prelatifts build upon, and from which they bring Arguments not a few to prove, that the Bifhop had not only a Negative Voice in his Church in the 3 Century,. but even Abfolute Power. We intend now to confider thefe Arguments, as they are collected and fet down by the Learn 'd?. S. in the 5, 6, and 7 Chapters of his Vindic. Prin. Cyprian. Age. CHAP. IV. The Arguments of the Prelatifts, from Terms and Phrafes in Cyprian's Works or elfewhere, or from the Epij copal Pre- rogatives, prove not, that the Bifiop had either Abfolute Power, or a Nega» tive Voice, in the 3d. Century. IN the firft place$ the Arguments he propofes Chap. 5. from § ic, to 32, are rot to the pur- pofe. Will any conclude, That becaufe Honour^ Dignity, Authority, f and Tower , are attributed o the Bifhop in Cyprian's Epiftles ; or becaufe in hem the Bifhop is faid, To undertake the Epifcopal Ji , toholdit y claim it, &c. that therefore he had n thofe days, a Negative Voice in the Presbytery ? Vs little to the Purpofe are his Arguments, Chap. '. taken from the Epifcopal place, Degree, Chair, 1. OV. ■ t Okjut&a%i Striatum, ut mi hi vfutfum, fumma turn Authoritate, iff in I ■}. ',- ¥cc 1 fuppofc ; c«rv waj but * Scnr.oi at tfce N 184 The Cyprianick Bijhop r <5c. (a) the highTop of the Priefthood^ Pafiour in chief i (b) their being the Affiles Succejjburs* promoted by Singular Suneffton, VicMous Ordwxtiop, their befng a College djjtinttfrom the Presbyter s 5 or the like. It can never I fay, be proven by theie or fuch things, thatthe.Bilhop had a Negative in the Churchthen, and if that be not proven nothing is proven ; for $% has beenjaid, if the Bifhops in Cyprian** time wefe everyone of them Paftours of one Cppgregation on- ly, and had no Negative in their Churches, they were but fuch Bifhops as our Presbyterian Bi- Ihops. Howeafy.isitto perceive, that it can never be proven the Bifhop had a Negative in that Age* from fuch Things, Prerogatives, or call them what you will ? The Duke of Venice is Stifd, Prime of the Coramon-w. fraptijia Nani fays of Antonio Donato i lb xx among hi* An-.efiours were Perfons of great Inte- grity* f u 'b as Leonardo Donato, PJ{INCE OF THE j^BP UBLlC^j Hijt. de Yen. J. 2. h 4. and T. 1. /. li And that Duke Marco Antonio Memo being dead, Toanni Bembo vom rais'd to the Supreme Dignity of the Commons. This Duke has Dignity, Honour and Power attributed to him, hashis Cathedra^ fits upon &Tbrone y gives Audience to Ambaffadors, and thfll A&s of the Senate run in his Name ( and thus the Aft (r.) The Bilbop's Chair was call'd a Tyrone, but (hat implies not he had; SoVereisnty -, for the Chairs in which the Matters of Rhetoriclc or Fhilofo i phy dia Teach,, were called Jhronet f both at Athens anq K»»£. Thus Peri Zonius in his preface to the HUtOryory£'/^«. Potitfimum tatntmlli pimm tempore Adriani Lollian Epbtjibt. DeirJe/ilu etiapifer iffof Lecfares fane Th'ronumfuerunt confaut Viluti Pollux far tcw^i^*, <& ptilijcus pet. Ar.P.nmm Caraca'lium. $imu autem-eraX Soyhi(Ururn,T,hroiius etiam m Vrbe Ro'ma^vt pqtet ex vta£u diam. So that the Throne implies, that the Bilhops Were th= publick Teac crs. or what we call Favours of the Churches. (b) The Biihop is no where call'd Pajhitr in Chief in Cyprian, otSi'pret P/7//c«r,but only the Pa/hur $ neither are the Fresbytct* call'd inferior Juhrdmatepajiwrs that lean, mind; its true, they and the Deacons togeth are fometime* call'd Favours, but- then ihcj ' arc'cilf'd f<5 improperly, ji j it, they were not. PaTtou/s ar all. ' had not a Monarchical Power. 185 Acts of the Presbytery did run in the Bifhop's Name, he being Moderator,and the principal Officer of the Church ; fo that the Bifwp did fuck a thing, is as much as to fay, That the Church or Presbytery didfuch a thing ; even as the Duke appoints or ordain*, muft be interpreted, the Senate ordains.) This Duke has his Locus and Gradu& to which he is promoted by fingular Succeffion: And if there were fuch other Republicks in Italy as Venice, no doubt their Dukes might be confidered as a College by themfelves. But if any fliould pretend to infer from all this* ThaC the Duke of Venice has Abfolute Power or even a Negative Voice, he would be reckon d a very ridi- culous Perfon. Moreover, all thefe things are applicable to Congregational Bifhops, they have their Cathedra, Loci/a and Gradm above the Presbyters (or Ruling- Elders ) they are raifed to the High Top of the Priejt- bood, are promoted by fingular Succeffion^ fucceed the , Jpojtles by Vicariom Ordination, and that in the Su- preme Power Ecclefiajtical; and all the fubjt ant ial E* fpifcopal Prerogatives mentioned by J. ^.belong to I them: And for my part, I know no Title f. ^Vsfort of Bifhops have to thefe Prerogatives, and he has liot yet attempted to make it appear by any Argu- ment that they have, and I'm fure he will never be able to make this appear. He makes much noife with the Phrafe Limare covfilium * ; but after all, he would have been as A a wife • m fome:imes fignines Authority or Power in Cyprian's that it ha»that i:£nincauoii ::vin£ Creature :hcy call a i Signification. •Iter, for fone- th: then V he lhouid have proven ihac . the ¥ecp{Ss EltRixt Vint: And . did, An Office is devolved upon a n then it is taken tor fomc other thing than £- i en Authors ; for Cyfrian fays, %: i 1 86, The Cyprianick Bifhop wife if he had yielded it toG\ i(. it beihg ridlculoti* to pretend, that this Phrafe fignifiefc to Command* or give forth Orders as a Prince. Cut rei, faysCf* friar, Epiftle 34, von potui me folum fudicem dare, cum hac Jitjguhrim traftanda fit, 15 limanda pleniti* ratio, non tantum cum CoUegti ( i.e. Epifcopis y-fodiS cum rkbe ipfa univerfa. Is this to give Orders as a Prince to bis Colleagues the Biftiops, or Synod* and to the People ? Is not the meaning plainly this, That he could not take it upon himfdf alone to give pufitive Advice as to that Affair, ft- in^ it was neceflary,it fhould be treated of, and more fully adjured not only with the Bifhops, but with the People themfelves. And are not Limare confilium, and Limare rationem, Phrafes of the fame import ? But Jf. S. proves, that Limare confilium in that place, is to give Orders, by what isfaid after. The Caufcs of the reft of the Lapfers, fays Cyprian there, I did plainly command ( mandavi ) to be delayM till I my felf might be prefent. To command plain- ly or peremptorily, fays^. S. is to give Orders with aWitnefs> Is ic not now very evident, that Limare confilium is to give Orders'? But hold a little. Notwithftandingall this clear Probation, weiiave ftill fome Reafon to doubt : For Mandarc very or- dinarily and currantly fignifyeth no more but to ad- implies no more but their Good-likwz, as f >ys 5F. S.how could it be fai<{, an Office was devolved on a Man de eorumSuffragio ? At this fate it might be faid, the Kingly Office was devolved on a Perfon, by the suffrages or two or three Footmen , becaufe when the parliament ejected him. he had the gpod-Uking of the Footmen. Thus N* penmen fays COrat. 2.1) oi Atbwjiuiy 4,ti$*) T8 ko£ kclvtos %at-T$v M&fx* bf'ovov avdytTcUm If the People's Suffrages here flgnifie no more, but that Athanafius had Che Approbation or good-liking of the People of A/exa-dria atter he Was eleded by the Biihops, how could it be fa id. Ihui be aw Jet upqnite Tbroneof Mark by «eir Suffrage , ? Then .the Aft o/the People in conftuu- tins their BilUops, is frequently in Cyprian and elfewhere expreiled by the word El'gete. Thus Ambnfi , Men to v:r tar.tus tvajit quit* vmms elegit £.<- I'fia Wherefore it lies upon h S. to prove, That when the people are raid to tiled: their Officers whether Civil or Ecclefialtical, £li$er« implies no more but the People's approving ihera *f ter they axe atteady chofen ?/ others. had ndf a Monarchical Power. 1 87 &ivertife, fend, or fend word f . Thus Cefar, Hxc cum in AcbaU a.tque apud Dyrrachium gererentur y Sci» pionemque in Niacedoniam venijfe covftdref 7 nonoblitus prijtivi inflitHtiCxfirjfnittit ad eum ClodiumfS buicdat lifer as MAND 4TJQVE ad eum, and a little after,//** ileum M. AND AT A Clodiu&refert. De Bel. civ. I. 3. that **,While thefe things were a -doing in Achaia&nd at Dyrrachium, and when it^ras certain that Scipio was come to Macedonia % Cefar not forge ting his for- mer Pur pofe, font Clodius to him, with Letters and Propofals, or Word: Not Orders and Commands. For this was before the Battel of Pharfalia, when Scifio Pomps/s Father-in-law, and a General, was in equal Terms with Cejar, neither was he ever fub- jeft to him. Thus ( that we may repay =f. S. ho- Deftly, and give him Verfes for Verfes here ) Virg m J£n. I. 3. Hunc Polydorum auri quondam cum pondere magna Infcelix PriamvA furtim Mandarat afcndum Threicio figgi* Mandaratt i. e. did fend. Neither is 5F. S* ignorant of this; for he himfelf very pertinently renders Ma» dare, todefire, Vind.prbu Cyy.Age. />. 423, 424. ; Bat Cyprian fays not only Mandavi, but Auxborem me.cQnfiitui, made my fclf Author in this Bufmefs, . Neither doth this help the Matter, Author here is a Perfwader, tkus Virg. Geer. I. 2. Net tibi torn prude ns qui fqu am perfuadeat Author Tellurem Bored r igi darn Jpir ante movere. /. e. LetnoPerfan, pretending to be a prudent Advifer, perfwade you to plow while the North-wind blowr cth. A a 2 ff . S. t Thus Cicert to Alticttr, hb. $. Ep. 5. Plane deeft quod Icribara, nee quiod Jlrtanum h>beo. Poiiea vero Urbanas & Mdomus CunfctTores ad Pitsbyteros noftros venerunt.aiiir mantes Maximum eontcribrem,& Fresby- feeuin naritcrcupere in EccLeium rcdire ; 5edquouiara multa pr.e- ceiferant ab 11s detignata, qua; tu quoquea Coepifcupis noltris St literif meis cognoTilti, ut non temete eis ndes haberetur, ex lpforum Ore&Con- feflione, ifU qu« pej legatioaea MwUTmsut* nUcuitiudifi. Cyp. Ep. 49. p. 9*. i S3 The Cypriantek Bifbop J. S. has further to add, That Gyprian fays Legem '■ dedi *, and if this do not the Job, I'm afraid he will be put to new Shifts with it. But every body knows, that Cyprian being a Bifhop, was a Spiritual Father, z and might give Laws as Fathers or Mothersufe to ! do. My Son hear the Inftmftion of thy Father, fays Solomon, and forfake not theLam of thf Mother, fkn if, Inftruttion, Direftion or Advice. Again fays J. S. the Presbytery defired z Fom from Cyprian, i.e. fays he, his will andpleafure, his Orders to be their Rule. But this fays nothing to theEpifcopal Sovereignty : For the Martyrs, tfftj^ could only Petition, fent a Form to Cyprian and the other Bifbops ; Ethane Formam, fay they to Cyprian, ferte £5 alivs Epijcopti innotefcere voluimux, i. e. I OiH? defire is, that this our Form be made known by you, to the other Bilhops. *wm 3p. .57s Anfwer is very ready here. Cyprian fays he, and the reft of the Bifhops were highly offen- ded at the Martyrs for thus taking upon them to command and give out Orders, and their Orders were notobey'd. And fay I, Thefe are 5F. JVs Dreams. It never enter'd into Cyp rian's head to be difpleas'd at the Martyrs for their, taking upon them' to Command* He was indeed offended at them on account of the iniquity of the thing, or injuftice of their Defires, as hehadreafon; but not becaufe they did take on them to give Orders as Princes % Neither Cyprian not they did ever think of any fuch thing. Feceruni ' Ai nos'de quibufdam, fays Cyprian, Ep. 17. bean Martyres liter as, petentes examin&ti deiideria/ia, r, • $ J * Sunt inibut in S^tyra videar nimis aetr, ty Vltra Legem tinier e opus: ■ .... "_ Horat Scrm. lib. z.Sat.r. 1. e. beyond the Rule, or Method,or Cuftom and Manner of handling or writing Satyres. Thus, Nee temere m hoc Legem dedi, fays Cyprian, i. e. Neither did I give you this Rule, or direft you t* this Method raihiy or without Reafon. < ——Eteu Qusm temere in riafmet Legem fancipxt m^rnm. ie Iniouu ttnirttones frbiwus* Idem, ScilB. M. Sal. 3, bad wot d Monarchical Power. 189 ?, The bleffed Martyrs write to us concerning fome, P&Uioning that their Ikfires might be confider'ck The Iprm then which tfiey ferit to Cyprian, was but 1 Petition, they were not fuch Idiots as to pretend to Command the Bifhops, or to give Orders like Sovereign Lordsor Kings. They intended nothing fonfee, but to intreat Cyprian to confent to what they defir-d, in a Stile not ufual now indeed, but which was ordinary and well enough underftood in their day. Afterward he is at much pains to prove, that the ZfprUnick Bifhop had Licenua, the Sovereign Power )fthe Sacraments. The Presbyterian Bifhops have nore, even the file Power of the Sacraments; their Presbyters or Elders Adminifter them in no cafe. As to the Epifcopal Aftus, Vigor, Difciplina, Lu \erum Arbitrium, &c. the Bifhop muft be confider'd s^the Church's Reprefentative, in many places in ;hich thefe words occurr ; fo that the Bithops 4<2a*and Vigor 1 6cc. fignifies the Church's Allut and igor^&c. The Vnuy of the Catholick Church, fays O- nan y may beverywtll preserved, tko every Bijbop with* n bit own Difirift be Mafier of his owe Aclws or Admit ijlrntwiy and accountable to GOD alone f. Tbatpt, ho every Church be Mafter of their own Affairs. [^Bpifcopal Aftus is not the Bifhop's but the rch's AcIva, if A&iti be taken for the Supreme xcleliaftical Governing Power: Thus Ep. 33. p. $. Etomnis Ecckfia ActvA per eofdem Prapofitos guber* itur : So that the Epifcopal Actus is the Church's raft which is moderated and guided by the Bifhop. hub Ep. 3. Cum pro Epifcopaius Yigore£7 Cathedra ue habere s potejtatem qua pojfes de illojiatim \indicari. i.e. You and the Presbytery or Church, :.ne Authority and full Power, to chaftife the re* belli- f Manent: uh y (*f ferfeverante Catholic* Ecdt ue iniividu* aitum fuum difpctnt «• din* it uvujwfyut f»^(fMMMlMMI. 190 TheCyplznkkBtfiMp^ bellious Deacon, and might have dcpofed himif ton had found Caufe. Ana to the fame purpofe Ep. 4* JEt iccirco confulte & cumvigQfe fccifti, Frater cbarijji? mc f abftinendo Diaconunt, &c. So that the Epifcopaic Vigour by which a rebellious Presbyter or Deacpjv was depos'd, or Excommunicated, was the Church 5 ! Vigour; Ep. 30. Abfitenim ab Ecckfia %omatja Yi-» gorem fuum tarn prof 'ana facilitate dknittere y S? mrw* fevcrhatU everfafidei Majeftate dijfalvere -J% Tha* t Sometimes thefe words mull be taken in another fenfe, as in Epiftli 23. flf;c fpiritu mc attu, nee monitu meU defui. And necejfarmm Luxi baL ad -U©' liter Oi facer ^ eui'bus vo&U aftumojhi, <& Difctflitue^ <& aligenti^r* I tioredderetur. And in Epiftle 67. £t Ep/copus deitgatur P ebe pr^cfcnt^qu,*- fmgulerum vitam phniffime novit, iff uniufcujvffue ahum de ejus t.otruerfittut ferfpmt. The fame may be faid of the word Vigor. Cyprian fays or a let ter that was writ by the Presbytery of Rome to t1>e Clergy of Carthage : 0} portvtuver* ftyervenerunt liters veftr To 7. S. fpeakofthe Biihop's making the Presbyters and Deacons find the I of the Epifcopal Vigour,' one would think, that' Cyprian had his Fool tkeir Neck . That not only the Office, but the Live's a^d Fortunes oft poo* Prcsbyccn, and aU tha^ they had was lying at his merer. Eut ; I had ma * Monarchical Fewer. 191 That this is no ftrangc Giofs, will appear more ully afterward by plenty of Examples ; but if yen rill have one before you go any further, It is no lore ftrange, that the Bifhop (as being the prin- fpal Officer of the Church, and Reprefentative hereof ) (hould call iteCburcb* sA&wtyArbitriun^Difci* Hrta^igcr % &c. hu own Atlus y Difciplina, Vigor, &c; hanit was thztf cpbtba (honld call thePeople ofljra* \ tfimfelf^nd the Land ot the People of Jfracl, Hit wnLand. Asfoon as Jepbtha, was chofen Captain > nd made principal Officer, he look'd on himlelfas mc People's B^prefzntauvCy and fent this word to the Ling of Ammorty Wbat baft thou to do with me, that l 9 Whar haft thou to do with the People of lfrael, for if you confider^fcrta perfonally, hewasnew- ; come from the Barn-floor, and the King of Am. \on never heard of him, nor knew anything about \m ) that tbou art cents agiinji me to fight in my Land ? n'3 making then to feel the Dint of hi* Epifcopal Vigour^raounu |Mt-.lK>re buc his thxcainin$ to complain of them, or loconreen Lhem : whole Church, to fcive Account of their Adings and Procet " )ijccenfurcd according to the merit of their Crimes, /. :«i Piebtm umvtr/atn nc of thefe diforderly Pres ^Tfihap of Hc*u, QUJTlZt, V ,q*e ?t*tk . rrtrum m be faid- that \.) . atedthe di!» idrly Presbyters, and (he 3,*'j?ri2n Uj- to J ;*bytcO' % 92 The Cy prianick Bijbop land? that *, In the Land of the People oflfrttU If we ftiould make Inferences as J. S. ufes to do, of ! }Ax.Do&v>el, and fhoutd putfuch a Glofs upon this • taffage of Scripture as they do on many Sentences in Cypritn, we would conclude without hesitation, That fepbtba was heritable Proprietor of all the ■ h Lands of the Nation of Ifrael, as Pharaoh > was of the ■ Lands of the Kingdom of j&gjpt in the days of ?o-| frhb Neither can the Bifhop's Negative Voice in tttaF Presbytery, be proven from Cyprian's faying Intent. dentibm nobis, in the Sentence cited a little before out of Ep. 20. It is true, the Aft of the %om*M -Tribunes, whereby they did put a Stop to the Pro cedure of the Senate, and brought the Caufe befon the People to be determined by them, us'd to I™ exprefs'd by this word Intercedes, but it muft n< be inferr'd hence, that this word implieth a Tnb nitian Power or Negative Voice where ever it oc currs in any Author. The Aft of the Mediaf* Chrift fitting at the Right Hand of GOD, ules be exprelfed by making lnterceflion, but how lrratio nal would it be to conclude^ That Elm was a Mei diator in a propar fenfe, or afted as fuch, becaui heisfaid.^ow. 11. 2. to male Inter ce front Wnc CeA^'s Friends offered fair and reafonable Thinj onbisbehalf, and the Senate was like to be divide about the Matter, and to hearken to their Propc ftls Cefar fays, Quod ne fieret, Confutes Amitm pS«« iDterc'efferuttt. De Beti. Gallic, lib. 8. «i j Jem. Muft we therefore conclude, That Pompej Priends had a Tribuntian Power and a Negatr Voic- in the Senate ? f. S. muft know the that when the word Intercedes is applied to othe than Tribunes, it has another Senfe, and fil nines barely to put a Stop to, or htnder whert by Arguments or Perfwafum, Menaces and vi in had not a Monarchical Power. i a* lence +, or the like. Pomptf* Friends no doubt hindered the Senate to acquiefce in Ce Car's Propo- fals, by threading fome, and making fair Promifes toothers, Of. " Thus when Pomponim ( a Bifhop } defir'd Cyprian's Advice about the Virgins which did ly in the fame Beds with the Deacons, pretending that they nei- ther knew them for all that, nor intended any fuch . thing; he gave him this Anfwer ( Ep.4.) Interce- dendura eft cito talibn, dum adhuc feparari innocents ifoffunt, quia diviii pojtmodum nojira inter ce ffwne non poterunu u e. A Stop muft quickly be put to them while they are yet innocent, becaufe afterward when they are guilty, they cannot be feparated by ouc Interceflion or Prohibition. A Tribunitian Intercef- |fion was a putting a Legal Stop to the Procedure of a Court; but you fee here, that Intercedes fknifies .bo more but to hinder. 1 hope no Man will be fo irrational as to think, that Bifhop Pomponm was to hinder thefe Deacons and Virgins to ly together that he was to hinder them, I fay, i n a Jnbuniiian way, or by exerting a Negative Voice among them, as if they had been a Court, a Senate, or Presby- tery. iU * And thus Cyprian faid in an Epiftleto the People of Carthage, That the irregular Presbyters hinder el .their Tears and hindered their Prayers ,* c . Ep. 43 .p. Bb 84. by the Captives, it was U idfTotht Charge rh^X? " tat \° U[6 ** donc ■fliould titae Fnf«ner» , -iiid thac when thev h,2 rLl &t ^ n ,^ ofal1 thc T llOBRiugto Ctiuib the other to Andru" iheVdA hS? IW i? ? a, ^ C$ ' onc be ' *Vei? C h headlong over a Prccinfcc , his wat loJSr SVn 11 th<= Mc " l ^ hcf°' hindered it, by hulding forth tEc 194 The Cyprianick Bijbop 84. Intercedunt Precibiaveftruy inter cedun%LachrymU\ inter ccdunt Pad quam vere & fideJiter de bomini mife* ricerdiapoftulatu. Thefe Presbyters did hinder the ' Prayers and Tears of the Lapfers, not by a Iribunixi- m Interceffion, but by receiving them into the Church, or admitting them to Ordinances too ha* ftily, before they had given any Evidences of Re- pentance, and that this might be done without any thing that looks like Tribunixian Interceffion is very evident. 5P* S. may affirm as frequently as lie plea- fes,that thefe Presbyters hindred the Repentance of thefe who fell in thePerfecution by way of Tribuniti* an Interceffion ; but he can never prove it, unlefs he prove one of thefe two Things, either, That there is no poffibleway to hinder any A&ionor Pra- ctice but by a Tribunixian Interceffion, and then he muft fay, that the Devil hindred Paul to come to 'Thejfalonic a by a Tributiian Interceffion, becaufe he fays, We vcould have come unto you even J Paul once and again, but Satan hindred m : Or, Whereever tc hinder any thing is expreffed by the word Intercede' re, it implies alwife, that the hindrance is made bj fuch Tnbunitian Interceffion, or by exerting what we call a Negative Voice, which is altogether falfe as is evident by the above-mentioned Examples ou of Cxfar's Commentaries, and Cyprian's 4th. Epiftle But Jays J. S. Cyprian was highly offended a thefe Presbyters for ufurping a Negative Voice ii the Presbytery, and taking upon them a Tribunitia; Power which did not belong to them. Cyprian al 1 wife condemns, fays J. S, the extravagant Impu dence, intolerable Prefumption, and bare-fae'd U furpation of thefe Presbyters, becaufe they exercife. this Power, wherefore it feems, they did ufurp fuel a Power in the Presbytery, feing Cyprian exclaim! fo much againft them on that account. But thef i are groundlefs Fancies. Cyprian was indeed offende j ac thefe Presbyters, and exclaim'd againft them [fa hin had not a Monarchical ?ower, 195 Jrindring the Repentance of the Lapfers ; but how does it appear, be was offended, becaufethey hind- red their Repentance and Prayers in a Tribunitian way < there is no fhadow of a Reafon for this, but what is founded on the found of the word Inter cedere 9 and we have made it appear that this is nothing at all. No Perfon can dream, that thefe Presbyters hin- der*d the Repentance of the Lapfers by way of Tri- bunhian Interceflion if he know how the Cafe ftood. It was ihus,Some of the Carthaginian Presbyters ha- ving fallen into grofs Crimes, and knowing they could not efcape Depofition or Excommunication, feparated from the Church, and join'd a Schifmatical Faftion made up of the bafer fort; and that they ; might ftrengthenthis Faftion by Numbers, they 0^ ) penM a Door to the Lapfers, or thefe who did fall c in thePerfecution, and this they did, by receiving { them into Communion, or admitting them to the :o Table of the Lord upon eafy Terms, without put- j. ting them to the trouble of undergoing that long 3 * and tedious Courfe of Penance which was appointed ^;py the Canons ; and this fcandalous Praftice they 1 lid encourage and begin, before they went off to ; he Schifma:ical Conventicle, having an Eye no -Jloubt to their intended Separation. And fuch a ^engrh did they go, that they admitted to the e J*able of the Lord the Lapfers who came over to ; ' ;: „hcm, when their hands were as yet warm with . ^,.he Blood of the Sacrifices which they had offer'd - Jo the Heathen gods. And this was the InterceJJion iefe Presbyters which Qpr/^exclaim'dfo much aft, this was the way they hinder'd the Repen- ,^Enceand Mourning of the Lapfers, this was the ihod they did take Intcrc ede re Precibut, intercede- rumLacbrjmit, And if this was an exerting a unitian Power, or a Negative Voice in the Prel- Slftery, ic is eafy to judge. fl Bb 2' Thus 196 The Cyprianick Bijbop Thus Cyprian giveth Account of the Affair to O- *cJi«« Bifhop of Rome, Notto mention, f aid he » tbei r fraudulent Tricks, Confpiractes, Adulteries, and ya.ru om Crimes, they did not ft and in the very beginning of the perfecutim, rohen the Crimes of the Pehnauents were let recent, and not only the Devils Altars, but the very hands and mouths of the Lapfers verevam roith *h -curs' d Sacrifices, to Communicate mtb tbefe Lapjers, Ind to Interceed or binder the Courfe of their Repen.- U Moreover, the diforderly Presbyters were five in Number, and in the whole Presbytery there were hut three more, wherefore it can't be fuppos d, that the five Presbyters being the major Part, did inter- ceed in a Tribunitian way. - Then the Roman Tribunes had not a Negative in the Senate, as the King has in the Payment or the modern Prelate pretends to in the Church their Jnterceftion was but a referring to the Peop e or a taking an Affair out of the hands of the Senate andbriS it before them for final Determinate on. Wherefore, if they will urge the proper fign.fi cation of the word Intercedes or Tribunitian fen tnereof^they .ill gain nothing by it but fubjeftthc, BiflioptotheLaitie as they call them, as the ir hunesuzxc fubjea to the People of Rome. After all, Intercedes is no where applied toB fhops in all coma's Epiftles, that I can remembe; but in two places, and it has no affinity w.th Negative Voice in either of them. Thefirft,is fhefefore cited Sentence out of CffngH f* e % where he fays to Pompomus with refpect to the V i gins and Deacons, Intercedendum eft «ff«*W«g * Ta«o itatiue de fraudibus Ecclefl* factis, ConjU"tione«^& Adute t^iti&SrTvW defii t «nnt, Bp: 59- P- '33, U4- had not a Monarchical Power. 1 97 how far it is from importing in that place the thing recall a Negative Voice in a Court, it is needlefs to tell you over again. The other is in Epiftle 20, the Sentence is alio already cited, and IntercedemU bm nobis in that place, comes to no more but Cyprian's endeavouring by Exhortations or Threatnings in his Letter 16. to hinder the forefaid Presbyters ro ad- mit the Lapfers to Commu/iion too hafHly, as any Perfon may fee who will Confult the place. Then Cjprian did not fay Inter cedenxibu* vobU with refpeft to the Presbytery, or did not put a Stop, or endeavour to put a Stop to the Procedure of the Presbytery ,but to the Practice of fome diforderly Members of it„ In the next place, It is fcarce worth the while to anfwer what he fays with refpeft to the Bilhop's ha- living a Cenforian Power, feing theConfuls who were t above the Cenfures, and had afar moreconfiderable [/.Power, had no Negative Voice in the Senate, And ■why may not the Presbyters pretend to a Cenforian ? Power as well, feing Jerom fpeaksof the Cenfureof :ithe Bi(hops and Presbyters. Epift. ad Demetri+ I hope $. S. will now retract all he has written i from the beginning of his 6 Chap, to § 21, and will r; 1 never fay to the World any more, The Bifhops are the Succefibrs of the Apoftles: Seing Mr. Dodroet I declares pofitively, De nuper.Schifm. Anglican, p. 68* uDefecerai cum ultimo Jpoftolo etiarn Apojtolatws, Officii I um 9 cum nulli unburn prxterciuxm fad* Proditoru j'uffi* , cerentur Jpoftolorum jucce (fores, i.e. The Apoftolical ! Office did end with the la ft Apoftle, and no Apoftle had ever any Succeffcr except fudtu the Traitor. : ; If G. !(. or J. F. had faid fo, f. S. would have been j at them Tooth and Nail ^ but feing his Diftator Mr. Vodwel has faid it, he muft lay his hand on his mouth, t Nee hoc dc omnibus dicimus fedde his quoi Ecclcfu ipfa reprc u ' quo* micrdum abjtcit, in quoi non unquim, fcpifc«poruru ck. Vtubi: -'a dcicni. 19? The Cypmnick Bijbop mou:-, and keep a ; . _ ; .er.ee. TheLearaSi t>n Bi the BHfcops may be \ the 5:.v:: r :;K ; ::: Apoftles ven -"■'■". -V' .;. : : :. w . yeu hi', e his word's in :he mar* *• A -•'--.:-- D .;. If J. iVsBittors .-h.r. :he A: :v, caching . • car.:: • ,. :.r S.:cc . . :fort o1 Bifhcpso: : :A::: rhemfelves orda . -; '. Paftows or one Congregation. He reiis as afterw; the ( .".:.:. i rffft and the Bifhof is ca nar peers' Man, :-f ;-'n:::-:;T;i:-.;;,"i;..:..r: J.; : ;;;:.; :f --. vripa m gkotta (Mime n4 Wii *%nrtf i¥i ttmii iq wii n jM| . .. ■ . - - ci.'. i! E„i:rs ?.::r. 7::-j ::" :*; A :■:.": ;■•. r. : : r ti~.~~ : m: :~ • :-.=";:':.- sd 5: :::::-;-;:- . r - f ;•.;:;;■. :: - -: ;..•::•• -:-;.;-f A- ":.t-d - tSMfeaf Jbmantr— - Lb _j did tie 3abops fupptT tie rooffl wr tie A; ■ r: i.i. . ri: :::• erf ; :.-:; r-iirr r_: : ::- - - •" : :£- : ; " '""- :** ■ : : :". ..-,:." ::~::-e: " . ; r . - v;; y c- _.,_- v : - ::::•-;--;- ;_: 1:t :: I = - - - H- : •*■ --" - :'*- 3- .": :r? :*u ::;•;; :.-: &piflk£ while I&C ^cf:lf? «■;:- ^ ft . had not d Monarchical Power. 199 fcian, hence he concludes, whatever Power th c keers-Man has in the Ship, the Bifhop has the fame fa the Church. He fits at the Helm, fays he, and lanages the Gubemaculum. I know not what Idea . r. J{. may have of his beloved Parity, but I doubt it /ould not do well in a Ship; even the Dutch them- jlves, as much as they are fot a Democracy 04 ry Land, do yet al}ow of Monarchy in every hip. oi But of all the Arguments that can be invented, i'lefe are the mofr miferable, which are drawn from ^Similitude ftretched beyond its due Limits. The ifhop is Steers-Man, therefore he is Monarch in -; lie Ship ot the Church, what can be faid more weak? 3 he Lord faid to Mofcs that he jhould be u God to Aa- fen, muft we therefore conclude, that Mojes was Omnipotent, Omniprefent, &c ? The Woman faid, V* an Angel of God Jo u my Lord the K^ng % could perefore the King flee in the Air, or mount up to eaven in a Flame of Fire, becaufe an Angel can m fo, and the King is as an Angel ? $. S. might I jllhave reafon'd after this manner, The Steers- man wears Boots in the Ship, therefore the Bifhop cif Cyfrian's time did wear Boots in the Church. ;*.e muft know then, thacfome Refemblance in one Irliall Point is Foundation enough for a Simile or aphore, tho there be a vaft difcrepancy in all -iher things. 3 There is no difficulty at all in the Bilhop's being ill'd Prapofitus with refpeft to the Presbyters, Higi ;, Paftour in chief, his beingexalted to the Sub* Me Jjfiigiumfdcerdotii, held the Ballance of Govern- Hnty or the like. Befides, that thefe things will ■[ t prove he had a Negative in the Presbytery,they rate very well with the Parochial Bifhop. Bap- liani fays oiFrayicifco Contanni, Mfi* de Ven. 7". : /. 6. That he did worthily fuftain the Burthen of ncrqmj. Certainly that Duke had the BaU Unce 200 The Cyprianick Bifhop lance of the Government in his hand, but had he ther fore Abfolute Power or a Negative Voice? At length J. S. as if ail the greatnefs he has alrea . dy conferr'd on his Bifhop, were too little, he wilt' have him made a King, and have Majefty afcribVr to him. As to my parr, I (hall not oppofe, pro- vided the thing be underftood fanofenfu, and made to import no more but this, That the Bifhop is the * fupreme and principal Ecclefiaftical Officer in his Church, as the King is the prin* cipal Civil Officer in his Kingdom : Tho, if 1 remember right, Cyprian no where afcribes Maje8) to the Bifhop, but only to the People, Plebis intm pofetafiielv at^ue incorrupt* Majeftas, and if he had he would have miftaken it egregioufly, feing the A* poftolical Office it felf was but a Minijterj, VVbereoy I Paul <*m made a Minifter. But if ^. S. pretend tc inferr from the BHhop's being as King in his Church' that he has a Princely Power or a Negative Voice Imuft humbly differ from him. Now tho we have given a particular, and, I think full and fatisfa&ory Anfwer to all the Argument fortheBifhop's Monarchical Power, brought4>y $ J. from Terms or Phrafes, and Epifcopal Preroga , tives ( as he calls them ) occurring in Cyprian'sMc numents; notwithftanding, that ic may if poflibh appear yet more clearly fuch Arguments are total] ineffeftual to prove the Bifhops had fuch Power, an that no room may be left for doubting, I defire may be confider'd, that by the fame Method Jf« . takes to prove the Bifhop had fuch Power ( that by Arguments taken from Phrafes or certain Mod- of expreflion to be met with in ancient Hiftorie and from Prerogatives, or Aftions implying Auth rity and Power, attributed to fome particular Pe fons in fuch Hiftories ) we may prove as evident! t nay with greater fhew of Probability, that the pri *! cipal Officers or Magiftrates in the Republicks ) - had not a Monarchical Power. 201 Borne or Athens had a Monarchical or AbfolutePow " er, than Sf. S* or any other Prelatical Writer ca n prove ( by Terms or Phrafes to be met with, whe' ther in the Works of Cyprian, or any other Ecclefia- tfical Author of the firft 4. or 5. Centuries) that the Bifhop had fuch a Power. Take Pericles the Axhe* nian for aa Example. lnthefirfi place, Thucydides fays of this Pericles, 1. p. 70. § 127. That being the mofl powerful Man at Athens, and the Per/on that did adminifter the Common -wealth ( aycov jhv ToKireictv) he would not permit them to yield to the Lacedemonians ( ko} iva Ha V7rd)itiv ) where does Cyprian fay, that !ie or any other Bifhop would not permit the Pref- bytery to do fuch a thing? Again he tells us, that hen the Lacedemonian Army was in the Athenian ountry, and many were of Opinion they fhould go ut and fight them, Pericles would call no Ajfembly r Meeting of the People C this is equivalent to Cor- elii/A\ faying Placuit contrabi Presbyterium) but kept he City in quiet, andfent out Horfemen from time to ime. Tbucyd. /. 2: p. 97. § 22. Afterward he fays, 'be Athenians intrujted him with all their Affairs 1TCLV7CL Td Tgciy[JLctTctWiT^^cLv) Lib. 2. p. 121. 65. And what can be faid more of the King of ranee, than that he is intruded with ail the Affairs )f the Kingdom . ? And fays the fame Author ibidem, While he had the ".barge of the Common-wealth in time of Peace, keGo~ >crn'd itwitkModeration(£?uamdiuenimI\eipubiicte pra* !ilt in pace, earn moderate rexit, as the accurate Tran- ator M. Budfon renders the words ) And under hii mpire, adds Thucyd .The Common-wealth arrived to its jeatefi heigbth ( cjusque /tt&lmperio admaximam Po- ,entiamevet}a er at. ) He faysfurther, That be kept the. people or Common-wealth in their Duty % and ruled them v much m he w*s ruled by them ( Plebem in OJJicio U- ^rulitercomineret, nee abea magu regemtur, quamip- Cc /i I le 202 The Cyprianick Bijbop feeamregeret)7bucyd. ibid. Nay further, ourAu« thor fays Ibidem, his Authority was fo great, That be alone could oppofe the whole Common-wealth, and even chaftije them when he thought they did amifs. ( Sed earn fro authoritate cafligare quin etiam nonnufti* in rebus ei palam adverjaripoterat.*) I defy $.S. to Name any Writing of any Father, or Canon of any Council in the firft five or fix Centuries,in which it is declared That the Bifhop may himfelf oppofe the whol Church and Presbytery, and chaftife them. AndPlutanb fays of this famePer/V/ex,(fee Plutarch 9 * Lives tranflated by feveral hands) Vol. i. p. 526,5 27. * That every Year he fent out 60 Gallies, on board 1 of which were feveral of the Citizens* 8V. And * that he fent 1000 Citizens to the Cberfonefe, toil ' (hare the Land among them by Lot, and 500 into 1 * the Ifleof Naxos, and half that Number into the € Ifle of Andros y and 1000 into Thrace to dwell among * the Balta, and others into Italy, &c. Again fays he, ibid. p. 534. * Pericles did enaft or make a De- * cree, that a Prize fhould be plaid in the Science * of Mufick every Year, Ck. And in p. 538. Peri* * cles threw out his Antagonift Thucydides, and ba- * nifhedhim for ten Years +. This is equivalent to what Cyprian faid to Bifhop Xogatianm, Thoumay'ft ufe the Power of thine Honour againft him, ( the unruly Deacon ) either by Depofing or Excommu- nicating him. Again fays Plutarch, p. 239. * Peru 4 cles in a trice brought about all Athens to his own c Devotion, and got the difpofal of all Affairs that * belonged to the Athenians into his own hands, theit € Cuftoms, and their Armies, and their Gallies,and * their Iflands, and the Sea, and that great Power •and Strength which accrued to them, &c. In a c word, fuch a Seigniory and Dominion, $V. And B t Ibi cum ( Porcius Cato ) diutius moraretur, P. Scipio Africanus Con [ ful iter urn, cujusinpriore Confulacu Quseltor fuerar, voluii cum d$ Prtviiil %ia deptttcre, &c. torn. N'fQt in Vit* P*rc. Cattn, had not a Monarchical Power . 20 $ p. 540. t Sometimes he did lead the People along" * with their own Wills and Confents, by perfwading c and (hewing them what was to be done, and fome- * time too ruffling them, and forcing them full fore 'againft their will, he made them whether they * would or no to clofe with what he propofed, 8V. Does not this look right like Abfolute Power think you, that one Man (hould force the Common- wealth, |and oblige them to do what he hadamind foreagainft their wills ? And p. 5 5 1 . * He made a Decree,That * 600 of the Athenians that were willing to go, (hould * (ail to Sinope and plant tbemfelves there with the ' Sinopians, &V. J. S. will let us hear of the Decrees of the Bifhops or Synod, but not of any one Bifliop. And p. 55 1. c Pericles curbed this extravagant Hu- 1 mour of making Excurfions abroad, and choack'd € their over-bufie Fancies, which put them upon * meddling with fo much Bufineis at once. (v/^. when they were thinking on the Conqueft of Sicily, Jufcany and Carthage ) * and turning the moft and i* greateft part of their Force and Power to the pre- c ierving and fecuring what they had already got- *ten, GV. And p. 556* After this was over, fays c Plutarch, having made a Truce between the Atbe- ' nians and Lacedemonians for 30 Years, he orders by : c publick Decree, an Expedition againft the Ifleof !• Santos. Here our Author fpeaks of Pericles as if he had had the Power of Peace and War. Pag. 581. i * He fends out a Fleet of 100 Sail to PeloponnejM, re- 1 lieves the common People with diftributions of 1 publick Money, and made a Law for the Divifion • of Lands by Lot, and the Plantation of Colonies; * for having turn'd out the People ot Mgina, he par- • ted the lfland among the Athenians^ according as •their Lot fell. And p f 590. Tho it look'd fome- * what odd and ftrange, that a Law (hould be broken 'and cancelTd again by the fame Man that made 4 it. Here Pericles is reprefented as having a Power Cc 2 " by 204 The Cyprianick Bijbop by his fole Authority, to abrogate and make Laws for the whole Common-wealth, the Senate as well as others. In a word, Thucydides fays, Lib* 2. p 9 121. § 65. That in PericJes's time the Government was call'd De- mocratic al 9 but w& really Monarchical, being in the hand* of the principal Man ( quart verbo quidem erat Dominate popular it, fed re ipfa penes primarium populi -Arum principatus erat. ) And Plutarch affirms ( Vol. i.p. 593.) Tbti hi* Power was abfolute and incontroh able. §. S. cannot produce fiich full Affertions for the Abfolute Power of the Bifliop, either out of., Cyprian or any other Author who lived in his time, or before, or a hundred Years after. Yet notwithftanding all thefe Things* Terms, Phrafes, Modes of Expreffion, Prerogatives, and Afts of Power attributed to Pericles, full Affertions, &; the Government of that City was purely Demo- cratical, and Pericles had no Authority and Power over the Athenians, nor Influence upon them but b YJ wayofPerfwafion, and thro' their voluntar Conde- fcenfion, as every body knows; Pericles was an ex- pert and cunning Statefman, had the knack ,of ma- naging that People, and the Art to perfwade then* to do the things he was for and propos'd, and that was all. Wherefore, notwithftanding ail the Cyprianick Phrafes, or Afts of Power attributed to Bifhops, in the Works of that or any other contem- porary Author, the Government of the Churcb might be Pemocratical at that time, as the Govern- ment of Athens was Democratical, notwithftanding all the Phrafes in Jhucydides and Plutarch, full Affer- tions, and Afts of Power attributed to Pericles in | the Works of thefe Authprs * 9 And there is no more * The People of At for.? could amerce or fine him when they took it in in their head, pull him down or advance him as they thought fit. Nee prius upivtfji iram, quant in eunt conccperant, depefuerunt, quant eunt pecunia ntulr^ Itiiunt : ruyfus tamen nan muito poji ( id quod vufgu: facer e filet ) iffunt belli ^Mcem elegerunt, eiqu: rerum ommum adminijirationem (ommiferunt. ». p Net- hud not & Men archied Power. 205 more reafon to think, that Cyprian ( or any other Bi- fhop in the 3d or 4th Century J had Abfolute Pow- er and a Negative Voice, or was a Monarch in the Church, than there is to think, that Pericles was Monarch of the Common-wealth of Athens. And no perfon will be deceived by the Arguments of Mr, Dodwel and $. S. for the Bifhop's Monarchical Power in the days of Cyprian, but they who are ig- norant of the Stile of ancient Authors, and unac- quainted with their way and manner of wording things. This Argument, for Example, Cyprian faid to Rogatianus, Thou mayeft ufe the Power of thine Honour, either by Depofing or Excommuni- cating the Deacon, ergo, a Bijhop could by hisfole Au- thority depofe and excommunicate a Deacon, ergo, the Bijhop had a Monarchical Power in the Church, is never a whit nipre valid than fuch an Argument as this. Plutarch fays, Pericles made a 30 Tears Truce between the Athenians and Lacedemonians, or threw out hi* Antagonift Thucydides and fent htm to Banijhment, ergo, Pericles, could by hi* fole Authority banijh the principal Men in the Common-wealth, ergo, he had Ab* r olute Power and was Monarch of Athens. If any (hould propofe this Argument to J. S. pretending i :o prove thereby , that Pericles had a Monarchical i Power in the Common-wealth, he would Anfwer, ) .vhen Plutarch fays, Pericles fent Thucydides into Ba- • lifhment, his meaning is, That Pericles procured his iSanijbment, prevailed with the People to Banijh him % \ Vr.d fay I, Cypriatfi meaning is, That Rogatianus I tight prevail witb y or caufe the Presbytery depofe ths [• beacon. i) If one had a mind to ranfack all the Greek and Ho. ;o nan Authors, and had time to do it, he might have :; ieapsand Cart-loads of fuch Phrafest What more or- either vu the Annerof the Athenians ngainft Pericles afl\vag'd until they 1KEi.i! in V j 1 a £ ain > not lon 6 after that, ( as the Multitude ufes to do) .led him General, and committed all their Affairs to htm. They t. Sea, 65. ' 206 The Cyprianick Bifbop ordinary than to fay of a Rgman Conful, guem penes Vrbanarum funt fafligia rerun. Laudato, cives rationc gubernans. Vrbu fonitta b<*benvs. Gerens impofitum Vrbit onm. Moderans popnhfam legibvA 1)rbem % Or things of this kind ? Yet no perfon ever thought, that a Conful had either Abfolute Power or a Nega- tive Voice. How can it be concluded then from fuch Phrafes, that Bifhops had a Negative Voice in the 3d. Century? Plutarch fays, That ThemifiocJes laughing one time at his Son a Boy, who was ibmething bold througl the indulgence and fondnefs of his Mother, faid He had molt Power of anv one in Greece ; For th Athenians, faid he, command the reft of Greece, command the Athenians, your Mother commands m< ana you command your Mother. According t J. JVs way of Arguing, themftocles y the Mothe and the Boy were Abfolute Monarchs. Vf hy ? Tb* mijtocles commanded the Athenians, £5V, In fine, why may it not be thought, that ma: of thefe Terms or Phrafes and full Affertions •?• builds fo much upon, have refpeft not fo much the Power of the Bilhops, as their dexterity a: skill, they being ordinarily the ableft Men in t Church ? Thus he who writ the Epitaph of t admirable Mr. Claude, fays of him, EccUfiam infalicijjimif temporibui 9 Per medios fluftus & pro cell at 9 PrudentiJJimc rexit* Et fi fata voluijfent, Hacmente, hac dextradefenfafuijfet. Yet Mr. Claude had no more Power than any otl Minifter in France. If Pontius had faid fo of Cypr,^ behold, would 5f. S. have faid, A Sovereign and* dependent Monarchy and we {hould have had B^k egregioufly diftinguifh'd by capital Letters, toHdi forth the Majelty, Grandeur, and Abfolute Pott ©ftheBifhop. had pot a Monarchical Power. 207 J. S. tells us very plainly, That the Bifhop in Cyprian's time had Abfolute Power, that by himfelf, by his own Angular Authority, he could have given Laws to all within his Diocefs, to the Presbyters as well as others, and that he did it not alwife, was the refulc of Prudence, not an* defect of Power: And that: the Bifhop then had fuch Power by Divine Ap- pointment, when Cyprian entered to his Bifhoprick, he refolvM to do nothing without the Advice and : Confent of his Clergy and People ; but fays f. S. l That was intirely therefult of his own free Choice, had he pleafed he needed not have done it, there was !;no more in it than his own voluntary Condefcenfion, it was a thing he was not bound to by any DivinePre- 'jfcripty or any Apoftolical Tradition, or any Ecclefi- >fticai Constitution, vi$; Thus to determine with fcimfelf to do nothing of Confequence without the "Advice of his Clergy, and the Confent of his People. ^And have we not reafon to wonder, how he could : jpretend after this, to juftifie the Scotijh Conftitution $f Prelacy, by which the bifhop was confin'd and limited to a Negative Voice. In the firft place, fays f. S. tho the Cyprianuk Bi- ^fhop had fuch Power, it was not alwife that he in* Terposd with this Abfolute or fingular Authority; ordinarily, and for the moft part he brought Mat* rers to the ConfeJJu* or Presbytery ; and no doubt, "ays J. S. Bifhops in this did act very pruderitly. That is plainly, the Bifhops in Cyprian's time a&ed prudently in not exerting, or taking upon them that .Power which Chnft had vefxed them wich. But if *ty)e Cyprianick Bifhops had not acted prudently, if ":hey had alwife acted wichouc the Presbyters, or Mad exerted an Abfolute Power, the Queftion will With what prudence an Abfolute Power, or a pPower to a& without the Presbyters, was contcrrM c fa the Bifhops ? Will $. S. fay, ThatChriit vetted the 208 The Cyprianick Bifbop the Bifhops in that Age with a Power, which to exert, would have been an imprudent thing ? Again, fays f. S m tho the Bifhops in the Cyprianick Age had Abfolute Power, yet they judged it prudent in moft Cafes, to aft by the Advice ot their refpe- ftive Presbyteries: And hence he concludes, that the Bifhops of that Age, themfelves being Judges, there was no Error in the Scotijb Conftitution, ac- cording to which, the Prelates were by Aft of Par- liament limited to aft with the Confent and Advice of their Presbyters, That u, Tho Chrift veftedthe Prelates with Abfolute Power, yetthe Scotijb Parli- ament did nothing amifs in diverting them of it, and limiting them to a Negative Voice. But would the King ot France think that no injury were done to him, if the Confederates fhould let up a Parlia- ment in his Kingdom like that of England, and li- mite him to a Negative Voice ? Is there no injury in forcingMen by Aft of Parliament to what they are not oblig'd, unlefs they condefcend voluntarily? The Bifhopof£re<;6/»or Dean of Dumblain may, ii they pleafe, condefcend voluntarily to bind them- felves Apprentices to the Cobler at Curry, or Wea«| ver at Weft-kirk, to ufe 5f. S.'s Simile, but if thej were forced thereto by Aft of Parliament, would nc injury be done to them ? If Chrift gave the Bifhop? Abfolute Power, f* S. will not deny, that he gave it them for the good of the Church, wherefore ii muft be faid without doubt, that it was our Saviour': intention the Bifhops fhould exert that Power,whei they did fee that the good of the Church required it Was it no Error then in the Scoiijb Parliament, o hinder their Prelates to exert that Power whid Chrift himfelf gave them for the good of theChurch was it no Injury to the Scotijb Churches, to be- de prived of the unfpeakable Advantages they migh have expefted by their Prelates exerting Abfolut Power or Domination over them, as olt as the Ml had not a Monarchical Power. 209 judged that was for their good ? If Chrift himfelf impower'd the Prelates to interpofe with their fivguUr Authority when they thought fit, did not the Scotijh Parliament Rebel againft Chrift when they took away this lingular Authority, robM the Pre- lates of their Abfolute Power, and made them fub- mit to the Slavery and Drudgery of a Negative Voice? No fays J. S. the Cjpri&nick Bifhops them- felves being Judges, there was no Error in the •ymz/bConftiiution whereby the late Prelates were limited and confin'd to a Negative Voice, Weil then, if the Civil Magiftrate may reftrid I the Bifhops to a Negative Voice tho Chrift gave 1 them Abfolute Power, why may not the fame Ma- I giftrate reftrift or limite the Jurifdiftion of a Bi- | (hop to one fingle Congregation, tho Chrift appoint- ed that it fhould be extended over many Congre- gations? I would be content then to know, what is f*SSs Quarrel againft good ancient Scotijh Pref- ;byterian Epifcopacy, which was fo much beloved ] by our honelt Anceftors? or, I would be content ito know, why he is fuch a bitter Enemy to Congre- Igational Biihops? J. S. thinks, that the Scotijb ] Parliament did well to cor fine the late Bifhops to *°\a Negative Voice, tho Jefus Chrift himfelf gave f 'them Abfolute Power ; how much more rationally ':;and fecurely then may we think, that they did well : to limite and confine the Jurifdiftioii of each Bifhop -[ within their Territories, to the bounds of one linglc : ; Congregation, feing neither f* S. nor any other Pcriun can prove either by Scripture, Re?fon, or iquity, that it was the Intention of Chrift, or that he commanded that the Jurifdi&ion of each [hop fhould do extended over many particular Rations ? Nay, io far was the Scotijh Parliament from incurr Is by their limiting the Bifhops to Voice, that ( according to J» ^ ) ] 1 no The Cyprianick Bi/bof did thereby deliver the Churches in this Kingdom from that hazard of Arbitrary Government, which the Churches all the World over were expos'dtoin Cyprian's time, by the Abfolute Power of the Bifhops. The Cyprianick oijbops ( fays he p. 350. ) tbo common- ly they afted with confent o\ their Presbyters, yet were they not bound up by Canons jrom ailing Abfeluteli % when they faw occajion for it ; whereas our Scotifh Bijbops are limited by the very Conftitution, to do nor- thing oj consequence by themselves • and by conference there i* not now that hazard of Arbitrary Govern- ment in Scotland, as there was all the World over in the days of St. Cyprian. To be delivered from the hazard of Arbitrary Government, is in the Opinion of all rational and thinking Men, to be delivered from a very great Mifchief, even as great a Plague I as canbefalany Society Civil or Ecclefiaftical, but J efpeciaily Ecclefiaftical. And feing in the Opinion I of J. S. Chrift did veft the Bifhops in Cyprian's time with that Abfolute Power which they had, it will follow, that the ScotiJIo Parliament, by taking away the Abfolute Power of Bifhops here, and limi- ting them by Law to a Negative Voice, delivered the Churches in this Nation from the hazard of a very great Mifchief and Plague,which the Churches all the World over in Cyprian's time and upwards were expos'd to even by Jefm Chrijt himfelf. Whai an excellent Parliament was that Scotijh Parliament which was more merciful, and more tender of th< Church's Good than was Jefus Chrift himfelf! Hov happy would the Nation of England be, if the could get fuch a Parliament, a Parliament tha could alter Divine Infticutions to the Advantage t the Church ? This now is one of thefe fine Corollaries u hie 1 follows from what f.S. writes in defence ofthe^Vc tijh Conftitution of late Prelacy, contrary to h Dwn avow'd Principles.. If lie can extricate Inn fe|) < had not a Monarchical Power. 211 felfhandfomely here, eritmibi magnm^pollo, I (hall look on him as a great Artift after that, not fuch an one as the Cobler at Curry y but fuch as Mr. Do&Tod himfelf, who can eafily prove any thing, even that the Soul of Man is Naturally Mortal, if he fan- cy that fuch a Notion may contribute to advance the Greatnefs or Abfolute Power of his Bilhops. CHAP. V. The Sentences in Cyprian^ Works^ which feem to import, That the Bijhop had Abfolute Power, or that he alone could difpofe of Ecclefiaflical Affairs within his own Diocefs, more particularly con* fidered. BUt what are thefe Sentences in Cyprian** Works, by which they think fo evidently to prove, that the Bifhops had Abfolute Power in the third iCentury ? They are fuch as thefe, ij, Quando babeat omni* Epifcopus pro licentia liberxatU gJ2> poteftatti fu# arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab ^ftlio nonpotefty quam necipfe potejt judicare : Tom. i. •Kf. 229. And, Nemini prxferibentes aut prx)udic antes ^quomim/A untaquifque Epifcoporum quod punt faciat, ppabens arbitrii fui liber am potejt atem f. Or, Si ]udi~ miurn noftrum voluerint txperiri, veniant. Patientia >$ facility E? bumanitM nojira venientibui prajto cjt, Hemitto omnia, mult a dijJimulo y Jtudio C? voto solligen- \fl* Fraternitatify etiam ea qu& in Deum commijfx Junt t : ionplenojudicio J^ligionpt examino, delicti* plufquam 1 Pd 2 QfQTi V t Epift. 73. p no. &iz It he Cyprianick Bijbop oportet remittettdu, pene ipfe delinquo, &c. (a} And) Nemineprxl'cribznxes quo minus ft atuat quod put at unuf. auifaue Prapofitm Attmfui rationem Domino redditurta. m Such Sentences?. S. calls Very full Ajfertions of the Epifcopd Power. In like manner, the Canons of Councils are call'd Decreta Epifcopomm, &c. I'm of Opinion, that as mucn is faid already, as iiiay fatisfle unprejudiced Perfons, as to the meaning of r uch Affertions, that they do not imply, that the Bifhop had a Negative Voice in the Church, much lefs Abfolute Power ; xet that the moft obftinatc imohgusmay have norealon to fcruple, andthat it mav appear, that we have a deiue to latisty a 1, even ff, i. himfelf, we are willing to infill more fully 6n this Particular. ',< A ^Au«^ We fay then, it will not follow, that the Bifoop had a Negative Voice, or Abfolute Power, andthat he could aa in AfFa.rs of Government alone, or without the Authoritative concurrence of the Prel- bvtery, becaufe Cypnan fays, Every B, bop may all Ming to bit own Arbiinmnt, ini licence of hi* own liberty and Power * and can as little be call d to an Amount by others, * he can caUthm to an Account Or becaufe "he fays : Let them com if ^"'f « Bi he W«5 by me, 1 can pardon ail Crmes, J Humble many, I'm ahnoit faulty my fe If in remitting Faults jo^ eajdy &c. It w.ll not follow, that i\ogaiiani>.s might with- but the Church and Presbytery depole the Deacon becaufe Gyprian writ to him, Thou mayeft Depole or Excommunicate him. It will not follow, tbail the BiOiop alone did or might do fuch and foci I thin&s, becaufe it is faid in Cyprian s Epiftles Ca sons .of Councils, or elfewhere, That he did 01 J mi-htdo fuch things. Neither will it follow, tha" the BUhops alone (.tj had Deciiive Voices in Synod („) Cypr- Ep. 59- V- l 3J MlV?£P&»iert,in Cipi<*d hands on Timetfy, becaufe Ms fain ?, a ' 0I J e W»i It being evident from 1 t' W "« M ^ »" resbytery joined with him ?£? A^ th A at i h . e , ««Aj- alone laid on hand S h? u And lf "hers appoint that a R;r* 7? ld the MffWtf '•all theTfhops of the P?n? rt lh ° Uld beor ^ined Nn one of the Bilhops pronounces the R.^' Tha ,, (e Uther Bi.hops who are prefenr ,lf a 5 ! ffin& aI1 H ^th the, P n ands \ *Z^ZSa** na- tUtiH no '. , ? 1 i'«nced by f,Vc 'r tcfrLT J' l !P as Prira "i 2i4 The Cyprianick Bifiop iiations which were perform'rt by fewer than three Bifhops reckonM uncanonical, null and void ? And would not this have been intolerable Preemption, if they had thought that the Apoftle order'd Timothy to lay on hands alone? If then we may look on the Canons of Councils, and the Practice of the Church Univerla), as a good Commentary on thefe words oi Paul, they muft be paraphras'd after this manner You Timothy and thei who join with iou in Ordinati- ons, muft not be too haUy in laying on hands. T like muft be faid of that other Apoftolick Dire"" Jpainft in Elder receive not an Accufatton, but beji^ two or three Witness, i. e. You and they who joi •with you in the Government, receive not an Accu fation a*ainft.3\Thus Optatml. i.fays, Tunc Su$rt pio totius Populi CaciliatiM eligitur, V manm tmpo %ente Felice Epifcopm ordinatur. That is, Cacilia was elefted by the Suffrages of all the People, an Ordain'd by the laying on of the hands ot Fein i. e. Of Felix and the Bifhops who concurr d wit Jim in that Action. _ . And what more ordinary than to ray/Thatr ittor fliop of Rome Excommunicated the AfiattckChntcn Thus Eufebm ( Eccl.Hift.l. $. c. 24. ) Bt ( \itt vronoumed all the Brethren there, in Afia, " u uy<. U from the Communion of the Church. DatifftU^ ri univerfos qui illte cram Fr aires profmbit, «? abux UteEcclefixprorfmaUenos ejfe pronunciat, as VM) renders the words. Eufebm you fee, words itlo, if thfc had been done by ViBor alone. Without Authoritative Concurrence of any others. *eti Bifhop of Kome was fo far from having well a « er in thofe days, to Excommunicate fo ma Churches at Ins pleafurc, without the Aut ritativc Concurrence of the Presbyters, who J Htd together with him, that, a long time alter, Biftop of that Church could not fo much as orda: Presbyter, till he got a Licence from thePresb)t had not a Monarchical Power. % 1 5 tnd Church to do it. Thus EufebiM^s, ( Eccl.Hift. .6.0 43. ) He> the Bifhop of J{pme y petitioned tbem 9 he Presbytery and Church, tiki be might be licenfed Ordain this Perfon only , to wit, 'Novatianut; %ia): Atfair, Chr>ioftom promoted one Heraclides bU m*(on to the Bijhoprick. Will any Perfon therefore fay 21 6 The Cyprianick Bijhop fay, that Chryjofiom alone made th^t Perfon Bifhopi Muftitnot be acknowledge, that one could not b< made Bifhop of Ephefm wjthout the Authoritativ Concurrence of the Bifhops of the Province, c three Bifhops at leaft ? Wherefore, Chryfofiom pro moted Her aclides to the Bifhoprick, is as much a to fay, be perfwaded the Contending Parties to A greement in this, or prevail'd with the People t eleft Her aclides, and the Bifhops to ordain him. And fays the fame Author, The\e alfowere prefer whom Chryiofiom put out of their Bifhoprich, for I had deposed many Bijhop $ in Afia, when he went to Y phefus in order to Ordain Heraclides. Vet a Bifhe could not bedepos'd but by a Synod, or by tweh Bifhops atleail. Thus Coun. Cartb.Anno 418 o dains, That a Bijhop mufl be judged by twelve Bijhof and a Presbyter by fix, &c. And formerly, or fon time before this, perhaps a Bifhop might not bed pos'd but by the Synod of the Bifhops of thePr vince. Thus Coun. Antioch. Anno 341. Can. 4. caje a Bijhop being deposed by a Synod, jhall dare to d charge the Funtlions of his Office before he be refior can never hope to be rejlor'd in another Synod. In li manner, Can. 14. In cafe the Bijhops of one Provi? lannot agree about judging a Bijhop, the Metropolii Tfnay call the Bijhops of another Province to judge decide thii Controverfie. And Can. 15. If a Biffo condemned unanimoufly by all the Bifhops of the Provi^ he cannot be judged anew, but the Sentence oftheSyi of the Province ought to remain firm. Wherefi Chryfojiom deposM many Bifhops in Afia, is as mi as to fay, the Synod depos'd them, and Cbryfoji is faid to have depofed them, becaufe he was Mo rator, and fet the Synod a-work, perfwaded th< or prevail'd with them to depofe phefe Bifhops T the the] f A Bifhop could nor depofe a Presbyter by his fole Authority cvt ,e 7. Century, witnefs the6.Can. of the z. Coun: o Sevil, m whic iefc words, That a Bijhop apm may indeed confer the Pifmty of a ties had not a Monarchical Power. 2 1 f Thus it is faid, that Gregory JST^un^en (even after [he was turn'd out of Conilamivople, and had no Bi- jfhoprick, and confequently, when he wasnoBifhop, jbut only a fiiiiple Presbyter, according to the 18 kCanon of the Council of Ancyra, which Was more Ancient than the Council of Nice ) E'l/ActA/oj/ two, rtHis TsctJ^icLv 1 ^* TToiykvcL Kajrismw. u £• Did confti^ tute one EuUlim Paftour, that #, Bifhop of Ni\un* Rum* That #, Procur'd him to be conftitute Bi(hop» of that Church, perfwaded the People to Eleft, and prevail'd with the Bifhops to Ordain him; This Canon of the Council of Ancyra is very re^ markable, you have it in theMargine *, according to the Tranilation of the Learn 'd L>* Pin, ' it forbids • Bifhops who cannot be received into their owri f Bifhopricks, to invade thofe of others, and allows : them only to keep the Rank of other Presbyters} of which Honour, it ordains, that they fhall be \ deprived if they ftir up Sedition againlt the Bifhop 1 of the place. Hence we may fee in the ijt. place, patthefe are in a great Mirtake who fancy, that Sifhops are differenced from Presbyters by their Drdination; if Bifhops were Bifhops by their Or- E e di* ^a Deacon , ( that ti, may ordain th?m without the Afiiftance of other Bi- ops ) but b* alone cannot tike it nwjy from them to wbom be batb given it. incomes then of the Ab/Jute Baxter of the Buhop in Cyprian-* time? .. Cjnnon Shot make* terrible Execution, and fearful Havock a- long 3. S.*$ Arguments taken from Lyfnamck Phrafes, full Aifcrtions, E~ ifcopal Prerosanves, toe. Nay even in the end of the S Century, the 'ouncil of A<\uUeia in their 7. Can. Forbid,BiJbops tt condemn a ?rubyicr , an t a Dcjcon, witbe-u: «.nfi*it:ng the Metropolitan. After the death of ; Bifhop ot Ephtfui, Cbryf^tim wen thither, and having alfembled synod or 7*-* Bnhop»,chcy aepoica 6 Biinops who were convicted of giving ■loney 1 11 their Ordination, and crdam'd the Deacon hiiradi- Biinop oitpbtfut. .1 Epucopi ordinatifunt, n?c rccepti ab ilia Parochia, incjua fue • •nt,denominati, voluermtque alias occupare Parochial, tft vim prarfuli- mi lnrerrcl'edttioncs adverfuieo* excitando, hos fe®ari oporter. n autem velint in Preibyceriofeicrejinquo prius erant Prcsby.en, ipfoi, onore nonmoven : ( *&¥ fxiv TOl fi*K0lVTQ S/< TO Tf IffiVTi* J 'J&k&&au** fj.)) d7T0Z>i,K\Z&tJU OMT*C T?K TifJLiic ) uo<4Gadverfu«eos, quiiliic conitituti funt, Lpilcopoi, fediiionc. exciu- er'nr, honorem quoque Presbyicru ib 11s aufcrri ( dfsufHcSaLt ax!* Ut$ *J) TM Ttuh T*7n>ltT$\JTt%'lK) Scillw abiicato, | 2 1 8 The Cy prianick Bijbop dination, and were another thing than Presbyters or fuperior to them by vertue thereof, thir vene 1 rable Fathers could never have thought, that a Bifhop becomes a meer Presbyter as foon as his Church is deftroy'd, or if he cannot get accefs to his Diocefs : A Bifhop does not and cannot lofe hi? Ordination by his not getting accefs to his Diocefs ; but he lofeth his Epifcopacy thereby according tc this Canon, and becomes a fimple Presbyter \ there is no infeparable Connexion then between Ordinati- on and Epifcopacy, one may have Epifcopai Ordina- tion, and yet be nothing but a meer Presbyter; a* in the Cafe inftanced by this Canon, xov)ix > Whei one who is ordain'd a Bifhop, cannot be receiv'c into his Bilhoprick thro' fome Accident or other and on the other hand, one may have nothing bu Presbyterian Ordination, or be ordain'd by mee. Presbyters, and yet be truly a Bifliop, as the Bifhop of Alexandria, before the times of Beraclm and Di Qnyfiur. And the verity is, it is no more abfurd, tha; one fhould be conftituted a Bifhop by inferior Pref byters, than it is that one be made a Pope by Car dinals, a King by a Parliament, or a General b* an Army. In the 2d. place, this Canon doth won derfully confirm the Idea we gave before of a Bi fliop and a Presbyter, vi^. That a Bilhop is a con itant and a fixed Paftour, who feeds the People c his Chaige daily by Preaching of the Word, an Adminiftration of Sacraments: And thataPresby ter is an Officer who Jias not the Paltoral Charg of any Congregation, but fitteth in the Presbytery and manageth the Difcipline of the Church, o Ruleth, and if ever he atteth as a Paftour, fr does fo now and then only, in an occafionai way, c has no Accefs to preach and adminifter Sacrament J but when invited by the Bifhop, or. ordered fo to d I by the Paftour of the Place. A Bifhop then ; he could not get accefs to his Church or Congnl had not a Monarchical Fotver, 219 nation, was no more a Paftour, had no more accefs :o preach in aconftant or ftated way, and when he :ame to any Diocefs or Church, had no Accefs to ift as a Paftour, no Accefs to preach and adminifter Sacraments, unlefs invited by the Bifhop, or im- power'd by the Paftour of the place, and confe* luently had no Right to do any thing but what a Presbyter could do, and confequently was nothing >ut a meer Presbyter, as the Fathers of this vene- 'able Council determine moft rationally, and very Agreeably to common fenfe. And does not Opt hum YLikviuMM t lib. 2. ) fpeak by way of Mockry of a D iftorfinegrege, and EpifcopuA fine Populo ? In effeft le affirms, That one who wants a Flock can no nore be a Paftour, and that one who has not a Church can no more be a Bifhop, than one can be \ti Hoft who has not an Houfetoentertain Strangers fn, or a Succeffor without a Predeceffor, a Son 'vithout a Father, or the like # Mifas eft igitur Victor 9 fays he ) ent ibi tilim fine Patre, tiro fine principe, VifcipulvA fine Magiftro, feqiiens (me antecedente, in- \uilinmfinedomo y hofpesfine bofpitio, P if tor fine grege, ipifcopvA fine Populo. The ancient Presbyters then Ivere not Paftours feing they had not Flocks of their )wn, but only helped to rule the Bifhop's Flock. \nd if a Bifhop hapned to lofe his Flock or Congre- gation, he did thereby ceafe to be a Bifhop, and :, vasinthe Rank of a fimple Presbyter. Cor.iider I lere what regard our Prelatical Party has to Anti- quity when it fuits not with their Intereft or Hu- ">nour, forthothe late Prelates cmnox bt received into t'-bcirBijbopricki, and 2iXtfineGrege > without Flocks, 1 Vet they will have them to be Bifhops, and own them ' is fuch to this day, trampling on the Authority of •'bis Ancient Council, and debiting the Opinion of ' Jptitus, that famous Afrian Bifhop in the 4* Centu- ;y. But in the mean time, Optitui was in the wrong, "in.l injur'd Viftor G&rbenfis the -Schifmatical Bifhop >" E e 2 he jl20 The Cyprianick Bijbop he is here fpeaking of, for ViBor was not without a JFlock, he actually bad an Epifcopal Diocefs, and Vpxaxm fhould not have calfd him a Paftour without a Flock, or a Bifhop without a People, becaufe his Diocefs was only a very fmall inconfiderable Con- gregation which us'd to Affemble in a Cave or hole of a Rock, Speluncxm quandarn, fays he, fori* a Civ> t&te, gradibusfepfcrunt, ubiipfo tempore Convcnticulun\ habere potuijfent, Optatus did herein depart from the' Fathers who lived before him, and who were great- If er Men than he, particularly Tertullian^ Tertullian\l would never have call'd Vittor a Paftour without sdi Flock, or a Bifhop without a People, who faysvr ( Exhort % ad Caftit. c. 7. ) Sed S> ubi tres 9 Ecclefia eft At licet Laid. i. e. Where there are three, there is ^ l Church, tho they be Laicks *. Neither did Cyprianui oxCowelim ever pretend, that Fortunatu* ov Kovati-Vi anw, the Schifmatical Bifhops, were Paftores fineh Grege, Paftours without a Flock, becaufe their D10- ( (ceifes were nothing but fmall Congregations, the jc one at Carthage and the other at %ome. ' Yet Optatm y did not call Victor a Paiiour without a Flock, be-h caufe his Diocefs was but one fingle Congregation,^ but becaufe it was a very little, naughty, petty, and j|S inconfiderable Congregation, not having a Houfe n or Church to Affemble in, like the other Bifhops \a the World at that time. And it is evident here in the 3^. place, that the Englijb Prelates are not and|i cannot be reckon'd Bifhops, whatever ignorant mT prejudiced People may fancy. Ifthefe were not Bifhops, according to the Determination of the Venerable Fathers of this Council, Who could not be received into their Bijhopticks, much more are nol {hefe Perfons Bifhops who voluntarily forfake theii Bi- * Our Prelatifts have formed to themfelves a very ftrangeand monftru- OU5 Idea of a Church, nothing is a Church with them but a Diocefs coniiit-i ing of fome hundreds or dozens of particular Congregations. You may fe< here, that trrtvllian was a granger rofuch an lded of a Church. According ioTmullian, a very fmall Congregation is a Church, and this deftrbys Pre- lacy, for in an.ieru times every Church/*ho ne?erfofniill,had a B:tfioj>. had not a Monarchical Power. 22.1 Bifhopricks and live at Court, or are guilty of Non- refidence, feing this is a Crime, whereas it was not the Fault cf thefe Perfons whom the Council of Ancyra reckoned not to be Bifhops, that they were not received into their Bifhopricks. The Fathers of this Council thought, that thefe fhould not be efteem'd Bifhops, who could not be received into their Bifhopricks, becaufe they had not accefs to preach, and adminifter the Sacraments daily,as con- ftant Paftours. And the EngUfh Prelates arefo far from afting as daily and confcant Paftours, that it [is but very feldom that they meddle in the Work Df Preaching and Adminiftrationof the Sacraments, not once or twice perhaps in a Year's time. The Englijh Prelates then are not Bifhops, they are no- ting but fimple Presbyters. Thefe were fimple Presbyters in the Ancient Times of Chriftianity, A/ho were taken up about the Government of the Church, and did not preach and adminifter the Sa- :raments but rarely, or in an occafionai way, or iwho did not act as confcant Paftours in a particular Church or Congregation, feeding the People daily py preaching of the Word and adminiftrationof the Sacraments. But the Ertglijh Prelates are taken up principally with managing the Government, do not ,A as conftant Paftours in any particular Church >r Congregation, and do not preach and adminifter the Sacraments daily, but very rarely only, and in an pccafional way, and therefore they are nothing but jmple Presbyters. True it is, the Englijh Prelates j ?iay aft as conftant Paftours,theymay,it they pleafe, i preach and adminifter the Sacraments daily as bi- itever they may be dc facto, they are iag but limple Presbyters. And not only Ami- I uity, but, which is much more,the Scriptures them- es nuke it evident, that the Englijh Prelates are Nothing but fimple Presbyters. For we muft look Jn thelc asBilhops, whom the Scriptures determine ' d be the principal and mo ft honourable Ecclefia- ftiul 222 The Cyprianick Bijhop ftical Officers, and conftder thefe as Presbyterst whom the Scriptures make not fo honourable, an J lers principal Officers. This is evident, becaufe the Bifliops were always efteem'd to be the higheft and principal ordinary Officers in the Church. But if we judge according to Scripture, we muft look on the Paftours of the particular Congregations in England as the principal and moft honourable, and on the Prelates as the lefs principal and honourable Officers. This is evident, becaufe we muft efteent thefe to be the^ principal and moft honourable Offi- cers, who are imployed in, and taken up with thafc Work, which according to Scripture is the princi- pal and moft honourable Work of the Miniftry ; and confidcr thefe as the lefs principal Officers, who are imploy'd in and taken up about the Work that 1 is lefs principal : But fo it is, that the Paftours of the Congregations in England are employ'd in that which according to Scripture is the more principal Work of the Miniftry, and the Prelates are em- ploy'd in the Work that is reckoned lefs principal. And this is evident, becaufe the Work of Preach- ing the Gofpel and Adminiftring the Sacraments, is according to Scripture the principal and moft ho- nourable Work of the Miniftry, and the Work o! Ruling is the lefs principal and honourable Work And this is evident, becaufe Preaching of the Gof pet and Adminiftration of the Sacraments, was the main and principal Work of the Miniftry in the O pinion of Chrift himfelf. And that it was fo in th< Opinion of Chrift, is evident, becaufe he fpecifiej that, and made no exprefs mention of Ruling in hi Commiflion to the Apoftles, Go ye therefore, an,\ teach all Nations^ baptising them in the Name of th Father^ Son, and of the Holy Ghoft*. WhenaPrinoi * May we not wonder here at the extravagance of thefe, who preten' I that the Prelates are the Succeirours of the Apoftles? They the Succciiou 1 of the Apoftles, who are fo very feldom at the Work which lyes in fl ComnuOion which our Saviour gave the Apolttes ! Nothing more ndici l tous. They fureiy are the Succelfours of the Apoftles, who are d*ily O'B cupiedwiththe Work of preaching the Gofpelaud.bjprizing, that .is, t| Faitours of the Congregations. had not a Monarchical Power. 2 2 -3 gives a Commiflion, he will fpecify and make par- ticular mention of that which he reckons the prin- cipal Work, the chief Thing to be done. Then the Apoftle did diffidently intimate* that to preach the Gofpel was the very principal Thing that Chrift gave him in Commiflion, when he faid, VVo k unto me, if I preach not the Gofpel, and, Chrift jent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gofpel, i. e. Chrift did not fend me principally for this end, that i might baptize, but that 1 might preach the Gofpel. Seeing then the Bifhops are the principal, and the Pres- byters the lefs principal Ecclefiaftical Officers: and feeing thefe are the principal Ecclefiaftical Officers, who are employed in the principal Work, thefe the iefs principal, who are employ'd in the lefs princi- pal Work of the Miniftry : Seeing the Pafrours of :he Congregations are conftantly employ'd in, and :aken up with preaching the Gofpel and adminifcring he Sacraments, which is the principal Work of the Miniftry, and the Prelates are taken up with Ruling, vhich is the lefs principal Work, it mufc follow by eceffary Conlequence,that the Paftours of the Con- egations in England are the Bifhops, and that the relates are nothing but fimple Presbyters. And is is further evident trom what the Apoftle faith Timothy, Let the Elders that rule well be counted or thy of double honour y efpecially they who labour in Word and Votlrine. It is certain, that the Bi- ops are the higheft and moft honourable Officers j p the Church, and chat next Co them are the Pres- byters. Wherefore if the Presbyters are worthy of Rouble Honour, the Bifhops are worthy of fuch Ho- J pur especially. But according to the Apoftle, they ho labour in the Word and Dottrine, are thePcr- jns that are worthy of douole Honour especially, nd thefe whofe principal work it is to Rule, are oc fo much worthy ot Honour. And feeing it is \ Otorioully evident, that the Paftours of the Parc- els 224 The Cyprianick Bijbop ches or particular Congregations are the Perfons that labour in the Word and Do&rine, and that the Prelates do not fo (fori hope it will not be faid, that chey do labour in the Word and Doftrine, and preach in feafon and out of Seafon, who preach but once or twice in a Year ) but labour in, and are ta- ken up with the Work of Ruling, it is certain, that the Pafcours of the Paroches are the true Bitfiops, who are worthy of double Honour efpeciallj, and that the Englijb Prelates are nothing but meer Presby- ters, and if they Rule well, and according to the Prefcript of the Gofpel, why not ? let them be recfcon'd worthy of double Honour, according ta the Apoftolical Canon. From what Has been faid, , it is evidenr, that they who have any regard to Scri- pture and Antiquity, muft believe, that the Englijh Prelates are but ftmple Presbyters. And if People will not be determined by the concording Suffrages of Scripture and the Fathers, as to this Point, I would fain know what it is that will determine them, and what is the Rule they pretend to walk by? Thefe Perfons among us, who are for faying, Vfe toill walk after our own Devices, and we will every one do the Imagination of his own heart , let the Scriptures ^Fathers fay what they will,may know,without being at much pains to inquire, what their doom will beat laft. We fay then, that the Government of the Church of England is nothing but Presbyterian Go- vernment : For the Government of that Church, which is Ruled by fimple Presbyters, is Presbyteri- an. But a very ftrange fort of Presbyters theiePre- lates are, Presbyters who pretend to be the Supreme Eccleliafucal Governours, who have ufurped a Ty- rannical Power over thefe who have afcended to th\ high top of the FrieJt-bood 9 Presbyters who Lord ii over the Bifhops themfeives, and have rob'd then of their Sublimit S> Vivina roteftas Ecclefiam gubtr nxndi, who have taken from thePaftours their fubl im an< had not a Monarchical Power. 2 2 $ knd Divine Power of Governing the Church. Thir Prelates are not unlike the Deacons in ferom\ time, who took upon them to be equal or fuperiour to the Presbyters. But let us now return again to the Purpofe in hand. The Fathers of an African Council in their Let- ter to Pope Cozleftine, declere, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, Tte Judgment of Clerks, and even of the Bifhops tbemfeives, belongs to the Metropolitan: Et Decreta Nicxna, fay they, five inferiors gradusClericos, five ipfos Epifopos y jit is Me- tropoVtanu apertijfime commiferunt. But it would ba as childifh to infer hence, that a "Metropolitan could by his fo!e Authority, judge, depofe, or ex- communicate a Bifhop or a Presbyter, as it would be to think, that Gregory Na^ian^en (when he was but a fimple Presbyter ; could or did eleft Eulaln:^ and ordain him a Bifhop, it being evident, by a- bundance of Canons, that a Bifhop or a Presbyter could not be judged or cenfured in thofe days, but by a Synod, or a Confiftory of many Bifhops. Whac is the Matter then ? You may learn from che 85th (Canon in the Codex Ecclefix African: which gives Power to the Bifhop of Carthage, i. e. the Metro- politan, to dictate and fubferibe in the Name of the whole Council, the Letters which the Council thought fit to write and fend. Vt fi ju* literx it- 'ttandx inConcilio fUcueript, VcHcrgudui Efifcofmfikl fedi prxfidet, OMNJVM NOMINE dietary tf fubfenbere dignetur. The A&s then of the Council went in the Name of the Metropolitan. Where- fore, the Judgment of Clerks, and even of the Bijl r, belongs to the Metropolitan, is as much as b :t the Judgment of them belongs to the Synod or Council, or, to the Metropolitan and a convenient xber of Bifhops. And after the fame manner, the Ads of the Fres- / Jrcnt in the Bijhop's Name t who was always f f Pie- 226 The Cyprianick Bijbop Prefident or Moderator, Wherefore, when we read in any Father (zs Cyprian) or Canons of Councils, that the Bifhop did or was to do fuch a thing, the meaning is no other than this, The Presbytery did or wo6 to do fuch a thing. Thus the forecited Canon of the Council of ^wrwifays, If a Bifhop being de- depofe Presbyter or a Deacon : The meaning then of this Canon is, If a Presbyter or Deacon, being deposed by his Bishop and Presbytery^ or, by his Presbytery 2? the Neighbouring BisJwps mho were to join with them: For in th'ofe days, five or fix Bifhops join'd the Presbytery, when they were to judge a Presby- ter, and two or three if a Deacon was to be judged. Thus The 8th Canon of the Council of Cartk: under the Confulfhip of Cafarm and Atti",m, regulates the | Number of Bifhops that are abfolutely requir'd to the Judging a Presbyter and a Deacon, and requires five at lea ft to the Judging a Presbyter, and two forjudging a Deacon, and adds. That as to others ot the Faithful, the Bifhop of the Place may take Cognifance of them, and judge them alone. Heli- quorum auxem caufas etiam folus Epifcopus loci agno- fcat 3> f.niix. But the meaning is not, that the Bifhop of the Place might judge private Chriftians alone j that is, by his jble Authority, without the Au- thoritative Concurrence of the Presbytery : For this would flatly contradict the Praftice of the U niverfal Church till then, and fome hundreds oi Years after, and even this Canon made by them- felves, v*(* Let the Bishop do nothing without the Cler- gy , or Tresbytery, and the Sentences which he shai] give without the Clergy, shall be null and void. Anc the English Doctors themfelves will not allow us u fay I had not a Monarchical Power. 22 7 fay, that their Bifhops have afole Power*. Where- fore, The Bijhop of the Place may judge them alone, is as much as to fay, The Presbytery may judge them, or, their own Bifhop and Presbytery may judge them, without being oblig'd to call to their Affiftance, ei- ther five or two Neighbouring Bifhops, as they muit when they are to judge a Presbyter or a Deacon. A pari then, when the Canons fay, that a Deacon muft be judged by three or two Bifhops, a Presby- ter by five or fix, and a Bifhop by twelve; the meaning is, and can be no other than this, They fball be judged by their own Presbytery, having fuch a refpetlive Number of Neighbouring bijlops concurring with them, or affifiing them. Thus alio the 8th Canon Counc: Cartk Ar,\ 390. declares, That if a Presbyter excommunicated by his own Biftop, jet up Altar againfi Altar, &V. And the 10 Can: of the very fame Council ordain?, That a Bishop accused who would jujtifie himfelj, ought at leaft to defend his Caufe before i 2 Bishops, and a Pres- byter befote 6, and a Deacon before 3. You fee, that ] 'by this Canon a Bifhop could not excommunicate s, a Presbyter ; yec the 8th Canon fays, If a Presbyter < excommunicated by ht* own Bishop. Wherefore it is 'evident, that the Aft of the Judicatory went in the Bishop's Name, and the meaning is, // a Presbyter ^excommunicated by bit own Presbytery, and their Ajji- 4 ftants at the time, &c. 1 Jn like manner the Council of Sardica An: 347, of in Can; 19, declares, That the Ordination ofa Cler- J-gy-man, of another Dioccfs, ou^ht to be void, and tfihat the Bifhop who does it, ought to be punifhed +. ¥ i 2 And 0i * Says?. S. ( Vrndic. p. 12s.) Do not I fjy,Thar a Biihop in St. O ■Time rud the role Power of Ordination ? I faid fo, but where did 1 lay, cr of Jurifdiction ? the Council of Ssrdica is thus in the L r r.e Edition, Ft >>.ur, ut quuunyuc t.t alii Y^ruih.ii \ y [Q\ttrum fine c<.nft»fu t j ^furp.n'erit, a corrigt. Ei i Cone: Araufic Can: 8 & 9. S> yui« itemLlericum Ordinanium fut<:vr*iti pi. us dtpm ?f, ut cum tfjy urn alitncf) Civri, - ziS The Cyprianick Bifhop And Counc: of Orange An: 441, Forbids a Bifhop t# ordain one belonging to another Diocefs. But the Ordination, at leaft of a Presbyter, was the Aft of the Presbytery and Bifhop as Prefident, and theBi* fhop never ordain'd alone, according to this Canon of one of the Councils of Carthage, At the Ordination I of a Presbyter, all the other Presbyters shall lay their hands on kti head, while the Bishop consecrates him, and Jays hands on him. The meaning then of thir Canons iriuft bZyJbtt aBishop n d Presbytery ought to be punished, who ordain one belonging to another Diocefs, Thus you fee, that the Afts both of Ordination and Jurif- diftion, are fpoken of as the Bifhop's Afts, tho real- ly they were the Church's or Presbytery's Afts. And the 10th Canon of the firft Counc: of Orange ordains, That if a Bifhop ereft a Church within the Territories of another Bifhop, it lhall be confecrat- ed by the Biihop of the Place, and fays, Et omnti EicUfix iffim Gubtrnaxio ad eum ( vi\. Epifcopum ) in iujsu CivitatU territorio Ecclefia furrexerit, pertinebit 3 n u The Government of that Church fhall belong to the Bifhop and Presbytery of the Place. For that the Government thenwas managed by the Presbytery and Bishop as Moderator thereof, is what cannot be denied, as would be very eafy tc make appear. And hundreds of Examples of this kind might be produced, if it were needful. Now this was the way of wording things at thai {in)e, and the current Language onc^ in a day botl-i zt Athens and Rome. Thus after the Athenians hac decreed the Sicilian War, Niciu one of the Gene- rals, judging that would prove a dangerous Expedi tiofl, and ruinous to the Common-wealth, and ex} horting them torefcind that Decree, expreffes himt felfina publkk Oration thus; And you Prytam 6r Prefident, [ if you think it belo?igs to your Office tl look to the Advantage of the I^epublick^ and if you del f.re to be arcvumed a good Citiien) Vote tkeje thing* had not a Monarchical Power. 229 $ver again *, or refcind that Decree. That is, put thefe things to the Vote again, that the People may refcind that Decree. And Titus Liviws fays, Tkxt C. Oppius the Tribune made that Lax» in the time ofthegreatejtheat of the Pu- lick War, rvheri Q. Fabius, a?;d T. Sempronius mere *onfuls\. Opptm made that Law, that u y propos'd :hatLaw to the People, and induced them to enait r, or pre tided when it was made, and gathered the Votes or Suffrages. It * Kctl (TV CO TCVTAVi T6Jj\dL (llTiP Vyn dOl VfOtTtlKHV ihJ'i&l 7« rii< Totems, kai /3kA-< yniy Bilhop Stillingfleet ( Iren. p. 27. and which the ?relatiftshave ordinarily in their mouth ) Granting tufed, fays he, in the primary fi unification of the word , ft it cannot be applied to the People, but to Paul ani larr&bas/foritunotfaid, that the People did Chei- otonein, but that Paul and Barnabas d/iChciroto- lein. Now wherever that word U itfed in its firftfigni* 'cation, it U implied to be the Aclion of the Persons hem/elves giving Suffrages, and not for other Perfons ppointing by the Suffrages of others. Says the Bifhop, i pi not f aid, that the People themselves did, hut that *aui and Barnabas did Cheirotonein. That is very- rue, but what then ? The word implieth, fays he, ntthe Perfons tbemfelves give the Suffrages, or eleft, :re (aid Cheirotonein. That is a manifeft un- . The Xhefraothetce were laid to choofe the lagiftrates by Lots, h%yjki&$iittW%mM*t}ri$4k ; if Qzeu.&iTc/jt 'oarQKKnfW'tP \v t& Qrueia, &c 9 fib. Orat. contra Ctefiph. § 7. that if. Them eycail Magistrates whom the Tbefmothetx choofe Lot in the Temple of Tbefeui. Yet the Aft of ofing the Magilirates by Lot, was the People's , ami the I'bejmotbetx only preiided, or guided the ion, and declared who the Perfons were on om the Lot did fall. And as to the Magiftrates o were chofen by the Cheirotonia, or Elective ices, the Jhefmothetx. were faid Cheirotonein^ and ome y the Tribunes were faid Cheirotonein, or to them by their Suffrages. Thus fuli. Pollux, 8. c 6. ) fays, that the Tbefmotbet* did *ai $*v Siy.cL7*$ y ;:;tc--y. i. e. Th^y choofe Julges by Lot, ani Arbiters, one feach Tribe, and Cheirotonize {i.e. Eiert by uffrages of the People; Generals out of any 1 And Appun{ J:- . . , ■ ■ ' ifiop 2}i The Cyprianick Bijhop drri 'ZvMet. u e. He confirm'd (that) Law* and forthwith Cheirotoniz'd ( i. e. prefided when the People did eleft ) Nlarim General in the Wat againft Mithridates, in the room of SyttA \. And, fays the fame Author ( De Bell. civ. lib % 2. ) A>W?-: y*<; J^i y^eiTo Ovcltivi'iv ti Keti Ka#JW. u e m He e-: le&ed ( u e. prefided when the People did eleft ) Vatinim and Clodim 9 Tribunes. In like manner^ it is very ordinary to fay, that Officers or Magiftrates appointed things, which 1 they could not appoint but by the Suffrages of others, 1 that is, the People. Thus HLfcfa ?U h-,i rctura' y$d,^Lct{ it) rii TcujTct \iri*\,Y\ n like manner, Ariftotk fays, that Solon did twp JV iQK%rince not Monarch, the Democracy was efra- ■lifhed by the Authority of the People, and *ti$ lid that Solon did ic, becaufe he contrived the lodel, propofed, advifed, fifr. he conftituted the democracy by the Suffrages ot the Athenians. To he fame purpofe, JJocrates in Areopag. yiviQikhavfMy )7iK0dT&TQ< ytVQ(jt.iv&-,ivouobiTr}0'i» that # , If We be fuch a Democracy as Solon 7 who was moft zeal- for Democrat ical Government, did confticucc his Laws, And alfo Dioryfiu* fJulicarnaJjiu who yS, AVcLlU £ ctoj^ Kd.TarcLti<*ffcLV TroMTti&Vt i. e. *t*o keep up lat Policy or Form of Government which was puiftituted by Solon and Cliftbsms. In vit.Ifoir.Uow ^Irthefc Examples it is moft evident, that it is an ^idinary thing to fay, That Perfoas appoint fuch G * CJ 234 T^Cyprianick Bifbop or fuch things, which they appoint by the Suffra- ees of others, and that it is ridiculous to pretend, that the People did not elea the Presbyters of Elders, ( Alls 14. 23. ) becaufe Paul and Bamabn werefaid Cbeimonein. ' But, fays the Learn'd Prelate in the fame place, tho the word Cheirotonetn did originally fignify Ctoo. fing by rear of Suffrage, yet before the times oU«*ft it wasus'd (oxfmpleDefignauon, and in Demofthenei it fometimes fignifies to Decree and Appointed that fenfe of the word appears in St. Luke ' h.mfelf, A3, 10. 41. It cannot be denied, that** choofe by Papula: Suffrages, or, to appoint and decree by Vott is or comma; Confer*, is the original and proper Sign.ficatio: of this word, and if it be taken in an improper fenC fometimes, what then? how many words arether which are taken in an improper fenfe now and ther if a word once be taken in an improper fenfe, mu it never be taken in a proper fenfe again at all, c inderftoodin its natural fignificat.on The Biflio infinuates. That feing this word is taken in an ,nf proper fenfe fometimes, it maybe fo taken in tW L v. of this 14 cb. of the Ate, and confequently clnnot be proven from that Text of Scripture, thi the People choofe* their own Paftours. To this fay, 1. That we muft neverdepart from the prop and natural fignification ot the word, unlefs we neceffitated by fomething in the Context or for other part of Scripture, if we may fly to an imp. per fenfe, whenever the proper fenfe fuits not wi our humour, contradifts our Hypothefis, orcroff our Intereft; we will make K the . SC ffrnntexf of Wax : But there is nothing in the Context, any other place of Scripture to force us todep from the proper fignification of the word here; < Learn'd Bifhop has not made it appear, that will either contrad.a Scripture or Reafon, if adhere to the proper fenfe, and this is what cam bad not 4 Montr child Power. 2j 5 be made to appear* and therefore there is a neceffity of adhering to the proper fignification of the word in this place. 2. If we depart from the proper fig- nification of this word here, and fay, that Paul and Vamabas themfelves ele&ed the Elders or Presby- ters, we will fet the Scripture at variance with Scripture, and caufe Paul and Barnabas contradift ;he whole College of the Apoftles; for when one Aras to befubftituted in the room of $udas 9 and two Peifons were to bechofen, that one of them might )e put into the Apoftolicai Office by Lot, the A- x)ftles themfelves did not pitch upon the two, but [eferred the Election of them to the People, A&s 1. n like manner, Ails 6. the Apoftlcs put it on the people toelea the Seven Deacons ; And if the A* Miles would not take upon them fo much as to :le& the Deacons, what probability is there, that *aul and Barnabas would choofe the Bifhops or Pref- yters, and by this means rob the Churches of the derogative which the Practice of the Apoftles at erujalcm gave them ground to claim to, and which they might juftiy claim as a Right, naturally belong- ing to all Societies? The Election of the Ecclefia- dgeofthe Mind of Chrift thereby? If the Trum- : Pt give an uncertain Sound, who lhall prepare him- ( It to the Battel ? What (hall the Chiiiches do 2J aen, iuppofing that Paul and Bamabu eletfed ? if Gg 2 they t}6 The Cyprianick Bifhop they follow the Example of thefe two, they will condemn the Praft ice of the whole Confiftoryof the Apoftles at ^en when AtfemDlici tor chooling of Ma&iurafcs were to be heep'd, J appointed one whom they thought the molt rit for that Dignity, and ring produced hun on the Theatre, his Name was prociaim'd by a Cry- aba it was faid,To whomfocver thisfeenis good let him lift up his hand, I then fuch as approved of ttc biect ion, by lifting up of hand:>> teamed -- M*n elected feem'd to them a fie Man to bear the Orficc or a Ma- Jrate,but they who difpioT'd it, kept in their hand, which Party foevcr I the greater Nuinocr had the Election decreed accordingly. Hence *ie rhuword Ckeirotoneo, and he who DCcame Magiltrate by luch buffra- >wj|call»dC6«/rorcnefoj. 7 h^> U>m the {Irtttan doth tcttify upon N^rr- ' «nsOr.ition. And 2Qn.it at Upon theCanonsof the Apoftles tcacheth us, I: at hrft the word Cheiratonti did lignify the Sutirages, but afterwards ■ ""ncient Kit*' u £ ancient Kites being aboliiUcd ) .Wil ui'M for Coufecraiion." D« Vtilon 23 & The Cyprianick Bijkop Then fays he, c It feem* ftrangely improbable, thai * the Apoftles ihould put the Choice at that time in- * to the hands of the People, when there were none « fitted for the Work the Apoftles defigned them * for, but whom the Apoftles did lay their hands on, \ * by which the Holy-Ghoft fell upon them, where- c by they were fitted and qualified for that Work: ' The People then could no wife choofe Men for their * Abilities, when their Abilities were confequent ' their Ordination. But fo far is that from bei ftrangely impiobable, that the Evangelift LukegW* us Account, that the Apoftles aftually did fo, th actually put the Choice pf Matthias and Barf abas > a the feven Deacons in the hands of the People, A why thisfo very improbable, Becaufe, fays he, no; then were fitted for the Work the Apoftles deiigu them for, but whom the Apoftles did lay their han on, by which the Holy-Gheft fell upon them. B this which *nade the Bifhop fancy it was ftrangel improbable that the Apoftles fhould put the Elef ons in the hands of the People, tho Luke affirms exprefly, was agrofs Miftake, thefe whom the Pi pie elefted to the Office of Deacons, Atts 6. had t Holy-Ghoft, and were qualified for the Work th were defigned for, antecedently to the lading on the hands of the Apoftles, as is evident from the and 6. Verfes of that Chapter compared togethef Look ye out among jou feven Men of honeji Import 9 fm $f the Holy-Gboft and VVifdom> fay the Apoftles t« the People: The laying on of the hands of the A poftles was after the Election of the People, if the the Abilities of Perfons and the Holy-Gheft's fal ling on them, was Confequent to their Ordinat on or the laying on of the Apoftles hands, howcoul they defire the People to eleft feven Men full oftl tfoly-Ghojt and of VVifdom? and feing the Deacw were full of the Holy-Ghoft antecedently, either! their Election or Ordination, why might not mar had not a Monarchical Forver, 239 >efo, who were ele&ed to theEpifcopal Office? In 1 word, what he fays here has no weight at all ; for ;ranting it to be true, it will not make it in theleaft mprobable that the Eleftions were put in the hands >f the People 5 Chrift could qualify Perfcns for the vliniftery whatever way they were elefted, whether >y the People or by the Apoftles. But to return. The forefaid Nicias finding, that he could not by is Speeches divert the Athenians from the Sicilian Var, Thucydides fays, He imagined he could foon aufe them alter their Refolutions, if he fhould lay n a great Subfidy, or command great Preparations be made, Nicias vero cum animadvertiffet fore, ut on amplivA iudem rationibua ( qua* print attulerat, >fos a propofito ) revocaret, fed apparatus magnitudine y , magnum apparatum ipfis imperaret, fortajje ipfos de ntiadeduceret, Thuc. 1.6. § 19. But the mean* og is, and can be no other than this, If he could Jiake it appear to the People, that fucha War could ^t be carried on without vaft Preparation, the Go* srnment of Athens being Democratical, fo that, If Jbould command great Preparations to be made , is as uch as to fay, // be jbould make it appear to the People^ yax they would be necejfitated to command great Prep a* lions to be made ; Thus Thucydides fays, ( ibid. § 25.) tndem auidam ex AxhenienfbvA in medium progrefjh, © iriam adhorxatua dixit, non oportere eum amplim tergi- rfari, fed in omnium confpeclu )am declarare, quem~ m dfparatum ab Athenienfibus iibi decerni vellet. ben we come to put fuch a glofs as this on feme Cyprian's Sentences, f, S, will ftorm no doubt and y out mightily, but we muftfet the Truth before trople, let him lay what he will. Certainly f y S. has heard of Lex Julia, Pompeia, ..la, Porcu, Acilia, &c. Were therefore thefe laws made by the Authority of one fingle Perfon ? ]o fuch thing, they wereenafted by the Authority *thc^m*w People, and were call'd the Laws oi fuck i40 The Cyprianick Bijbof fuch perfons, becaufe the Perfons prefided at the makingof them, or moved andperfwaded the making , of them. And no more will it follow, that the Canons oft Councils were made by the Bifhops alone, exclud- ing the Presbyters, becaufe they were caild the Decrees of the Bilhops, and not the Decrees of the. -Bifhops and Presbyters, than it will follow, that fuch a Law was made by Pompey or Acolim alone, ex* eluding the Senate and People of Home, becaufe it was call'd Lex Acilia, and not Lex Acilii G> Populi Upmani. The Canons of Councils were call'd, tha Decrees of the Biihops, not becaufe the Presbyters did not concur Authoritatively in making them^ but becaufe the Bifhops were the principal Mem* bersofthe Synods; and the Denomination is oft times taken from the principal part. Alcibiades, Ni'A cms and Lamackus, commanded the Athenian Arm) that went upon the Sicilian Expedition ; but did that Army confift of Athenians only, becaufe call'd ! the Athenian Army ? If you confult Tbucydides, yoi'i will, may be, find, that fcarce the one half were At tbenians, but Ar gives ^ Cbians, Mawineans, and othei I Confederates. Cyprian fays, As for others of the Lapfers, th,e}|l muft wait till Bifhops may meet in Council, im determine about them; he fays not, till Bifhops ant Presbyters may meet in Council and determine Hence 3 s . S. concludes, that the Bifhops alone di determine in Councils. But f. S. himfelf confei feth, that the Presbyters did meet in Councils a well as the Bifhops, tho they had no decifive Voic in them, as he fancies : Wherefore we muft not ii fcr, that the Bifhops alone did meet in Counci without the Presbyters, becaufe Cyprian fays, lb muft wait till Bifhops meet in Council , and not till B Jhops and Presbyters meet in Council : How can it I concluded then, that the Bifhops alone did determir had not a Monarchical Power. . 241 in Councils, becaufe Ciprian fays, Till Bijhops deter* mine about them, and not, TiU Bijhops and Presbyters determine about them ? The great Council at Antioch, which condemned TaulvA Samofatenm, did not confift of Bifhops alone* but of Bifhops and Presbyters, and Deacons too. Thus Eufebitu ( ffift: Eccl: L 7. c. 2*. ) fays, Sexeei* tos quoque alios, qui una. cum Presbyteris £? Diaconi* eo confluxerunt, vequaquam difficile fuerit recenferct But fays ^. S. The Presbyters did meet not to de- termine, but to be prefent as Witnefles of what paf- fed, or to deliver their Opinion, give Advice, 87r. Who knows not that there is a notable, a material fdifference between a Voice deliberative, and a Voice Hecijive ? So that the Bifhops alone did meet to de- tide or determine. But f. S. is in a grofs miftake, Eufebim tells us exprefly, that the Presbyters did -neet at Antioch, tik «jutik \yvmjdyi*4% for the jame Caufe or End that the Bifhops did meet there, "bat is, to decide or determine, to judge and con- demn Paulu* Samofatcnw. And this is further evi- dent from their Synodical Epiftle, which Eufebitcs jives account of Chap: 30. The Infcription is thus* Vionyfio & Maximo, & omnibus per univerfum Orbem ".omminijlrit nojtrts, Epifcopu, Presbyter^ C Diaconii 9 5 Vniverfje Ecclejix Catholic* qua jub Cxloeft, He- 1 u hymenatx, &c 4 $5 reliqui omnes qui nobifcum unt vicinarum VrHumtS Provinciarum Epiftopi^Pres- yteri dc Viacom, r d Ecciefix Dei^ Carijfimu Frttribus n Domino Saluttm. Then having given account of . -veral Crimes that Yauiu* *as guilty of, they add, 'nunc igttur (Paulum) Deo helium ir'dicentem neccc- -\ ere voicntem, cum a Communione nojira abdicajjemus $ ;c. Paulus then was depos'd and excommunicated ot only by the Bilhops, but by the Presbyters in hat Council, and therefore it is certain, that they ' ad a deafive Voice together with the Bifhops. And Jl'itM fays ( Eft 7'. ) that not only Bifhops, bun Hh J?r«r 242 The Cyprianick B.'jbop Presbyters determined in a Synod concerning He* reticai Baptifms, De qua re quid nuper in Concilio plu* rimi Coepijiopi, cum Compresbj/teris qui aderant y Cen* fucrirmtSy i.e. decreverimm. I (hall not deny, thac the Presbyters were atf length excluded from aft ing in Councils, but they J were not excluded in Cyprian's time, nor fome hun- dred Years after. Thus Pope Felix the third, pre* fiding in the Council at Rome ( Anno 487. ) confift- J ing of 38 Bifhops, and 76 Presbyters, and directing j his Difcourle to them, laid, De quo quid obfervariX debeat 9 ordinare nos convenit. And Pope Zacharie j prefided in a Council at Rome^ about the middle of j the eighth Centurie, which was compofed of 40 Bi- | (hops and 22 Presbyters; and the Records of that] Council begin thus, ZachariM SantliJJimM ac beatij\\ l fimus Epifcopus fedis Apoflolica, cum omnibus EpifcopitV fresbjterjs & Diaconibus, Domino voleme 2> auxilian* | Te, ita decrevit qualiter fingulU Caphulis nunc fubter declaratur. And the Afts of the Council at I{ome % ' in which Anajtafius the Cardinal Presbyter, was depos'd, and which was holden after the middle of the ninth Centurie, are fubferibed by 67 Bifhops,) 19 Presbyters, and 6 Deacons. Now, I think no more needs be faid to make it "I" appear, that the Presbyters had deciiive Voices in Provincial Synods for many hundred Years after the departure of the Apuftles-, wherefore by all Rules of Government they fhould have had decifive Voi- ces in the more General or National Affembliesal- \ fo, and if they had not, fo much the more unac* , countable was the Conduit of the Church-Rulers ■ in thofe days. However, jp. S. miftook his meafurcs, { when he concluded, that they had no decifive Voi- ces, becaufe the Canons us'd to be call'd the Canons or Decrees of the Bifhops, or becaufe Cyprian faid, Till Bifhops meet in Council, and determine about them, &c. Aid had not 4 Monarchical Power. 245 And in like manner, tho' Cyprian fays to I{ogati- dnusy that he might have depos'd'or excommuni- cated his Rebellious Deacon, being affur'd, that the Synod would have ratified that Aft of his DiC- cipline, it will no more follow, that that Bifhop did, or could alone depofc the Deacon, than it will fol- low, that Cbryfojtom alone made Heraclides Bifhop of Epbefus, elefted and ordain'd him, excluding the Bifhops and People} or than it will follow, that he depos'd many Bifhops in A fix by his fole Authority, excluding the Synod or Bifhops of the Province, bc- czufe Socrates fays, He depos'd many Bijhops in Alia Token be went to Ephefus: or than it will follow, that Demojtbenes by his own Authority made Laws, bind* ing the whole Common-wealth, becaufe he faid, tyj TtHdivT&s r«y ium *\.;)$\ on ; poflit, i^am nee ipfe potefl judicare, fed expe&emn* I univerfi judicium Domini nojtri Jefu Cbrijti. The c meaning is, that every particular Church/or Pres- 4 bytery nave full Power within their own Bounds \ and are not accountable to others as their Super}- p purs, they acting or regulating their AiFairs of- derly, according to the Word of God, Atfs of t. Affemblies, or Canons of Councils, and have a ' Sovereign Power in ordering all Ecclefialtical ! Affairs, which particularly concern themfelves. And, the Unity of the Cathplick Church may be j very well preserved, thp every Bifhop difpofe of and had not a Monarchical Power. 145 rdcr his own Aftus or Bufinefs, being to give an account of his Adminiftrations to the Lord. Epift. 5. p. 110. Manente concordix vinculo, $5 perfeveran* e Catholic* Eeclefixindividuo Sacramento, aftum fuum ijponit £? dirigit unuftuifaud Epifcopm^ rationem pro- ofitifui Domino redditurus. Cyprian is here telling intonianwi, That in former times fome Bifhops or •articular Churches, admitted Adulterers to a pub«* ck Profeflion of Repentance in order to Abfoluti- n, and that others would not admit fuch perfons, nd yet there was no Rupture of Communion on [hat Account: And hence he concludes, Manente mcordia vinculo, &c that u, Peace and Unity may e preferved, tho there be fome Difference inparti- ular Churches with refpett to fome Affairs of Dif- pline, as the Re-baptization of Hereticks, or the ke. And he fpcraks to the fame purpofe with re- e& to the Re-baptizition of Hereticks, in aa piftle to Stepbanu* Bifhop of J{ome t Every Bifbop t ys h^, bjA the free determination of his own will, in the dmimjtration of the Churcb. Qua in re nee* no s vim iauamfatimvA, aut Legem iamvA, cum babeat in Ec- 'jix adminijiraxione voluntatis fu-«fc~what Wa y$jJ Novated. Presbyter make NovatianvA Bilhop? enf Jie eieft, ordain him by impofnionofhis own hand admit him into the Epifcopal College, and ail by h fingular Authority, or Abfolute and independent Po^ r er ? What was the Matter then ? Confult the Learn Bilhop oXCbefter, Annal. Cvfr. p. 25. ( nay confa yo 1 tae thtf i had not a Monarchical Power. 147 rour felf Vindic. &r the Monarchical Power of the Bifhops taken om the Sayings or Expreflions in the Works of Cy- r ian 9 or the like. I appeal to J. SSs ingenuity iere, if we may not with as good Reafon fay, That ogaxianm depos'd or might depofe the Deacon by is Intereft with the Presbytery, being Biihop and ioderacor, as he can fay, that the Presbyter Xova* fcsordain'd Novatian by his Intereft with the Fa- ion at i^mif, and the influence that Fattion had (1 the three Italian Bifhops to caufe them ordain m ? I'm p^rfwaded there is fuch bri&htnefsof Evi- nce here, as may befufficient to convince bim,if ;hasfo much power over himfelf as to be able to y aiide Prejudice and Pafiion. But if he has de- imined to pcrtiil in the furious Refolutions it ap- rars he had taken up, when he was writing his 9. hapter, and faid, He hop'd with God's Grace, to re and die as far an his Principles from Presbytery from Popery ; ( but I'm fure all bone ft Men will ckon theie'ba vaft Difference between em, little yuding the Refolutions of thefc who are driven to Qrttfltv.jtittnum Epifcopum feci-. .±tl /»a/%flA i ► attttm mm: mi critruvit quern i fr.. : fniaMtout, BUniti r, it i»cidi«olous to inw^ne, that the ^1 for- .nanus Bnaup. (c»fje/,u/ in 1 «' M&.Hitf. Eultf. i{,.6. c;p. 43 ) £iv:i 4in'• but j, ink.?: viti itrumnoft : Cujui Ecclefif.- unut kwK tr-.: Wt*jHgniit,*!>unJ pojfidet omnem fponfifui&domini poteftatem, in hacprafidemics, pro bonore ejus atque unit ate pugnamus, hujus 13 gratiam pa< titer S? glortam fidei virtute defendimus. ibid, p. 203 In fine, according to Cyprian, the Authority Ecclefi aftical is not the Bifhop's but the Church's Authori ty: Thus he telleth us, that Novatian would hav< been at vendicating to himfelf the Authority of th< Catholick Church, tho he himfelf did not belong tc the Church: Nam Novatianus, fimiarum more, qu ( cum homines non fint, homines tamen imitantur, vul Ecclefia Catholica Au tori ta tern ./*£/ SS» veritatem vendi care, quando ipfe in Ecclefia non fit. Ep. 73. p. I9$L Which is plainly to affirm, that the EcclefiafticaiK Authority that each Bifhop is vefted with, is tbj/ Authority of that particular Catholick Church ovc [^ which heisfet f. Novatian then was in Cyprian's Opinion, deftitut of the Epifcopal Authority, not becaufe he vn'.V unlawfully Ordain'd, for he was ordain'd by thre Bifhops, which was a fufficient Number for th; end, in the Judgment of the Univerfal Church, an according to the Canons afterward, and particular! I * Quaelibet Ecclefia ( faiirtuUru ) non b^erttica aut Scbrfmatica, Catbol ttkitur? (ays the Buhop or Oxford, i. e. Any particular Church, which t net Heretical or bchifmatica 1, was eall'd a Catholick Church. r had not a Monarchical Power. 251 f the Council of Nice ; but becaufe the People over /horn he was Bifhop were out of the Church accor- ing to him, or were no Church at all, and confe- luently had no Ecclefiafticai Authority, had not he Power of Keys, and therefore Novatian could lave no Epifcopal Authority, feeing the Epifcopal Authority is the Church's Authority, depends upon he Authority of the Church, and is derived there- rom ; that People, not being a Church, had no icclefiaftical Power themfelves, and confequently :ould not communicate any to him whom they made their Bifhop. Our holy Martyr argued very juftly from his Prin- ciples here, but did build upon a Miftake, he had brmed to himfelf a falfe Idea of the Unity of the Church, thinking that the Church could not fub- iftin different Communions, and confequeptly that hey who were fepa rated from the External Corn- bunion thereof, were out of the Church, or were to Cnurchat all. Whereas, thoaBody of People, mpos'd upon by a cunning and felf-feeking Man, as t is likely Nov at i an was, feparate unjuftly from the Church, yet if they continue in the Belief and Pra- lice of the Fundamentals of Religion, they are frill true Church, have true Bilhops and Sacraments, nd are by their Love and Faith ftill united to Jefus thrift, and confequently are in Union wirh the Church really, tho externally feparated from it. Mow this was the Cafe of the Novatians, they main- ain'd no confiderable Errors, adhered to the Fun- amentals of Chriftianity, and therefore were a part f the Catholick Church, notwithftanding of their •eing feparated from the External Communion of he other Churches; and whatever the Opinion of " fprian and Cornelm % or other Bilhops in their day ight be about them. I make this Obfervation out f a juft Indignation, at the impious and menftru- us Opinion of thefe among us, who are for (hutting I i 2 up ; 2^2 The Cyprianick Bifhop upthe Univerfal Church within one External Ccm- snunion, and for Unchurching all thefe that are fe- parated from it, and think it nothing to pronounce a Sentence of eternal Damnation on Millions of ho- nefter Men, and much better Chriftians, and fin- 1 cerer Lovers of Chrift and the Gofpel than they are themfelves, if that may contribute any way to the carrying on of their knavilh and felfilh Defigns< External Communion among the Churches is not that which makes them Churches, but their belie- ving the Fundamental Do&rines of Chriftianity^and their Love to God ; and Faith in Jefus Chrift: Where- fore a Body ot People who do believe the Funda? mental Doctrines, and walk fuitably to the Gofpel; area true Church, tho feparated externally from all; the other Churches in the World, and it can nqi more be faid that they are not a Church, becaufe' they are feparated externally from the reft of the Churches, than it can be faid, that the reft of the- Churches are not Churches, becaufe they arefepa* rated from it. Will any Man of fenfe fay, that the/ feven Provinces are not a Nation or a Civil Society, and have not Magiftrates, becaufe forfooth they are broken off from the Monarchy of Spain ? And therefore, tho the Separation of the EngliM Diffenters were unjuft, finfuland unwarrantable, asfl it is not, yetfeing they.live in theBeliefof theFun? i damentals of Chriftianity, and feing Love to God, I and Faith in Chrift abounds among them, they are it true Churches, have the Authority of the Catholick i Church, to uie Cyprian's Expreflion, true Bifhops, t Sacraments, <5c In a word, they who have Faith I and Love have all things, let the Papifts and others ft Jay what they will, All things are jours whether Paul, ?1 or A polios, or Cephas, andye are Chrift'' s and Chnjt i U God's. And none will pretend that fuch are out ij pf the Church, excepting thofe who arc for making I had not a Monarchical Power. 253 Tool of the Church and the Gofpel, nay of Chrift imfelffor their own ends. In like manner, tho the Separation of thePrela- ifts in Scotland is moft unjaft and unwarrantable, et, in fo far as they adhere to the Fundamentals f Religion, entertain Love to God, and have Faith 1 Jefus Chrifc among them,theyare true Churches, ave true Sacraments, and true Bifhops, Paftours I lean ; for I reckon not thefe Men Bifhops, whom hey ignorantiy look on as fuch ; and it any Presby- ?rians fay otherwife ( bat not one of them will fay therwife for oughc I know ) it mult be imputed to *noranceor Paffion : Their Separation is finfiri and hifmatical indeed, but it is not every fin that will nchurch People and feparate them from Chrift, if ley have honclt Intentions in what they do, God ill bear with many Infirmities in thefe who are fin- re and follow their Light, the Crime lieth princi- illy at the door of thefe who are the Ring-leaders, id feduce the People to fuch Methods for their m ends, and they will be made to reckon for the ffturbances they have made in the Church. But return. Cjprian and Auguflin were thegreateft and moft proven Doftors of the Church in their time, and H delivered this Dottrine, you fee, very plainly d pofitively, and they thought not,when they pro- p<\ it, that they advanced an Opinion contrary Scripture or the Belief of the Univerfal Churchy no Father of the Church, either in their time Jbefore it, denied this D.i&rine, or condemned t|s unfound, or advanced thing, inconfiltent with and no Fathers, either in their time or afcer it, ever quarrel them tor it as Inventors of Novel- or 1'iopagarors of Opinions contrary to the mon Belief of the Church. Wherefore we may on what they fay with refpoS to this Partial lari 2 $4 The Cyprianick Bijbop lar, as the Belief of the Univerfal Church in their day. And feeing the Bifhop thus reprefented the Church, and the Power he exerted was the Church's Power, Cyprian might very properly attribute the Power of the Church to him, or fay, that the Afts of Difcipline or Jurifdiftion were perform'd by him, which were indeed perform'd by the Authority ot the Church. Thus, tho* he fays exprefly in Epift: 73. That it is the Church that bindeth and loofeth, or forgiveth fins, he fays Epift. 59. / can pardon all Crimes^ I diffemble many through the earneft defire I have of colletling the Fraternity^ nay even thofe Crimes which are committed againft God 1 do not examine with the rigideft Severity \ I receive aUfincere Penitents, all tobo do humbly confefs their fens, f$c. There is no poffibility of reconciling, or making good fenfe of thefe things, uniefs it be fuppos'd that Cyprian fpeaks here as the Reprefentative of the Church, or that he muft be underftood as if he had raid, Our Cburck { can pardon all Crimes, we diffemble many through the earneft defire we have of colletling the Fraternity , vc receive aU fencer e Penitents, &c. Thus, tho he in- tended to fay, The Vnity of the Catbolick Church mi] . be very well preferved, tho every particular Church be Mafter of their own Actus or Adminiftrations, he mighl and did very handfomely, and according to the Dia- led of the times,expre(s himfelf thus, The Vnity oftk Catholick Church may be very well preferved y tho eveq Bifiop be Mafter of hu own Attut or Adminift rations,^ 2. Oft times Afts of Power or Jurifdiftion, an attributed to a particular Perfon, or faid to be dom by him ( tho they were net all done by his Authori ty ) becaufe they were done thro' his Influence, by his perfwafion, or becaufe he had a principa hand in caufing thofe things to be done by thefe i whom the Authority was lodged. Thus Pericles laid to have banifhed Tbueydidet, becaufe it was tbr< h had not a Monarchical Power. 255 lis Influence that the People of Athens fent that Perfon intoBanifhment. Thus the Presbyter No- iaxus made Nov unarms Bithop of fiome. 3. It was a familiar and cufcomary wayoffpeaking n ancient times,to lay,thatfuchanA& of Power was lerforiji'd by a particular Perfon,tho that Ad was not nd could no beperforgi'd by him, but in conjun- ^ion with others a&ing in parity ofPowerwith him fhus ThncydiJes fays 9 NiciM thought to divert the A* benians from the Sicilian War, by commanding greaC preparations to be made, tho he could not command tiy Preparations to be made but in conjunction with ihers.Thus£/0»fays,/. 37. ireifiT'Ttx avt&< tstok frcLToy outcov x&TffiKOft* i. e. Poftquam Cato ipjc arte cos condemn tfw, after Cato had condemned to eath, vi$. thefe who were guilty of the Confpiracy ith Catilin^ yet Cato could not condemn them to ath but in conjun&ion with the Senate; Cato y s Midemning them to death, imports no more but his ving his Vote that they fhould be condemned. ni Cyprian fays in Ep. 67. Maxime cum jam pridem bijcum, £? cum omnibus omnino Epifcopisin totomun- conftitutify etiam CorneJixi Collega nofier facer do s cificus ac )uftvA y ££ Martyrio quoque dignatione Do» mt honoratua, decreverit ejufmodi homines ad poeni* mtiam quidcm agendam poffe aimiiti, I4, Sometimes things are faid to be done by a brfon or Perfons, when the meaning is only, that is the Opinion or Defirc of chat Perfon or Perfons at the things be done by thefe who had the Au- tarky or Power to do them. Thus the Confeffors rite to Cyprian, Jf^norv that voe have given Peace to \ thefe Lapfers 1 &c. Slim nos } &c. that it y it is our tpinion that thefe Lapfers be received, or we de- le and petition, that they be received into the race ot the Church. Lapfers could not be receiv- er into Communion until they had gone thro' a long fcirfe of Penance, for forae Months, nay Year*; ac- 2^6 The Cyprianick Bijhop according to the appointment of the Canons* Yet* to put Refpett and Honour on the Martyrs or Con- feffours, the Church granted them this Privilege, That thefe of the Lapfers who could procure their Recommendation, or for whom they (houid petiti- on, might be received into Communion immediate- ly, without undergoing the ordinary courfe' of Pe- nance. This fettheLapfefsa-work to addrefs the Confeffours* The Confeffours began at length to abufe this Privilege, recommending unworthy Per- fons to be received, or petitioning tor the Recep- tion of many, in whom there were no Evidences at all of fincere Repentance to be feen. Cyprian per- ceiving this, out of Confidence and Senfe ofDuty,| fets himfelf to oppofe the Reception of many of the] Lapfers recommended to the Peace of the Churcr by the Confeffours. It is eafy to fee then,that wher. the Confeffours fay, K^novo that rv<: bavc given Peac^ to theje Lapfers, their meaning is, Know it is ou Opinion that thefe Lapfers be received, or,Knov that we recommend thefe Lapfers to you, orpetiti, on for them according to the Privilege granted C us by the Church. We may add in the 5. Place, That oft times general Expreflionsm be limited, or that which Authors exprefs in gem ral Terms, muft be refunded to the Materia S< jirata, or underlkod with particular reference thePurpofe in hand, or the thing or things me: tioned in the Difcourfc. Every body knows ho, to underftand what the &poftle 5 s meaning was, whe he faid, All things are lawful unto me, but all thin are not expedient, to wit, all things that are not pr^ hibited by the Law of God, or all fuch things as is there fpeaking of, ttf£ all forts of Meats or g iike. And in tins fenfe feveral Sentences to be m with in Crprian's Epiftles, muft be underfto< Take an example or two. In Epift. 69, pag. %\ lie fays, Nemini prafiribentes quo mmm Jiatuat t[t pu had not a Monarchical Power. 257 utat nnmquifaue Prapofim % a&u&jui rationem Domino '.dditurm. The Matter is this. A certain Perfon Uximu* confults him with refpeft to thefe who came 7er to the Church from the Sett of the Novatians 9 I wit y Whether they fhould be rebaptiz'd. Cyprian nfwers, that for his own part, he look'd on the No- itians as Perfons not within the Paie of the Church, id confequently believed, that they had not the ightor Power of Baptifm among them, and confe- uently that they who came over to the Church iom that Sett (herald be bapci2'd, as not havin<* re- rived lawful and validBaptifm among thcNovauans. 'hen he adds, He does not at all pretend to diftate, 1 that his Opinion /hould be a Law to others as to tis Particular, Nemini prafcribentes quominusftatuit t$d put at unufquifque Frxpofitus, that u f Notwith- frnding my Opinion, every Bifhop may carry with Ifpeft to this Affair as he thinks lit, or fo as he links he may be able to juftifie himfelf before God. therefore J. s. prevaricates when he renders the prds thus. That every Bifhop may make Statutes as hs Xivksfit within hit own Difiritl; as if Cyprian had tended to fay, That every Bifhop may make what iiws he pleafesfor his own Diocefsor Churcb,which iriy indeed be inferr'd from his own Expofition, It not from the words of Cyprian. Thus alfo in E- jftle 73. p. 210. Cyprian fays, Nemini prafcribemes *t prxjudicantcs quominus unufquifque Epijcoporum 4od putatfaciat, habem arbitriifui liber am poteftatem, tiich $. s. renders thus, That evety Bijhop has fo much r free Power of bis own Arb\triment y that he may do i hit own Diocefs what feems good unto him. The life is the fame with the preceeding. Cyprian fays it that every Bifhop may do in his own Diocete ^at feems good unto him, this is J. JVsfalfe glofs, U that he might do wtiat he thought fit with ref- Jft, to wit, the Re-baptizing of thefe who fhould *me over from the Novation Sett, which was a Kk Cafe 258 The Cyprianick Bifhop Cafe the Church was divided about at that time and with refpeft to which, Cyprian was therefore o Opinion, that every Bilhop or Church might beat lowed to follow their own Light, or do in it as the} thought fit, without being troubled for it, or quar relied by their Neighbours, whatever their Praftio might be in the Affair, feing they knew not well hov to make a Decifion in this Controverfy by the Won of God. If a Minifter orBifliopat Glafgow Ihouldasl Advice of a Minifter at Edinburgh, about the ufinj of the Lord's Prayer as a Form, and if the Minifte at Edinburgh fhould write to him thus, I'm indeet of Opinion that it fhould be us'd as a Form, and it i us'dfo by us here, notwithftanding we pretend no to prefcrive to others, feing every Minifter has Liberty to do as he thinks fit, would it not be ridi culous to inferr hence,that the Minifter at Edivburg is of Opinion, cr affirms, that every Minifter ha Abfolute Power in his own Church ? Now feing there is nothing faid of the Bilhop i the Works of Cyprian or any other Author, or Canol of any Council, in the firft Four Centuries, thai looks any thing like his having Abfolute Tower or I Negative Voice in the Church, but what may be coal modioufly reduced to one of thefe Heads, and of plain'd thereby ; we conclude, that we have no re; Ton at all to believe* that the Bifhop had any mor Power in the Church during the time of thefe Cerl turies, than a Presbyterian Minifter in Scotland bi\ in his Paroch at this day. After all, tho there were fome Expreflions in -prian\ Epiftles or elfewhere, which we could put a convenient fenfe upon, and that fhould lo like a Monarchical Power in the Bifhop whett we would or not, ( but our JPrelatifts have not be able to produce any fuch hitherto that I know < we might fay, and that with very good reafon, i the words of the late Learn'd and Reverend Bilho StillM had not a Monarchical Power. 259 StiDingfleet, That every hyperbolical Exprejfion of a father will not bear the weight of an Argument. Cer- tainly, to make an Argument of an Expreffion a Father drops be the by, when to inform us about the nature of the Epifcopal Power is not the thing he has in view, hto build upon an uncertain Foun- lation. Sometimes Writers fpeak indiftin&ly of a thing which they are not intending to explain, but iring in accidentally only when they are handling another Subject. Thus Heroiian lib. 2. §. 38. fays £V o(Tov f/.iv y&f fVa AnfjuKfctrlctt ta, Pco^jlaipdu PtaKUTo Kctt h fvy/.MTcs \ 1 £ > *-n* time, '¥ *}. S. has any more to fay on this head, it is [ fcarce worth the noticing. He tells us ( page 348) of a very remarkable lnftance of the E- ifcopal Sovereignty, to wit y That even the major *rt of his Presbyters could do nothing againft him. • ihe Cafe was this, When he writ his 43 Epiftle, Xk 2 there 2 6o The Cyprianick Bi/bop there were only eight Presbyters belonging to hi Diocefs, of thefe eight five united their Counfei againft him, and three of thein only ftood with him, Had he then been no more than a fimple Modera- tor, it is manifeft he had been fairly and legally anc irreprehenfibly outvoted, for he and his three Pre! byters made up in all but four, and there were fivt againft them, yet all the World judged the fivi guilty, and approved Cyprian and the three, CSV. f. s. muft give me leave to fey, That this, to ufi his own phrafe, is infinitely weak, tho urged by Mr Do&voel himfelf, even as weak as any thing advance*, by G. F^ in any of his Writings, It is true, all th< World juftified Cyprian and the three Presbyter* and condemned the five, but not becaufe Cyprian hat a Sovereignty ( nothing appears that may be a (ha dowof a Pretence for this) but becaufe he and t" three Presbyters were in the right, and the Chu, of Carthage adher'd to them, and the five Pres ters together with the fcandalous Crew that U part with them, afted impioully and notorioufly i gainft God and the Laws of the Gofpel, and Pra flice of the Univerfal Church. If the three Pref byters alone had retained their Integrity, and Cypri^ had join'd with the other five in their Villanies, i would evidently have been the Duty of all tk s Churches, and no doubt they would actually haw juftified the three honeft Presbyters, and concurr'cl withthenv, and the profligate Bifhop together witr the five had been depos'd and Excommunicated If there were a Minifter in a Paroch and eight E| ders, and if five of thefe Elders fhould make De feftion and become guilty of grofs Enormities, am top with the Minifter and the three Elders wto retain their Integrity, and pejrfift in their wicked jiefs, and if the Affair come before a Synod, wil nptthe Synod condemn the five apoftate and impiou Elders and depofe them, and approve the Proceed ing (ha i had not a Monarchical Power. 261 ings of the Minifter and the other three Elders ? And may Qot this be without fuppofing that the Mi- nifter has a Sovereignty, or chat five Elders cannot outvote a Minifter and three Elders, when they are afting regularly ? Indeed if f. S. had made it ap- pear, than the five Presbyters were deposdorex- fcommunicatedby Cypriamnd the three, without the :Authoritative concurreiKe of the People or any other, he had faid fomething} but that is what he neither did nor could do. And Cypriun himfeif rays, they were Excommunicated by the Synod, or at leaftbythe Church of Carthage and Presbytery, ! laving feveral Neighbouring Bifhops joining with hem +. The Commentary which ( in page 344 ) he puts llpon this Sentence of Cyprian, Seing when J jirjt en- \*rd on my Epifcopal office 1 determined ftatijerim, to \'o nothing by my f elf without your Advice, and the Con* em of my People, appears to be jocular. When he inter'd to his Bifhoprick, fays J» S, Statuerat, he efolvVl or determine to do nothing without the fbrefaid Advice and Confent: the very word, he tes, manifeftly implies, that there was no more in it tau his own Voluntary condefcenfion, it was a thing he |as not bound to by any Divine Prefcript, Apo- olical Tradition, or Ecclefiaftical Constitution, ' f?. Thus to determine with himfelf. The truth is, he might as well have faid, that it fas of free Choice, and Voluntary condeftenfion that L«k/ preached Chrijt crucified to the Corinthians fed if he had pleas'd, he might as well have preached ttpbeuA or Zoroajier to them. Whyr Becaufe he ifys, / determined not to know any thing among you We Jefus Chrift and him Crucified, i/.f/:a, Jm- r>dvi, ftatueram, I determined, the very word he ufes ftp ett Ms ex rjuinque PfCibyierU, iaa pridem de Bcclcfij ptofogU, .rum r.otrroruoi, & nuiKorurn guviiliraoruBi viro- jimifcr abltcj;- .-. i ji. x6ql The Cyprianick Bifhof ufes manifcftly implies fomuch. Is it not very likelj think you, it was nothing but voluntary Condefcen* fioninCrpnawthathe afted in conjunftion with thci Presbytery, when it was far otherwife with the Bi. (hop ioo Years after that time, as is evident from this Canon we cited before, Epifcopus nullius caufaw audiat abjquepr&fentia clericorum fuorum, alioquin ir- ritaerit jementia Epifcopi nifi rtericorum] emeriti a con- frmetur ? Wherefore^. S. may as well fay, it is o voluntary Condefcenfion that the King allows th< Parliament to Vote in making Laws, S?c, The Presbyterians once thought it right fure that in Cyprian's time the Presbyters rul'd th< Church in conjunftion with the Biihop, and wen Copartners with him in the Governing Power; fo: Cyprian in one Epiftle to ComeliuA Bifhopof %ome fays He hopes he did not negleft to read his Letters to the moftflourifhing Clergy which did prefidether together with himfelf, and to the molt Holy an numerous People : tecum illic prafidenti. And tbl truth is, thisfeem'd to be very probable, becaufea- the Ruling Power the Bifhop had or could preten to in the Church us 1 d to be exprefs'd by this woi Frefede. Thus Eufeb.&ift. Mccl. lib m 7. cap. 32. faj Caius ( Bifhop of Kome ) prefided there about years : And according to the Stile of this Autl: fuch a tAzn prefixed, is as much as to fay, fucha \ was Bifhop of fuch a place. Thus lib. 7. ch. 14. 1 ftus prefided at Rome, u e. was Bifhop of Upme. JL 1. 5. c.22* At Caefarea in Paleftin prefided Theoph I lus, that it, was Bifhop of Qafarea. And again, -/J this time Anicetus prefiding over the Roman Chu Vs. But among the many ill turns ^. S. has done! Presbytery, this is one, that he has fpoil'd this I> monftration to us. For, he gives us to underftan that in ftead of Floremifftmo Ckro tecum illicYtxi cjenti, fome Copies of Cyprian's Works hjve onl Ten had not a Monarchical Power. 26 j Tecum ittic Praefenti. Wherefore it is a Queftion, no doubt, whether the Presbyters had any hand at all in Ruling the Church in thofe days ? Tis true, they were prefent with Cornelius ; this will not be denied: bun there is a vaft difference between being *prefevt with him, and managing r be Government in con* junction frith kirn. - There are indeed fome Copies of Cyprian, ia which fome Zealous Men for the good Caufe, have ^utprafemi, in place of prxfidemi in this Sentence, ind made feveral other Amendments, but this they iid by way of perfidioufnefs and treachery ; and if ■the New-Teftament had been in as few hands, as :he Works of Cyprian and fuch Authors were, doubt- ei^s it would have been corrected to us finely in fe- deral places after the fame manner ; and the word facially had been blotted out in the 17th Verfe of he 5 th Chapter of Paul's Epiftle to Timothy^ as a r ery incommodious thing ; or we fhould have had ihe Sentence handfomely inverted after fuch a man- : ier as this, Let the Eiders that labour in the Word imd Doftrine, be counted worthy of double honour, hut efpecially they who Rule well. And feveral 4 >ther Amendments of this kind had certainly been nade. Hear what the Eminent and Famous Mr. Oallie ( whom the Author of the tfult Prejudices a* jiinft the Calvwijis calls the greateft and the moft :arn'd Man that ever was among the Proteftants ) iys with refped to this Particular. € Laying Reafcn and Honefty afide, fays be, they ( to vit J. J.'s dear Friends, who put Prafemi in 4ieu ot Prafidemi ) have moft raiferably and (hame- >elly corrupted all forts of Books and Authors : Certainly we cannot fpeak of the bafenefsof thefe Men, who go lb defperately to work, after that manner it deferveth : and in my Judgment Lau* nxiMBocbelim, in his Preface to the Deer eta Be- . Itfi* Gtlliczn*, had all the Reafon in the World 264 The Cyprianick Bijbop t to deteft thefe Perfons as a People of a mofl roretcLl c ed and malicious Spirit, who have moft miferably gelded and mangled fo vaft a Number of Authors^ 1 both Sacred and Profane^ Ancient and Modern : their 1 ordinary Cufiom being to [pare noPerfon, nothings, * no not St. Lewis bimfelf, out of whofe Pragmatica * Sanftio they have blotted fever al Articles, principal € ly tbefe which concerned the State of France, in tit € Bibliotheca Patrum, Conftitutiones Regia?, am 4 the Synodical Decrees of certain Bifiops lately print € ed at Paris. VVo± Wo, to [peak with the Prophet € to tbefe mifebievous Xjiaves, who do not only lay fuel € treacherous Snares for the venerable ChaHity and In € *z& rix y of the Mufes i but do alfo moft impudently am 1 wickedly deflour, under a falfe and counterfit Preten* c of Religion) even the Mufes themfelves, accounting * this fugling to be a kind of pious Fraud. But we d< € not here write againft thofe Men, itisfufficieir * for us to givea hint only of that which is as clea * as the Sun, namely, that thefe Men have alterar * and corrupted by their Additions in fome place; c and Gelding of others, very many of the Evidence * ot the Belief of the Ancients. Thefe are the} * who in this period of the 12 Epiftle of Cyprti € writ to the People of C*rtbage 9 ( viz. I defire t' c they would patiently hear our Counfelf— that * Fellow Bijhops being affembVd together with us, we t * together examine the Letters and Defiresof tbebleh c Martyrs, according to the Dotlrine of our Lord y *tbe prefence oftbeConfeffors, and according asyejbt * think convenient, fecundum veftram quoque Se I * tentiam ) have maliciouily left out thefe wore * And according m you jb all think convenient , by whi< € we may plainly underftand, that thefe Men won) € not have us by any means to know, That t A ♦Faithful People had ever any thing to dowiip * or had any Vote in the Affairs of the Chur< 1 * Thefe be they who in Bp# 40. h*Yet?hang\l Petri I had not a Monarchical Power. z6$ into Petrum, %ock into Peter, putting Cathedra uns fuper Petrum Domini voce fundata, in lieu of* Super Petram Domini voce fundata 7 &c* Thus Mr. Dallie. Wherefore the Bifhop of Oxford afted unadvifedly* vhenhe fet down Tecum illic prafenti, in the foot of he page araongft the various Readings, he (hould lot have fo far countenanced fuch a perfidious Trick, put pafs'd it by as not worth the noticing: he has ,ifcovered a partial Affeftion to Tyrannical Pre- acy hereby, but done it no other fervice. How pady are they, who are for engaging others in their /ay per fas 2T nefar 9 to take Advantage of the like if this? j Then f.S. tells us, (p. 341, 342. ) That Cipriani ;,uring the time of his Retirement, gave Laws to ,;is Presbyters and Deacons fometimes inMattersof l^ffer Confequence, and fometimes of greater, e. g. Vhile thus in his Retirement, he fends them par- xular Orders concerning the Poor, vifitingtheCon- ;ffors in Prifon, recording particularly the days on Ijhich any Martyrs or Confeffors died in Prifon* Lac afterwards due Regards might be paid to their Jjlemories. He conftitutes them his Vicars, and j Dmmands them to do both his Work and their j wn. He orders them to Communicate fuch and I ich of his Epiftles to the People ; and of thersofthem, to give Copies to fuch ftranger Bi- lops, or Clergy-Men, as at any time (hould happen > be in the City ; all thefe things he enjoins Autho- • .tatively, and in the Stile of a Superior. But ieaft Jj ^efc (hould be deem'd Matters of lefferConfequence^ J add, That even in Matters which were then re- nted of very great importance, heexercifedthw . is Legillative Power. His Presbyters and Dea- t jns writ to him for a Form, he peremptorily forbade a to reconcile any Lapiers other wife than he ordered •, and he not only condemned it as an un- n66 The Cyprianick Bijbop accountable and unexampl'd Prefumption, if they fhould offer to reconcile thofe Lapfers otherwife thaa he had prefcrivM ; But he added a very fcvere Sandion to his Law ; he threatens them with a Suf- penfion from the Exercife of their Office, nay ever* with Excommunication it felf, if they fhould tranP grefs. Fcr my part, I know not what fhould be faid to fuch Banter, Is not this to treat his Readers as Idiots and Dunces ? Is not this to fpeak to the People of Scotland as if they were a Company of Ignora* mus's or Blockheads? For his Defign is, no doubt^ to make them fenfible of their Error in abolifhing Prelacy, and fetting up Presbyterian Government in this Church, and that the People of England have behaved much more wifely and honeftly, and more agreeably to the Principles of Chriftians in tbeCf pianick Age, by adhering to that Government. Verily he might as well have faid, ThatBiftiojj Ignatius was Bilhop Polycarp's Sovereign Lord, hacl Abfolute Power over hira, and gave Laws to hiraJ becaufe he writ to him, and exhorted him after thi manner. * Maintain thy place with all care both of Fledl * and Spirit, make it thy Endeavour to preferve Uf c nity in thy Cnurch, than which nothing is better! * Bear with all Men, even as the Lord with theej * lupport all in Love, as alfo thou doeft ; pray with! * out ceafing, ask more Understanding than wha * thou already haft, be watchful having thy Spirt 4 alwife awake, fpeak to every one according as Got 4 (hall enable thee, bear the Infirmities of all as J * perfeft Combatant, where the Labour is grea I * the Gain is fo too. Every Wound is not heal' I 4 with the fame Plaifter, if the Acceflions of the Dil * eafe be vehement, mollify them with foft Reme. e € Let not the Widows be neglefted, be thou afte 4 God, their Guardian. Let your AffembKes [ jnorl had not a Monarchical Power. 16 7 : more frequent, enquire into'all by Name, orerlook not the Men and Maid-fervants, neither let them : be puffed up, but rather let them be more fubject to the Gloty of God. Flee evil Arts, or rather ' make not any mention of them. Say to my Sifters, I that they love the Lord, and be fatisfied with their own Husbands both in the Flefh and Spirit. In like manner, exhort my Brethren in the Name of Jefus Chrift, that they love their Wives even as the Lord the Church. But for as much as lhave not been able to write to all the Churches, be- , caufe I muft fuddenly fail from Troas to NeapolU^ do you write to the Churches that are near you, that they alfo may do in like manner ; let thofe that are i able fend Mefiengers, and let the reft fend their : Letters by thofe who fhall befent by you. \ Cyprian wrote to the Presbytery and Church of 7artbage never a whit more Authoritatively, or in jheStileofa Superior, than Ignatim doth here to foljcarp, and did no more fend Orders concerning he Poor, and vifiring the Confeffors in Prifon, &c. run Ignatim did concerning the Widows, and the *en or Maid Servants; and did no more exert a igiflative Power, than Ignatius when he writ, Let our Jjjemblies be more frequent, &c. And if Igna- fV-had pieas'd, he could have added a f-verer San- to his Laws, and told Poljcarp y That he fhould :>e damn'd eternally if he did not give punttual Obe- ticnce. But it is not worth the while to infill on uch Trifles. 1 That we may not omit any thing that has appear- .nce of Difficulty, Cyprian^ and lome Bifhop* that *ere with him at the time} did indeed, when he was nhis Retirement, and fo without the Presbytery, in Numidicui Presbyter, and Aureliui, CeUrinm ind SaxurvA Lectors. But this helps not rhe Prela- ical Caufe, and proves not, that the Bifhop had a sovereignty. For, as to the Ordination of Numidi. L i 2 %6S The Cyprianick Bifhop €m and Aureliu*, he did plead immediate Revelation, and no Presbytery or Church will quarrel a Mini- ster or Bifhop for ordaining an Eider or a Deacon without them, if he can inftruftan immediate Com- mand from God for his Warrant. And as to the Ordination of Celerinm, he alfo pretended Revela- tion: And leaft this fhould not prove altogether fatif- laaory to the Presbytery and People, he makes a Reference of the Affair to them, ( letti* Uteri* noflrii. quibu& ego Q> College referimus ad vos, viz. ad Presby* tertum 8? Ecchfiam^ Ep. 39. j quo fetifu referre ad Senatum dichur f fays the Learn'd Bifhop of Oxford, ttimirum ut quod faSuin erat illorum fuffragio ratim baberetur, that it, "That the Carthaginian Church and Presbytery might either ratify that Ordination, or if they misbelieved him, cafs and difannull it a* the Hgman Senate might do, when a Reference ol any Cafe was made to them. Laftly, As to the Or- dination of Saxurm, he makes a very good Excufe. Nihil ergo a me, fays he, abfemibuA vobis faBum eftl fed quod jam pridem communi Confilio omnium noftrunl tccperat, neceffttate urgente promotum eft, Ep. 29. asf much as to fay, It could not properly befaid, thai! hebadordain'd Saturm without their Concurrenol or in their abfence, fein^ he had only perfefted tha I which before was concluded upon by them, beinjl prefs'd thereto by urgent NeceiTity. And if it ■ thought, that the Neceffity he pleads was not a fuf ficient Excufe, it may very well bs faid, ThatCj- frian made a wrong Step with refpeft to this AfFain he was not infallible, and might prevaricate fame times; The Prelatifts themfelves will affirm, tha his being for Re-baptizing thefe who came overt' the Church from the Novatian Seft, was very ufl accountable; and if the Difciples of Mr. Do dm will not condemn Cyprian's Conduft with refpeft t the Novatian's ( and indeed they muft not if they b confequcntial to their Principles; they muft coi demr 1 had not a Monarchical Power. z6g lemn StepbanusBifho^ of 'Upme, and the Church Uni- 'crfal foon after his time, and the Oecumenical Council of Nice. And I think we have more rea- i>n to fay, That Cyprian made a wrong Step, than he DodweUians have, That the Bifhop oi Egmz and Council of &ke made a wrong Step. CHAP. VII. \hat which is now calPd Presbyterian Go* vernment in Scotland, is really Epifco- . pal Government, in the fame fenfe the Government of the Church was Epifcopal in the j. and 4, Centuries* rHey tell us, That a Bifhop in Cyprian'stxmc was fomething more than a Presbyterian Moderator ; and if by Presbyterian Mode- itor, you underftand the Moderator of a Courc e call the Presbytery, and Synod, or the like, the fprianick Bifhop was indeed fomething more. Par- ticularly, he had, as wasfaid, this remarkable PrtV ■fin/?, That the Presbytery could do nothing of - onfequence without him: xhix u, If the Bifhop res abfent, the Presbytery was to do nothing of i tnfiderable Import without confulting or advning ith him ; and if the Epifcopal Chair was vacant, He Presbytery us'd, and may be was obliged, to aftor, or the Moderator of the Parochial Presby- »ry is the very fame thing that the Cjprianick Bi- iop was. And whatever Power the Cjprianick Bifhop had 1 the Presbytery, the fame has the Minifter or 'aftour now in the Seflion or Parochial Presbytery* Jot long fince, a Provincial Synod in this Nation ladefuchan Aft as this, That the Seflion or Paro- nial Presbytery, (hall do nothing in Ecclefiaftical .ffairs without the Minifter, That it is not a Legal- T , or if you pleafe, aCanonicallyconftitutedCourt ithout him \ fo that whatever they aft by thein- .lves, that is, without their Minifter prefiding ;nong 'em, or failing him, the Minifter of fome ihuouring Congregation, is ipfo fatio null and toi'a, tho ftill he has no Negative Voice when he \ there. The Power of the Presbytery was not fo uch minced in Cyprian's time. Wherefore, notwithstanding all the Complaints (ainft us for abolifhing Epifcopacy, C the Ancient d Apoftolical Government of the Church ) we hre Kill fuch a Prelacy amongft us at this day, ■was in the Church in the days of Cyprian. If the liniftersof that Synod we were fpeaking of ( and le Minifters of the other Syncds alfo follow the f;ne way > were call'd Bijkops, and their Ruling- iders, Presbyters, and if the Afts of the Seflion or lrochial Presbytery, were made to go in the Name tthe Minifter or Bilhop, or were calKd the Bifhop's jTts, and if they (hould determine nothing of mo- fcnt but in the prefence of the whole Brotherhood* .fyttrnitate omni prxfente, ( that U, All thefe of the Xngregation whom they admit to Burgeffes ot the C arch ) \5 jeeundum eorum Arbitrium, as Cyprian c xeffeth if, and if fome of the Elders or Presbyters *o are beft qualified, were allow'd to Preach or tptize in the abfencc of the Bifhop or Minifter, I 272 The Cypfianick Bijbop I would defy ^. Randall his Fraternity to (hew me one hairs-breadth of difference between the faid Mi' nifters 3 and the Bifhops belonging to the Provincial Synods of Carthage and J{ome in the days of Cyprian and Cornelius. So that we may fay, There is no difference but withrefpeft to the Name, between the Minifterso our Congregations in Scotland at this day, and the Bifhops who rul'd the Churches in Cyprian's day anc a hundred Years after, and that the whole Scheme of our Government is the fame with very little Va- riation. To come to Particulars, i . The Cyprianick Bifhop was a Congregational ^ Bifhop, his whole Diocefs confifted of one fingl Congregation* In like manner, the Presbyteriait Minifter is a Parochial Bifhop, one Congregatio:|fr is his Diocefs. But the Englijb Prelate isaBifhofc of many hundred Congregations, and therefore ei fentiaily different from the Cyprianick Biihops. 2. The Cyprianick Bifhop was chofen bythePec pie, and ordain'd not by the Presbytery but by th Neighbouring Bifhops. The Presbyterian Bifho is alio elected by the People, the Heritors and El ders propofe, or nominate the Perfon to the People and if they be not facisfied may rejeft him : And. not ordain'd by the Seffion or Parochial Presby ten but by the Neighbouring Bifhops, or the Paftoui of the Neighbouring Congregations. But the Ern Jijh Prelate is elefted by the King. 3. Every Bifhop in Cyprian's time hada Presb; tejy, a Court made up of Presbyters and Deacoc and ail the Presbyters and Deacons in this Presbj terybdong'd to one Church or Congregation, ^ l Congregation whereof the Bifhop was Paftour. like manner, every Presbyterian Bifhop has Presbytery, which is call'd the Seffion, and tl Presbytery confifts of the Elders and Deacons the Congregation of which he is Paftour, But tl had not a Monarchical Power. 273 EngUjb Prelate has no Presbytery at ail, and the Scotijh Prelate had many Presbyteries, every one of which had a particular Moderator of its own. Wherefore the Scotifh Prelate was a kind ofaBifhop never heard of in the World before, and would cer- tainly have been look'd on as a Monfter in the days rf Cyprian. And a Bifhop without a Presbytery gsrouid have been thought no lcf> ftrange, excepting perhaps if the Diocefs or Congregation wasfofmail, >:hat it did not need any other Officer, but a Bifhop *nd Deacon or two. Perhaps they will fay, that the EtigUjh Prelate las his Presbytery, and will tell us of the Chapter. Jut this is to mock People. The Chapter has no ffinity with an ancient Presbytery. 1. The ancient 3 resbytery confifted of all the Presbyters in the E- ifcopai Diocefs, but the Chapter is not the twen- ieth part of thefe who are reckon'd the Presbyters f the Diocefs. 2. The ancient Presbytery was ofen by the Church, but the Chapter is elected • the Bifhop. What fort of a Parliament would ic , if the Members thereof were nominated by the ing^ it would be as good as none at all. 3. The cient Presbytery managed the Difcipline or Dio- fs of the Church, call'd the Scandalous in the Di- fs before them, inflicted Cenfures, abfolve i Pe- tents, r <5c. but the Chapter does not meddle with e Difciplne, with inflating Cenfures on the Scan- lous, or abfolving Pen. tents, 6J*. Wherefore the laptercan no more be call' d the Presbytery, thao can be call'd the Court of Admira'lky or the >e. 4 § This Cjpri&nick Bifhop and Presbytery ruled the lurch, or managed the D.fcipline of the Concre- tion or Diocefs, c^nfurcd the Scandalous, 15c. And Presbyterian Bilhop and Seifion, or Presbytery, • the fame. Mm y The 274 The Cyprianick Bifhop 5. The Cfpriavick Bifhop was conftant Moderator in the Presbytery, So is the Probyterian Bi'hop. 6. The Cypriuni'k Bifhop was fo far from h-ivingj Abfolute Power, thai he had no: a Negative Voice. Neither has the Presbyrerian Bifhop. 7. All the Presbyters and Deacons of the Ep Tco- pal Di-Kefs in CtpriwS rime, were Members of the Pres 5 >yteiy, and did fit in it. So arc all the P esby- ters and Deacons in the Presbyterian Diocefsat thi* day. fl 8. There were not many Presbyters in an EpifMj copal Diocefs in Cypriirfs time, there were neverf above eight in Cyprian's Diocefs, tho it was one of r the !argtft in the World at thac time. And therel 1 are gen rally about tight, or ten, or twelve in *l Presbvteiian Diocefs. 9. ThcCfpnavick Bifhop a&ed asadaily andcoflff ftant P. ftour. So do the Presbyterian Bifhops. ^ i'o. Tt^eQ^nw/d' Bifhop p. cached ard adminM ftr.d the Sacraments, and peifonally performed thtj Due es ot a da.lv Pahour to all the People within^ his Diocefs. So does the Presbyterian bilhop. The»i Englijh Prelate cannoc do fo, neither could the St*m r> Prelates, th.y were Bilhcps toen fpecifically dif ferencfrtm the C^r/^* Bilhop. W 11. The Qp'/ nU-k Bilhop tcok perfonal Infpetfr 1 on and Care uiall tnc individual Perfons in hisDifr * eels. Ibui Puuthm, fee p. 15. Thus Cyprian, Ipfi^ fingulos ag&re&i, fee p. 42. Thus lgnanm, Ev^uir(U into ill by Name, fee p. 12, 13. And this the Presby^ terian t ilhopdoth. The Englijh Prelate cannot « h fo, and therefore is not a Cypnmick Bilhop. 12. SeingthcQpn^w/^ Bifhop and hit> Presbyter: & had bu: one Congregation in charge among then all, and the Bilhop himfelt'afted as daily and conitani •' Paftour, the Presbyters could have lictleornochinj « to do, but to take notice of the Conversion of tlw t PCO'I had $wt d Monarchical Power. 275- People, and to Rule. And thus oar Presbyterian Bifhop's /reshvtcrs are Rjiiing.Ei&ers. It the Presbyterians contradict the Practice of Che jncient Cnuich, in nut allowing. the Presbyters or Ruli-ig Elder* to preach and adininirter Sacraments xcaliondlly, or in the Bilhops abferce; ti.ePida- :ifts contradict it every whir, as much by allowing :hefe wi om they reckon Pr.sbytcrs, to preach and Ulminiftc-rSacramentsin the prej'cmr oi thtir tfifhops. ["he laft Canon of the 1. Council of Ormge appoints, Qui if 1 Bifbop lofe hisSenfesor longue, it jbuli not be awful jor hi* presbyters to perform the Epifcop.il Fundi- us in bt* pre fence, but be jball fend for a Bifhop, wba tall perform the Epifcopal Functions in bis Church. I 13. The Cjp'Unlk Presbytery did nothing with* u: tne knowledge of the Biihop. Let nothing be dons n\b.ui thy Lnovledgc 9 fays Jgnatm to Polycjrp. And he Parochial Prc-sb, eery is not a legally conftituted louit without the Mmirtcr or Paltour. 14. The Cypunhk Presbytery, if the Chair was leant, usdio delay Atfairs of greater moment till Bifhop was conftituted. So doth the Parochial resoy.ery. i$. Ordination was referved to the Bifhop in Cy- uw'btime, to maintain (as fays Jfodore ) theAu- ?rity and Splendour of the Prielthood. In like inner, the Presbyters belonging to our Presbyte- n Bithops are not permitted to lay on han.ts, or c excluded from Ordinations : and for oughc I K>w, the Splendour or* the Priefthood is all the Jafon we can give for fuch a Practice, and our, 'c ordaining the Deacons by impolition of hands ntrary to clear Scripture Example, Atts, ch. 6. 16. All the Bilhops in Cyprian'siime were equal ; WC emmquifnuam nojtrum Epiftopumfe Epijcoporum Mtituit t lays Cyprun. i< e. None among us pre- lids to be a Bilhop of Bilhops. And thus all the iesbyteriaa fci&opa are compieatly equal* Mm z ' Thus 276 The Cyprianick Bifbof Thus now it is evident, that the Presbyterian "Mi xiifters are real proper Diocefan Bifhops, Diocefan Bifhops I fay in that fenfe thcCypriavick Bifhops were. And that there is nod fference between a QyfrtAnick and Presbyterian Bifhop, fave that the one was ordi- narily call'd a Bifhop, and t're o:her is ordinarily call'd a Minifter, that is to fay, the difference be- tween them is not real but nominal cnly. In like manner, that which is now call'd Presbyterian Go- vernment in ScotUrd > is really Epifcopal Govern* ment, in that fenfe the Government ot the Church was Epifcopal in the 3. and 4. Century. This wil: be evident abundantly if Particulars be confidered. 1. In the 3. and 4. Centuries, every particulai Church, Diccefsor Congregation, was govern'd bj its own Bifhop and Presbytery. In like manner every Presbyterian Church or Congregation har its i afiour or Bifhop, and Presbytery or Seflion bj which ic is governed. 2. Forou^ht 1 know, the Ancient Church hat no fuch flared Eccleiiaftical Courts or Judicarories,a tbefe which ^o under the Name of frcsbftcries u ScotUr.i at this day. The Affairs of the Churche 1 hen were order'd by the Pa furors or Bifhops, ant their rcfpecHve Congregational Presbyteries, o what we call Kirk-fehions, And therefore, car 1 fhould betaken, that Presbyteries be not permittee to iacroach on the Liberties ot ths Kirk-felTion-. Paij ticularly , it would in my Opinion be more agrffl able to Divine Inftitu:ion, and the Practice of th ancient Church, that the Minifters and Kirk-feffior have tne Power of Excommunication, ( and it woul not be amifs, that fome Neighbouring Bifhops c >limfters join them, or affile the Minifter and 5eff on in cafe of fuch weighty Bufmefs, according I the Cuftom of the 3. and 4. Centuries) than ths they fhould be depriv'd thereof altogether. Bi confidering tfca: our Presbyters or Elders are w " uhoU had not a Monarchical Power. 277 wholly fet apart to the Church's Service as they were in ancient times, and arc Trades-men for the moft part, and that the People now do not meddle in the Government as they did in the 3d. Century : Pm inclin'd to believe, that the Practice of the Church of Scotland as to this Particular, cannot be ~o much blam'dasotherwife it mi^ht. Yet the an- ;ient Church had occafional Meetings, net unlike :hefe Courts we now call Presbyteries: As when 6 •>r i2 Neighbouring Bithops join'd the Presbytery or what we call the SeiTionJ in cafe of extraordina- ry Affairs, as we have faid, as, when a Bifhop or D resbyter was to be judged, or the like. Scd C? fovinus <$ Maximus Sentemia novem Epifcopornm con* jemnatiy that was the Presbytery, £5 iterata quo^uc pluribm nobis in concilio annofupzriore abfienti y that V2s the Synod. Cj/pr, Ep. 59. 3. They had their Provincial Synods like ours, Vhich us'd to meet punctually, as ours do, twice a ear, at ieaft from the times of the Council of Nice % appears from the 5. Canon; but with this DifFc- nce, That their Synods had conftant Moderators the 4. Century (and perhaps in the 3d. ) who erccaii'd Metropolitans after C/prians time, and " re the Nuene Council. But 1 cannot but fay, our Method in choofing Annual Metropolitans Moderators, is much mure equitable. Very rea- lble it is, that :he bilhop bj perpetual Modera- in the Presbytery, Icing thefe v, ho are the Con* ucnt Members of me Presbytery, are inferior to m in Order or Degree. The Caic is not the fame refpeft to the Synod, feeing they who are the nftitucnt Members thereof ( 1 mca:i theBifhops : Paftours) are equal in Decree and Order. To cefcr one to all tne rert b.caufe his Church U in ic principal City is a ridiculous things and has no -Mation at all to the Nature of Churches, which e equal all of them whether they be in the City or zjS The Cyprianick Bijhop or Country, Seing all Bifhops are equal, whethc at %pme, or Eu^ubiuw, or ^egium : it i 5 jult, that aj of them be honoured equally, or be mate Metro politaas tour about, ttof d ikcuov i*s aui*$ ph r& auviov or fchhrrs, as well as B:!hv;p; or Pafrou r s, tor the General Council or Aff.-mb.y, feing by Divine Appointment, and accon.i. g o the Pratt cc of the Univerfal Church for nor haveRecour to the National Synod or GeneialAffembly, In lik<[ manner.; had not a Monarchic al Power. 18$ manner, if a Perfon judge himfelf wronged by any o|" our Presbyteries, he may Appeal to the J'rovmcia 1 Synod, and if he thinks he is injured by the Synodi he may have recdurfe to the General Affembly, or National Synod for Remedy, it. The 9. Can: Counc:tfw:4.i8, cited a little before, crdains thefe to be Excommunicated who appeal from the Synod of Africa, or General Affembly, to judge beyond the Sets. And the fixth Canon ot the Council of Nice ( as it is glofs'd by the African Bi- Ihops in their Letter to Pope Czleftine ) fpeaks to the feme purpofe. Alfo the firft Oecumenical Council ItConftantinopIe, in their Canon 6. appoints, That the Accufation of a Bijbop Jkall be carried to the Bijhops of his own Province. And if the Bifbops of the Province \§annot)ttdge of the Crimes whereof a Bifhop is accufed % Weceurfe muft be had to the Synod of the Diocefs, which ■fifcfwers to our General Affembly; But if am flighting \tbcfe LarvSyJball addrefs himfelj cither to theEmperor or Secular fudge 5, or Jball defire any Oecumenical Council {without acqiuefcing in the judgment of the Bijbops of :£r Wiocefsjbe ought to be beard no longer, face he has violxtel mbeCanons^and overthrown the Di\cip\ine of the Church, ih—ATi(Ji.do~aU 7fc\r £ AioiyJiGZac ETKntQTns} rov tgiZtct M Tctf&TcLP rift* KttTtryofiav ytn \7) tPexf)Af £<; y.a.&ufyi- iprra^tAP. And to the fame purpofe Counc:Cartb.an. iftoj. Can. 11. And agreeably to thefe Canons it is *bot lawful to Appeal trom our General Affembly. I I think I may now fay, it is made fufficiently evi- dent, That that Government which is commonly cal- led Presbyterian Government, to wit, TheGovern- t ment of the Church by Presbyteries, Synods, Gene- i ral Affemblies, and Commiflions of General Affem- iblies, is the very fame Government that was in the jChurch in the third and fourth Centuries; and 1: ,confequently if the Government of theChurch in the i third and fourthCenturies wasEpilcopalGovcrnment, i\ Nfl2 as 284 The Cyprianick Bifhop as it wascertainlv, our prerent PresbyterianGovern* ment is really and properly Epifcopal Government* Cyprian fays in his firft Epiftle, Cum \am pridem in eoncilio Epifcoporumjtatumfit, ne qui* de ClericU & Dei j Minijtris tutorem vel curatorem teftamento fuo conftitu^ ai,quando fwguli Divino Sacerdotio honor ati y $!) in Clc* rico Minifterio covftituti, non nifi Altati & Sacrifichs defervire^SS precibus at que or at ion i bus vacare debeanu Scriptum eft enim y nemo militans Deo obligat fe mole ft its fecularibus, ut pojfit placere ei 9 cut fe probavit. QuoA cum de omnibus dit~humfit y quanto magis Cleric i molefiiit w.j/j that rsir'- yetb ( fays ¥<*ui to Timothy, who was a Billiop according to our Prelatilis.; eniangtitb b'»fc>'f vitb the affairs tf tbit l ; fe } that be may ptiije b:», »h bztk(b r -fsn v;iti to hi a Sml&K* had not a Monarchical Power. 185 . c. per tresfeptimanasnon cclebrajjet convcntum 9 com- tunioneprivaretur. Si ergo hae circaLaicos conjtitutx unx tamo magU nee licet nee decer, ut EpifcopuA fi ullam tarn gravem habet neceffitatem, nee tarn diffiei- zm rationew y tarn diu defit abEcckfia, ne populum wvijitt. Vniverfi dixerunt placere ftbi* Even 1 the 9th. Century the Nonrefidence of Bi- iops was coademn'd as a bafe abufe by a Synod : P^pme under Eugenm 2. Thejr6. C^non bears this 1'itle, Vt Epifcopi extra propria* Par§ehias non moren- ir, and isto this purpofe, Bijhops Jhould always re* \ie in their Paroches, labouring in Piety to carrf on Iwir Edification, becaufe the ab fence of the Bijhop proves t "times hurtful to the People \ And the Council at Carthage an: 398 Can: It or- lins, that a Biftops houfhold ftuff (hall be of little forth, his Table and Diec mean, and thathefhould cquire Authority by his Faith and Merit, and not if External Pomp.X^ Epifcoptcsvilem fupelleftilem i & tnfam ac vtttumpauperem babeat, &c. And the 25. an. of the Council of Antioch, an: 342, ordains that flhops be Content with Neceffaries. f4mfcA*f43*rea> I k&i ajjTGVTtoV fioVTuV) eif rds dvctyKcucLS ewrS fHCtC. JVnd the 45 . Canon of the juft now mention'dCoun* |of Carthage, Forbids Clergy-men to dijiwpuijb them- F\ves by their Habit. By thefe Canons of Ancient Councils, you may Stge whether the Presbyterian Minifters, or Englifo relates look likeft the Primitive Bilhops. P H A P. %%6 T^Cyprianick Bifbop CHAP. VIII. The fame thing is further evidenced^ com* faring the Dtfcipline of this Church witi that of the Ancient Church in ma, particulars* AS the Presbyterian Church in ScotUnd has t\ fame Epifcopacy that the AncientChurch hac and the fame kind of Ecclefiaftical Court!, presbyteries, Synods, and General Afiemblies, £?* in like manner the Discipline of the Church of Scot land, or that which we call the Presbyterian Disci- pline, is very conform to the AncientDifcipline.Tfrfc now is what we are intending to make appear in thisL Chapter, by comparing the DifciplineoftheChurd| ot Scotland with that of the Ancient Church, bj which it will be evident, that moft, if not all the Aftsof our General Aflemblies, are very agrecabl< to the Canons of the Ancient Councils. i. Ouc Church allows not Ordinations, ad Mini' fierium vagum, as they call it, or permits not a Per-] fon to be Ordain'd, unlefs he be cali'd to a particular 1 Poft, to exert his Office in fome Church or particu- lar Congregation ; conform to the 6. Canon of th Univerlal Council at Chalcedony which forbids T Ordination of any Clergy-man abfolutely ( /xwJW < diroKiKv^/Xvcoi 'XfrifoToveiZK} //wr* Tf£cr/3JT€f ov 9 ^wrd J^idKouoVjuriTt oKus nvd $J iv <6KKKyi ordains, The Presbyteries to proceed with Chunl [ c Ccnjures 9 even to Excommunication againjt thefe Mf- 5, nijiers who being Deps'd by the Ajfembly, fubmit no\ \ to their Sentence, but ftiU exercife fome part oj tkt ... Minijttrial function. This Aft is nothing but a re had not a Monarchical Power. 2S9 reviving of the fourth Canon of the Council of An' tiocb, which ordains^ That in cafe a Bijhop being De m pos'd by aSynod,or a Presbyter or a Deacon being De* pos'd by hi* BiJbop 9 fidll dare to dif charge the $untlion s of their Offices before they be reftor'd, can never bop* to be reftord in another Synod, that they full not be permitted to defend tkemfelves y and that all theje Jhall \be Excommunicated who have Communicated with them 9 and knew the Judgment that tdm given againfl them, dhhd rdains,that if aClergy-man being accusd before the Ecclefiaftical Tribunal, removeth the Caufe to the Civil Magiftrates, tho he even gain the Caufe, he hall lolc his Place. How far were Chriftians rom being Eraftian in thofe Days ? O q 6. A 290 The Cyprianick Bijhop 6. A Minifter would be condemn'd by ourChurch if he fhould invade hisNeighbour'sParifh, Preach, or AdminifterSacraments,holdSeflionthere,or the like, without being call'd thereto: Which is very Con- formant with many Ancient Conftitutions. Thus the forefaid Council of Antioch, in their 22d. Canon, Forbids a Bijhop to meddle within the Diocefs of another ( kiriatcoTrov firi iTijicu'veiV dwoTfi* 'TroKei Tti fjLYi vTOKei/uivn cnjJra ) and to make any Ordination there. And the Council of Carthage, anno 397, Canon 20, forbids Bijhops to under, take any thing in the Diocefs of their Neighbours* Flacuity ut a nullo Epifcopo ufurpentur Tlebes alien*, nee aliqui* Epifcoporum fupsrgrediatur in dicecefi fuum Collegam. And the Council of Conjiantinople, anno 383, in Can: 2d. forbids every Bijhop in particular, to go out of the bounds of his own Country to ordain, or to meddle with the Affairs of the Churches in another Diocefs. tcu$ u7rzfo?ict$ kKKKtiaictt^ ph \ declaring, that this can- not be done but by the Authority of the Synod y which bjs power to promote one that it worthy y when the incumbent U removed by Death. Thus the Council at J{ome un- der Pope Hilarmi in their laft Canon, forbids Bi- fhops choofmg their Succejfots, against the abufe which was then creep* d in in Spain. Senique nonnulli EpiJ- copitum, qui non nifi meritU prxcedentibus datur y non divmum mUnm fed hareditarium putunteffe compen* dium y r d credunt, ficut res caducas atque mortales^ nx jaterdotium, velut legatorio aut tejiamentario jure, pojfe dimitii. Nam pleriqie facer dotes in mortis con- O 2 fmo %<)2 !Htf Cyprianick Bijhop finio cenftituti, in locum fuum feruntur alios iefigru. tti nominibm fubrogare^ut fcilicet non legitime expefte- tur eletlio,fed defuntli gratificatio propopuli habeaxur ajfenfu. Quod quam grave fit xftimate. Atque ideo fi placet, ctiam banc licentiam generaliter de Ecclefiu auferamm , xo* The Scotijh Affembly in the year 1694, Sef. 8 # ordains Presbyteries in all Procejfes again]} Mini- fiers or Bijbops to proceed with all due Circumfpetlion and Prudence. This Aft is the ftme upon the mat- ter with the 6th. Canon of the fecond Council of Carthage, which forbids the admitting any Perfons of bad Reputation as accusers of Bijhops. Ab univerfis Epifeopit diilum eft, ft criminofa eft non admittatur: omnibu* placet. u. The General Affembly ot the Church of Scot- land in the year 1698, Sef. 8. made an Aft anent punftual fending of Commiffioners or Deputies to the General Alfeuiblies, and their Attendance du« ring the fitting thereof; conform to the 43d. Ca- pon ot the Council of Carthage, anno 397, which is againft thofe who [atUfy themjelves rvith governing their Diocefs without attending on Councils. And Canon 21. of the Council there, anno 398, which bears, That a Bijkop ought not to Dijpenfe with hu going to the Synod, unlefs there be' great Neceflity, Thus Codex Can: Ecclef. Afric. Item placutt, ut quotiefe cunque concilium congregandum eft, Epifeopi, qui neque atate y neque tegtitudine, neque aliquagraviorineceflitatp impediuntur competenter occurrant. Quod fi non potu* trint occur r ere, excufationes fuas in tratloria confer i- bavt. Which is our way. The Scotijh Affembly in the fame Aft appoints that each Affembly nomi* sate a Committee to Judge thefe who either come npt to the Affembly, or attend not duly when there, |u In like manner the Council at Carthage, anno 407, in. jheir 6th. Canon, nominates fudges to examine the Cc bad not a Monarchical Power. 29$ Bufinefs of certain Deputies who cams vox to the Council. 12. The Affembly of this Church in the year 1647, ordains, that every Deputy, whojball be abfent [from the Affembly without a reafonable Excufe, Jball be [fufpended until the Provincial Synod next thereafter if towing* And the Council oiTarraco, anno 516, Inade fuch an other Canon. A Bijhop, who negle&s \\o come to a Synod, and U not detained by any Sicknefs y {ought to be deprived of the Communion of bt* Brethren Until the next Synod. Cenfuerunt, ufque ad futurum \Concilium cunclorum Eprfcoporum Charitatis Commu- \1i0ne priuetur. To the fame purpofe the 35 Canon )f the Council of Agatha, anno. 506, admitting ;>ne's being fent for by the King as a relevant Ex- ufe of abfence, 13. Our Church permits not Laick Perfons ei- her to Baptize or Adminiftcrthe Eucharift. Thug \poft. Con ft. lib. 3. cap. ic. W Faith. Nee ad ipjcu legentes alii jtudio vel doceni veldifcendi convent ant\({uoM am hoc Apostolus ]ubet. 14. Neither doth our Church allow Deacons t< Adminifter the Sacraments. Jenullian does indeec fay, That a Bifhop might imploya Deacon to Bap tize, Lib.de Bap.c 17, but thac was manifeftly con trary to the Primitive Inftitution of that Office Afts cb. 6. And the Council of Nice fays exprefly ii their 18th. Canon, That it does not belong to the Deacons to Adminifter the Eucharift, m* tfyatct [ah k^ovTctt Tfof'ifeiv* And the Council Aries, anno. 314, in their 15th. Canon, exprelly pro hibits the Deacons to Adminifter that Sacrament De DiaconibvA quos cognovimm multti I oris offerrt placuit, minime fieri debere. And feing the Sacra ment.of Baptifm is of the fame Nature with tha ot the Eucharift, they who have no Right toAdminr fterthe one, can have no Right to Adminifter th* other. Wherefore the Praftice of the Church England as to this particular, or their impowerinj Deacons to Baptize, but not to Adminifter the Su^ per or Eucharift, is contrary to common Senfe. 15. Our Church permits not Presbycers or rulinj Elders to Preach or Adminifter Sacraments. Nei ther doth this much contradict the praftice of th Ancient Church, at leaftin the firft three Centu ries. For feing all the Epifcopal Dioceffes ther were only Congregational Churches* and the Bi Ihops did officiate conftantly as thePaftors,the Pre! byters had not accels to Preach, SV.but accidental ly and very feldom. And does not lenullian plait ly declare, that in his time the Sacrament cfth Eucharift us'd to beadmmiftred by none but th Bifhops ? Nee de aliorum manu quam Vrxfidentiw fmimus, faith he, vi\. Eucbarijtia Sacramentm Andfays an eminently Learn'd Divine, tC If in th! " Eaft the Presbyters were allowed to Preach, i 1 u was otherwife in the Weft, for there the Bifhoj « item had not a Monarchical Power. 295 r themfelves performed that Work for many Ages. 1 The firft Presbyter that ever was permitted to : c Preach publickly in Africa, w^s Augujiin, and ; this he did by the Permiflion of his Biihop Valerius, $ who was a Greek by Birth, and that was judged i- an irregular thing, it being contrary to the ufe * and pradiceofthe Churches of Africa, that Pref- I byters fhould be permitted to Preach, as P&ffidim I obferves in the Life of Auguftin. M. Lanoaue ion for 1 de la Difciph des Fr\ de Fr: avec ceiie des Anc\ l brer. I 16. The General Affembly of this Church, in the [ear 1690, forbids private ufe of the Sacraments, Ind firft of Baptifm, prohibiting the Adminiitration If that Sacrament in private Houfcs, or any where lut in the Church or Congregation. And that Aft Iras a reviving of the 59Canon of theOecumenical or Ilniverfal Council call'd, Quini-Sexxum, which Canon is formed thus, twS^u$w vjKrv$iaGiz.a> •/J^OV QlKldLS -Toyy^&VOVTl ^sLlTTUyLit i~iT*KH£u &{ /,ct i }QKix,ouf rt T$z )rovectx atatti exiftunt, priufquam ad Baptifmum acce- lant,inftruendifwt & fideitf Baptifmatti Sacramento, lecnon $$ iUi 9 qui alios de facro fonte ju[cipiunt 9 qui* \ue ad percipiendum Santli Spiritus Donum^ cor am "ontificibuipro alivs Patroni exiflunt, inteiligere debe* wx& vim tanti Sacramenti & quid pro aliti fpopon- lerint. 19. According to the Difcipline of this Church, ;hefe who are lying under any Scandal, cannot pre- entthrir Children to Baptifm, or be Sponfors for :hem, till they profefs their Repentance, and be ibfolved or received again into the Peace of the Church. Thus it is added in this fame 54th. Canon >f the Council ot Parti > Illos tamen in kocCapiiuh pecialiter ab bti officii* rcmovendoSiJuditamui, qui prop- er reatum fuumpublicapcenitentiajunt mulftati, -vide- icet tit nee alios de facri jontti baptifmate fufcipiant 3 vecetiamad percipiendum Jancii fpiritus donum^aliorum tatroni coram Pontifictbus exifiant donee per dignam Hznitentix faiisfadionera, reconciliationem mereantur. 20. The Aclsof our Affembly forbid the Admif- lon of Scandalous Perfons to the Table of the Lord. In like manner the Fathers of the Council of Laoii* **, in their 19th Canon, fay, That none but thefe who are Holy (hall be fuffered to approach the Altarto receive theCommunion, km n'wois ^ifroii I'i;cc7/*9if ttVitr*/ *#& to QuffiuriifiQV kai Kotysjytiv* P p i2.Thc 298 The Cyprianick Bifhop 21. The Members of another Congregation, and new incomers into a Parifh, are not allowed by oub A£is ot Aflemblyto be admitted to Communion, uniefs they bring Teftificates concerning thei* Chriftian Behaviour from the Bilhop or Paftor o£ the Parifh from which they came or to which they belong. And thus the Council of Carthage, anno 348, Canon 7th. A Presbyter or a Layman of ano- ther Diocefs fhall not be received into Communion* unlefs he have a Letter from his own Bilhop, Cafia* vm Vjulenfis dixit, Jtatuat gravitas veftra ut unufquifi que Clericus vel Laicus,non communicet in alienaPlebe^ fine IherU Epifcopi jut. And the Council oiAmioch^ Canon 7th. No Perfon fhall be received into Com- munion who has not Letters of Peace, /./w/ir* anv e<$Mizc*v £iX*^i 0* %***** s * ne £ ommendaiitiis^ or Letters testifying chat he is not feparated from the Communion of the Church. And the 13th* Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, forbids to re- ceive ftrange and unknown Clergy-men withouD Commendatory Letters from their Bifhups. 22. Thefe who attend the Ordinances and Preachy ing of the Word, but do not Communicate, or take the Sacrament of the Supper, incur Cenfure by the Afts and Laws of this Church, even thehigheftif they continue in that Sin after due Admonition and Exhortations. And thus the Council of Toledo in the year 400, ordains in their 13th. Canon, Tha& thofe who come to the Church, and do not receive the Communion fhall be admonifhed, that they muft either Communicate, or be put in the rank of Peni* tents, and if they will do neither, they fhall be Ex- communicated. De bu qui intrant in Ecchfi am, &\ deprebenduntur nunquam communicare, admoneantur 9 Quoi ft non Communicant^ ad pxnitcntiam accedanuY^ Si communicant, non femper abftineamur.Si non fecerint^ |. abfiineantur. And in their 14th. Canon, they ordain, r That he fhall be driven away as a Sacrilegious Per- |. fon, who having received the Eucharift from the p.. hand 1 had net * Monarchical Power. 299 hand of theBifhop does not eat it,wh ich is revy agree- able to the Senfeof the Judicatories of this Church. 23. Our Affemblies allow no Bcoks to be read peblickly in the Church, but thefe that are Canoni- sa), and forbid the reading of fuch as are Apocry- phal, as alfothefinging ofPfalms of humane Com- pofure in the Church or Congregation. And this according to the 5 9 Canon of theCounci\ of Laodicea, to wit, Private Pj alms ought not to be fun gin Churches \ m any Books read there which arc not Canonical, but ly the Canonic a] Boohs of the Old and Xev> Teftamenti Then they fet down the Names of the Books they look on as, and affirm to be, Canonical, which are the very fame that we and other ProteftantChurches own as fuch, only they mention not the Book of the Revelation, c/ Ot/ » Jh \£h*t$*mi ^jXp&c fttipa ret KOLVovtzd f Kzuins k) ttcl\cu£$ //cdSflJuM How ^vell this Cannon is obferved by the Prelatifts every Body knows. 24. In our Church none are permitted to read the Scriptures pubiickly in the Congregation, but thefe who may expound, or are endued with the Power of Preaching, And tho this Practice is mightily condemn'd by fome among us who know no better, and make groundlefs Fancies their Rule in many things, it would not have been condemned by the Primitive Churches, as is evident from what Socmen obferves ( Hift: Eccl: lib. 7. C. 19. ) In muhu Mutem EcclefiU foli duntaxat Presbyteri y aluubi in pracipuu fefiivitatiby^ Epifcopi legunt. i. e. In many Churches the Presbyters only, and in fome the Bifhops read the Scriptures on the principal FeiU- val Days. And as fure as our Prelatical People think themfelves, and notwithftandir.gall their Out- cries againft the Presbyterians, their Practice with refpeft to this Particular, is more oppoiite to chat of the Ancient Church, than the Presbyterian Praftice is. They contradict the pratiice of the P p 2 An 300 T/tf Cyprianick Bifhop Ancient Church here in two things, 1. They caufe the Scriptures to be Read in the Churches by Rea- ders who are not of the Clergy, and who are not: ordainMPerfons, Whereaa the Ancient Le&ores or Readers were Clergy-men, Witnefs 'Mv.Dodwell, Obfefvandum infuper ( faith he, Differu Cjpr. f>. N. n. ) ex eodem hoc Cipriani loco,Leftoresetiam at que bypodia- conos generaliClericorum titulo cenferi ; and fays Cy- prian, Epift: 38, with refpeft to the Ordination of the Reader Auielim^ In Ordinaxionibm Clerici4 y Era. ires Cb.irijfimi, folemui vos ante conjuhre, &c. 2. They begin the reading oi Scripture before the Congregation isaffembled, and the Prefident of the Affembly, or Minifter or Bifhop is come in. Where- as in Ancient times Divine Worlhip, or reading ot Scriprure did not begin till the Bifhop came in, according to the Presbyterian Praftice. Thus the 56 Canon of the Council ot Laodicea ordains, That the Presbyters (hall not enter into the Church be« fore the Bilhop come, Non oportet Presbyteros ante in* grejfum Epifcopiingreditfj federe in tribunalibi/A^ fed, cum Epifcopo ingndi, &c. And if the Presbyter? might not go into the Church before the Bifhop came, much more might not the Deacons, Readers, and the inferior Clergy. Then this Canon would have been ridiculous, ifthe Worfhipof God ufed to begin before the coming of the Bifhop: And feing, as Socmen fays, Noue but the Presbyters did Read in many Churches, and no Presbyter might enter the Church before the coming of the Bifhop, is evi- dent, that in the Ancient Chriftian Affemblies, they did not begin to read theScripture$ publickly, till the Bifhop or Minifter, or he who was to Preach came in and mounted the Pulpit. Moreover, So^o- wewfays, That the Bifhops us'd to arife when the reading 0/ the Scriptures did begin in the Church, C which manifeftly fuppofeth that they did not read 5: till the Bifhop was come, according to the Presby- U teri*a 1 had not a Monarchical Power. 301 tcrian Praftice. Eft etiam apud JJexandrinos toe novum at que in fol ens : Dum enim Jeguntur Evangelix non ajfurgit Epifcopus, quod tamen alibi nufquam fieri} neque vidi neque audivi* So^om: ibid. And if the Presbyterians be blam'd becaufe they want Rea- ders, our Prelatical People muft know that they are fo much the more conform to the Ancient Church on that account, for the having ot the Office of Rea- ders was a Corruption which creep'd into the Church not long before Cyprians time. 25, Our Affemblies, and particularly in the year i<545> recommend and enjoin Uniformity in publick Worfhip. So did the Council at Venice about the year 46 1, in their 15 th. Canon, There fhall, fay they, be one way only of celebrating Divine Service, and Ringing in all the Province. Heclum quoque duximus 9 ut vel intra Provinciam noftram, Sicrorum V) ordinit ffallendi una fit conjueiulo y utjlcut unamcum Trinita- xh ConfeJJione fidem tenernu* unam & officiorum regulam tencamMy ne variata obfervatione, in aliquo obfervath nojiradijerepare credatur. Wherefore if there fhould be Organs in the Churches, they fhould be in all the particular Churches or Congregations without Ex- ception, and if that cannot be, there fhonld be no Organs in any Church at all, according to this Ancient Canon. 26, Every Body knows, that the Affemblies of this Church enjoin a ftritt Obfervation of theiab- b-jth, they have made particular Aftsagainft Sport- ing or Gaming on that day, againft Labour whe- therin Seed time or Harvcft, going of Mills, Fi fil- ing, looting (hips, &c* And thus the fecond Coun- cil of Ma/con, anno 585, fays in their firfc Canon, Let no Perlbn profecute any fuit of Law on this Day, let none iollow their own Buiincfc, let none yoke Oxen, but let all the World apply themfelvcs to Sing the Praifes of God : Let every one run to the peareft Church to fhed Tears there ; Let your Eyes and your liand* be lifted up to the Lord, OV, After- ward $02 The Cyprianick Bijbop ward they decree Penalties againft thofe who break the Sabbath Day, according to the State and Con- dition of the Perfons : If he bean Advocate, they order that he fhall be drawn from the Bar ; if be be a Peafant, that he receive Blows with a Stick $ if he be a Monk, that he be Excommunicated for fix Months. Then they exhort Chriftians to fpend even the Sabbath Night in Prayers, Videmm enitn PopuJum Chriftiamim temerario more diem Dominican contemptui trader e % $5 ficut in privatU diebut, operibus eontinuis indulgere : Fropterea per banc SynodaJeni noftram Epiftolam deccmimm, ut unufquifque noftrum inSacrofanftis EccJefiis admoneat fibi fubditam Vlebem. Omnes ixaque Cbriftiani, qui non incajfum hoc nomine fruimini, noftrx admonitioni aurem accommodate, f&iemes quoniam noftra eft autboritatu, utilitati veftra profpicere, & a mali* operibus cocrcere. Guftodite diem Domimcam^ qux nos denuopeperit >t iS km lachrymifque ajficiat, Sim oculi manufque vefir* toto ilh di? ad deum expa?7jx. Siquit ixaque veftrum banc SaJubrem exhort axionemparvi penderit, aut contemptui tradiderit, fciat fe pro qualitatis merito principalixer dVeo puniri 9 C deinceps facer dotali quoque ira£) imp\a» cabiliter fubjacere. Si caufidicMJuerix y irreparabilixer* iaufam amixxet. Si ruflicui aut Jervui, gravioribus fu- ftium ittibu* verberabitur i fi cleticm aut Monachus, tnenfibvAfcx a covjortio fufpendexur Iratrum, &c; Such MenasBifhop Laud, who were for debauching the People, and fetting out a Book of sports for the Sab- bath Day, would not have been thought worthy of the Communion of the Church in thofe Days. Thus the Council oiChalon in the 7th. Cent. Canon 18th. forbids' had not a Monarchical Porter, 305 forbids Plowing, Shearing Corn, Reaping or Tilling the Ground on Sabbath Days, lnjthuimu* ut in iffo die Dominico y ruralia Opera, u e. ararc, mejfes meter e 9 exaclusfacere,vel qukquid ad rurv culturam psrxinet 9 nullus penitwi prafumat, Quod, qui inventus fuerit faciensy &c. 26. Thefealfo incur the Cenfure of our Church, who abfent from the publick Worfhip three Sabbaths together, without fome rcafonable Excufe. And the 21ft. Canon of the Ancient Council of Eliberi*, which was held in the year 305, is to this purpofe ; If any Inhabitant of a City ftull beabfent from the Church, for three Sabbaths together, he (hall be fe- paratecl from the Communion for fome time, to iignify that he has been punifhed for his Fault. Si quit in Civitate pofitus y per tres Dominic as Ecclefiamnon accefferit^pauco tempore abjiine a: y ux cor repots ej)e videa* tur. 27. And if any Perfon leave the Church in time of Sermon, or go out before the pronouncing of the Blefling, he is cenfurable by the Ads of our judica- tories. In like manner the Council of Orleans, ann9 511, made an Ad againft fuch undecent Carriage, in their Canon 26, Jhe People fiall not go forth in the time of Divine Service, until it be finijhed, and the) have received the Bifbop's Blcjfing. 28. If the Congregation were to go about Divine Worfhip, if any Member thereof fhould at any time prefer going to a flay or Show, he would be reckon 'd worthy of Cenfure by this Church. Thus the Council of Carthage, anno 398, in Canon 88, fays, Let him be Excommunicated who forfakes the slfl'erablj 9j the Church to be prefent at Shows. 29. There arc fome who think chat our .\ffembltes bad little thing to do when they condemned the Oa- .ervationof Supcriticious Days, fuch as Che fir it of f unitary, Yule or Chriitmafs Day, KV. No doubt >hcfe Pcrfons are much Wifer than the venerable Fathers $04 The Cyprianick Bifbop Fathers the Bifhopsaflembled in the fecond Coun- cil of Tours in the fixth Century, whofe fecond Canon is levelled againit the Superftition of thefe who Honour the Calends of January, and all thofc: who obferve Pagan Rites and Cuftoms. Enirti vero quoniam cognovimus nonnuUos inveniri fequipedat I erroris antiqui, qui IQalend. Januarii colunt, cum. Janus homo GentilU jfuerit, %exquidem fed DevA ejfe non potuit. Quuquti ergo unurn Deum Vatrem regnan- tem cum filio C? Spiritu Santlo credit, certe hie nort poteft integer Chrijtianus diet, quialiqua de gentilitate cuJtodit.-Conteftamur illam folicitudinem, tarn Faftores quamPresbyteros gerere ut quemcunque inhacfatuitatc perfiftereviderint, vel nefcio ad quas petras^ aut arbo- res 9 aut ad fontes, defigrtata loca gentilium perpetrart qua ad Ecclefia rationem non pertinent, eos ab Ecclefia, fanfta author it ate repeUant,nec participare Santto alt a* rio permittant, qui Gentilium obfervationes Cufiodiunt* In like manner the Council of Antifiodorum^ in the year 578, Canon 1ft. forbids to play at Pagan Sports* or to give New-year's Gifts, Vie. Non licet Xjlend: JanuariiVecola autCervolo jacere 9 veljirenas DtabolL cm obfervare y Sec. Neither can I reckon the 25 day of December any other but the Pagan day, feing it is certain that Chrift was not Born on that day, acleaft we have no ground at all to think that He was Born in that Month rather than any other Month of the Year; and feing the Prelatifts and Papifts Celebrate it in a Paganifh way by Feafting anclR.evelling,which is to ufe the Words of theCoun- cil of Tours, "d Ecclefix rationem nonperwiet. 30. Carding and Dicing, and fuch Games of Chance, and all manner of Lotry are prohibited by the Judicatories ot this Church, and that according to the 79 Canon of the Ancient Council of Elibens % which forbids playing at Games of Chance, and declares, that if any of the Faithful play at Dice, or make profeffion of playing at fuch Games, he (hall had not a Monarchical Power. 305 be deprived of Communion, but if he forfakes this Cuilom, he may be reconciled at the end of one Ycar# Si quu fidelis alea 9 i. e. tabula, fpferit nummos % placuiteum abftimri: Et fi tmtndaim cejfaverit, pofi 'annum poterit reconciliari communioni. And the Uni- verfal Council called gvini-Sextum in their Canon 50, forbids thofe of the Clergy and the Laity to play atany Games of hazard, on pain of Excommunica* tion, and Depofition, fju$ anno 314, in their 24. Canon, orders thefe to remain in the ftate ot Peni- tents for five years, who meddle with Divination, and practife Sup^rftitious A&ions. jgui auguria vel . t [omnia vel Divinationes quajlibet 9 fecun- marcmgenxiliumobfervAtn^ aut in domosfuas bujuf* ines iniroducuntinexquirendii aliquibvA arte makfea, aut ut domos fuas lujirent y confejji, quinquen* vio pcenitemiam agant Jecundum regular antiauitu* toLJiiiHtas, And thus the Council of Venice about the year 461, in their 16 Canon, order that fuch. Perfons (hall be excluded from the Church, as pre- tend to PropheneandForetel things, whether it be by Auguries or other Superftitious Ceremonies, callM the Saints Lots, or by any other way what- ibever. 32. Alfo the Judicatories of this Church have made feveral Ads againft Revelling*, Lafcivious, Light andundecent Dancings, and fuch abufes at Marriage^ OV, conform to the 53 Canon of the CL 1 Count 306 The Cyprianick Bifbop Council of Laodicea, which forbids Chriftians to behave themfelves diforderly at Marriage-Feafts, to make a Noife, or to Dance there, but take their re-pait Modeftly. f/ Ort a Canon 12, decrees, Thtt all Per. fons had not a Monarchical Power. 3 07 %tis voho will be Convene df) all le received to Penance^ and Jhallbe granted Abfoluiion according to the Dif- retion of the Bijhop* 35. And according to our Rules, Perfons guilty of publick Scandals cannoc be receired into the Peace of the Church, till they make publick Ccn- fefiion, and profcfs their Repentance before the Congregation, + and receive a Rebuke in the pre- fence of all. This is conform to the Apoftolical Canon or dire&ion, Jbem that Sin rebuke before all. And Tertullian defcriving a Chriftian Affembly or Church, in his Apol:C 39, fays, There alfo are Ex- hortations, I{ebukes 9 and the Injlitlion of Divine Cen* 'ure. And Perfons thus guilty, were not admitted to Penance, or to make puDlick profeflion of Repen- tance in order to Abfolution, unlefs they defired it, as appears from the 15 Canon of the Council of- Aga* thzov Jgda, which ordains, That Penitents at Jiich time qa they defire Penance (tempore quopceniten- tiam petunt ) jball receive Impofnion 0} hands from the Bijkop, ficutubique conftitutum eft. And when they were received into the Peace of the Church, they were received Publickly in the face of the Con- gregation, as is evident from the 3 Canon of the Council of Carthage, anno 397, Penitents vohofc Crimes are very pub lick , and known by all the Church, foall receive Impofnion of hands in a high Place near the: C^q 2 Bifiops f Before that the Penitents were received to the Peace of the Church, they pafs'd through fevcral decrees. ( i ) They were nude to itand fome- time without the Church at theGite, and when they were kept there for a time longer or inortcr, according to the Nature or their Scandil, and the rTot the sincerity of their Repentance, (i) They were brought within theChurch, and fct by theinferVef, mth.it Part where the Cjtechu- ..i lit, where they might hear >enr.on. I hen (3) after a competent time, they were b. ought within the kill;, to a Place behind that in which le did lit ; uiiJ after they hai continued there for fome time, (4) They m into the Place where the People were, permitted to ll the Prayers, but not to communicate, and ,- WC re received by Inapolltion of Hands and Prayer. >ee spjnfc. on t u e 4? h Cent: C-7- Co. urn, 8 i 1. Many think that the Difcipline oVthis Church is too fe- . ilous Perfons but you may fee hence that 11 i 3 valtJy ihorr of .he Ancient Church, even in the 4th Century. £o8 The Cyprianick Bijbop Bifiop's Throne. Vt Presbjtter t inconfulto Epijcopo^ von recomiliet p if there had been Congregations in which Presbyters preached for ordinar, it would have been faid, after tbt BiJhcpU cr Presbyter's Sermon. And all the Presby- ter§ in the Diocefs were in the fame Congregation with the Biihop, for they gave him the Peace every time after Sermon. And in the soth Canon of this Council it is faid, Tbat the Presbyters cug'rt not to enter the Church, r.i r jit c'.-ffn in the Seat, until tbt: Bifh:p ccme, and tbat tbey Jhall go m nitb the Bifbcp, vnlefs he be Jick cr abfent. Hence it is evident, that the Biftop and all his Presbyters had but one Congregation or Church, in which they ufed all to be personally prefenr, when Divine Service was to be gone about • Thus the 7th Canon of the Council of Aries, Anno 314. Permits the FJitbl Jul to enter upon Ojpces, but upon Condition tbat the Bifop cfthe Pl.zce, vhere ? ibey (ball take an Office, (hall Superintend tbtir Ccncuft, and tbat',} 'tbey ca any thing contrary to the Difcifline of the Churcb, they for.: I he f-.paraUd frtm bis Ommunicn. How could a Bifliop fuperintend the Conduct of any Chnfrian that might be in a fecular Ofncc within his Diocefs and ob- serve his Carriage, unlefs his Diocefs was one Congregation only? And ' the sorh Canon of the fir ft Council of 0- »" Senfes cr Speech. : - -'form iheE^f- \ ccpal FunCticns m his Pnfence, bu: I theft FurtRisnt m his Church. This Canon v. ridiculous if the Presbyters us'd to preach for Ordinar. :.;cr Sacraments' or ferforrn the Epifcopal Fun&ion* in other Congr'a^pens. And j r . ttng appointed to fend for anothei Bif.: fe, fupp *ihzx Bi fcops dvreU near him, in the n:. ' * had not a Monarchical Power. 309 the Congregation, according to the quality of their Crime, Adulterers are ordered to appear more frequently than Fornicators. This is conform to the 31 Canon of the fame Council of Canbagt. Vt pcznitcntibutfecundumpeccAtorum differ emum^ Epifcopi arbitrio pxnitemia tempore decernamur. 37. By Afts of Affemblies of this Church, thefe who are guilty of hainous Sins, fuch as Adultery, are.appointed to appear a determine number of days before the Congregation ; yet if they be not duly jbumbled, anddifcover not fuch figns of Godly Sor- row as are requisite, the Minifter or Bifhop in tfhofe Parifh they are, may lengthen the time, and raufe them appear before the Congregation more Days than the Aflembly fpecifies- And thus the Council of Carthage, Anno 398 Canon 75, ordains. That Negligents ihall be latter received. Vi neglu entiores \ocnittntes % tardius recipiantur* 38. TheMinifteror Seflion may alfo fhorten the imeof the publick appearance of fuch Scandalous 'erfons, according as they find them affected with a •enfe of their Sin, or difcover in them Evidences f Sincerity. Thus the 5th. Canon of the Council f Ancyra. impowers the Bifhops to fhorten or *ngthen the time of Penance according co the ehaviour of the Penitents. Statuirnus autem ut 'pijlopi raodo^ converfatwvi* exArninito. ( mni^H hrgiirjKi PoKipiv&TtH j potejlatem ibtant velutendi clement ia^ve I plus tempor* udjidendi. 'nte omniAAutem V pracedens vita, EJ ju* corjccuii t exAminctur. By the by* how could a Bifhop dO us in a Diocefs of the modern Faihion ? Can the ilhopot London obferve the Conver&tioil of all the (orderly Pcrfons in his DLcefs Canon anileitlyluppoleth that the Biihop's Dioccfi « •thing but one Congregation. Theie Perfoni that arc notorious and impe- tm Smm t our Church ufes to uft out at leng 5 1 o The Cyprianick Bijhop length by the Sentence of Excommunication. And that this is conform to the Pta&ice of the Ancient Church, is what every Body knows, and is aboun- dantly evident by the Canons already mentioned. And this is a Prattice founded not only on Scripture, but the Light of Nature it felf: The Dmides in France, who had nothing but common Senfe to di-l reft them, ufedfuch a practice as Cafar witneffeth in his Commentaries. + 40. Oar Church proceeds not rafhly to this Sen ter.ce, but has recourfe thereto as the laft remedy, when, after much pains taken upon the Perfon to convince and bring him to Repentance, and all to no purpofe, he is found to be defperate and incorri gible. This is fuitabie to the Doftrine of Ambro\e y in his fecond Book of Offic. C. 27. Let a Member that is Rotten be cut off with Grief, faith he, and let it be long handled to try if it can be cured, b> 7sledicaments,if it cannot be cured,then let the good Phyficiancut it cff. 41. Neither does our Church proceed to this Sen tence, for every flight Mifcarriage, but in cafe o orofs Crimes and obftinate pointing in them, or!; manifeft Rebellion and Contempt of the Churche: Authority. According to the fecond Canon of the 5th. Council of Orleans, which forbids Bifhops u Excommunicate a Perfon tor fmall aud llightCaufes NuiivAJ'acerdotum., quenqiiamreftx fidei hominem, pn -par vis C levibus caujis a communione fufpendat prater eas culpM pro quibm antiqui Patres at Ecckfia arceri jujjerunt, committentes. Th Church of England abufes this Sacred Ordinano -r Siqumaut privitut nut pub/icut, eorum [ Druidum ] decretc r.on jhi. Sacrifices in terdicunt, h<*c yzna apud eos eji grmun:ca tmr. DrBello Gallic: lib. 6. It feems thai wnen any, whether Public] or Private perfon, was excommunicated by the Druides, or exclude, from the Sacriftces, Jie was in as hard Circumftanccs, as he would hav -beer, if there had b:c;n a Law thai his Exchcat ikould till in that Cafe. had not a Monarchical Power. 3 1 1 )f Excommunication moft abominably, not only >y Excommunicating Perfonsfor flight and ridicu- ousReafons( thus they will Excommunicate one, fheretufeto pay his Gioattothe Officer, which s plainly to mock Chrift and the Church J but by obbing the Church or Ecclefiaftical Officers of the )ower of infli&ing this Cenfure, and putting it in :he Hands of a Civil Court, contrary to Scripture, all the Fathers without excepting one, ro the Canons of all the Councils Univerfal, and particu- ar, National or Provincial. Neverthelefs they are lways Boafting that they have Antiquity on their ide, and the imqueftionable practice of the -Primi- ive Church. Should they be praifed in this ? I xaife them not. 42. Sentence of Excommunication is not pro- ounced againft any Perfon in this Church till he e three ieveral times warn'd, that having fonie pace of time to think on his Danger, Tryal may e nude, ij he will relent. It feeras fuch' method as followed in Gregory the Great's time, who . 2. Ep. 54. That there ought to be three A fans before Excommunication* Du Pin on the th. Cent. pag. 84. 43. A Perfon who is Excommunicated by any re.-.bytery in this Church, is reckon'd Excomrouni« fiteci by all the other Presbyteries, fo that till the mtence be taken ofF, he will not be adm l ) Communion in any Congregation or Church io lis Nation. This anfwers to the jth. Canon of ie Council of Nici 9 which ordains, mo of oft v;ho Jhatl bifeparatei from the Church by the jps in 1 \mnnion in any other Place. And th. ■be Coonril of S*r*&f* t dnno fhops under pain of Excommu communicated by their 0: nd the 7th. Canon of the Council of \ 3 1 2 The Cyprianick Bijhop 400, which forbids Bifhops to receive thofe into Communion, who have been Excommunicated in fome other Place. Ncqus abje&um recipiat in Com- munionem. 44. In this Church a Sentence of Excommunica* tion intiifted by a Superior judicatory, as a Synod or Affembly, cannot be taken by any inferioi Judicatory. This is founded on common Senfe. and is very conform to the Difcipline of the Ancient Church, to ail fuch Canons as allow Appeals from a Bifhop and Presbytery to the Bifhops of the Pro- vincial Synod ; and from the Bifhops of theProvince to the Bifhops or the whole Diocefs. If Excom« munications infii&ed by a Superior, could have been taken off by inferior Judicatories, Appeal* might have been made from the Bifhops of the Dio- cefs, to the Bifhops of a particular Province ; 01 from the Bifhops of the Province, to a Bifhop 01 Presbytery, which would have been a procedure altogether ridiculous. 45. Tho the Sentence of Excommunication in fli&ed by a Presbytery, may be taken off by th< Provincial Synod, or Affembly, it cannot be taker off by any other Presbytery in the Kingdom. Ac- cording to the 16th. Canon of the Council of Aries which ordains that thofe who are feparated fron the Communion, ftiall be reftor'd no where elfe but in the place where they are Excommunicated De hvty qui pro deli do [no a communione jeparantur itaphcuit, ut qui buf cum que lock fuerant exclufi 9 eo dern loco Communionem confequantur, 46. Our General Affembly, in the made an Act which fome perhaps will think hard, to wit, That theft vobo will not for Compxvy of Excommunicated Ferfons, after due Jdm nition, let them be Excommunicated themfelves excel they forbear. But this A A is very conform to th 2d, Canon of the Council of 4miock } which forbid had not a Monarchical Power. 3 j 3 the holding of Communion Uith thofe that are Ex- communicated under the Penalty of being Excom- municated themfclves. tq1$ dxibvpfooif nLwmiv&fy fy T¥f<* dr.KQiV*'\i;TOY U94tJyd$ cLV (TV^-yjCV to. rlv tUuAfA 4 E'/t^wcrirf^.And the t^Can: of theCounc. oiToleio % MM 4co,which or,;ains,that we fhall neitherEat nor Drink, orConverfe with a Lay-man or Clergy-man , who is Excommunicated, and that thefe who Con- rerfc with fuchPerfons* be Excommunicated them- selves. Si qiiu cum illo colhqui aut convivari fuerit defrekenfus^etiam ipfe abftincatur. 47. When a Perfon is Excommunicated, the Presbytery is obliged to give notice thereof to the Synod, that the Min.fters there may inform all the JPeople belonging to their Churches, that they may- carry toward fuch an one as an Excommunicated Perfon. In like manner, the Synod is obliged to inform the General Afiembly concerning this Ex- communicated Perfon, that all the other Synods may fce warned concerning him in like manner. This does •not much differ from the 13th. Canon oinGallicm Council held abouc the Year 615, which appoints The Bijhopsrvben xkty Excommunicate any, to acquaint $he neighbouring Towns and Churches vuth it. 4g. There is a twofold Exxoramu^Lation in ufe in this Church, the greater and lelfc. Excommuni- cation. It is reafonable to think, that the Sentence Which Vidor Bilhop oiF^me pronounced, again ft the Afiatic Churches, was that of the leiTer Excom- imunication, by which -ne excluded thefe Churches from Communicating with the Church of florae, ior renounced Communion with them, prohibiting any Member belonging to the J{oman Church to Communicate with thele Aiiatic Churches : As we •think it unlaw tul for any Member ot our Church to [Communicate with the Chinch of England t tho \\c tdo not at all deny that theCnurch oitr.gland is a true Church of Chrift, and a conliderable Member ot* R r the 314 T^Cyprianick Bijbop the Univerral Church^ and that thereare many goo Chriftians in it, only feing there are feveral Coi ruptions in that Church, and feing Perfons cannc Communicate with that Church without joining i fome of thefe Corruptions, or Countenancing thei oneway or other, we judge it unlawful to Com municate with her, as long as (he adheres tothef Corruptions, And I fay it is Rational to think tha all that Vi&or intended was fuch a Non-communi eating with the Afiatic Churches as long as the; continued in that Error he thought they were in for it cannot be fuppos'd, that he and his adherent were fo tar out of their Wits as to pretend toUn church fo many Churches, and fend them all a. pack ing to the Devil, for fuch a little Trifle, as Cele- brating or not Celebrating Eafter on fuch a particu lar Day. And probably, it was the Sentence of thi leffer Excommunication that the Eminent Bifhoj Ambi:fe pronounced againft the Godly Emperoi Jheodjfius, whereby he debar'd him from fealing Ordinancesfor a time, on account of his great Mif carriage with refpeft to the City Tbejfalomca, which So^omen gives account of, lib, 7. c. 25. The greater Excommunication is a calling one quite out of the Church, looking on him as a Heathen and Publican, this Tenull'un ( lib, de Pudi. c 4. ) exprefTes by Non Ynoio limine, verum omni Ecckfia teclofubmovere, 49., Simony is condemned by the Afts of our Af- fembly, fuch as is condemned in the i6ch. Canon of the Council of Cbalon in the 7th. Century, which declares, that they who gave Money to be made Bij (hops, Presbyters, or Deacons, (hall be deprived of the Dignity that they would have purchafed. Vt vulhi Epijcopusjiei\ue Presbyter per premium adfacrum erdinempenitm deteddt. Quod qui fecerir y ipjo bonore, cjuem pramiis comparare prajumpftrit, ornnino privetur* 50, Agreeable alio to the Acts of our Aifembiies are the icth. and nth. Canon of the 5th. Council of Orleans ia the £th. Century, which declare, that non< had not a Monarchical Power. 315 none (hall attain to a Bifhoprickby Money or Solici- tation,and that fuch a Bifhop fhall not be fet orer the People whom they would not have, and that thofe who (hall obtain a Bifhoprick by Force or Intereft, fhall be depos'd. Vt nullum Epijcopatum prxmij* dutcomparationeliceat adipifci y \ed cum vohinx ate Re- git juxta cleSionem Cleri ac Plebti, ficut in antiquis ^anonibm continetur jcriptum y confenfu cleri at Tlebis % 4 Metropolitano y vel quern vicefua miferit y cum compro* vincialibus Pontifex confecretur. Quoi ft qui* banc re* gulam hu\vAfantT non per examinationem ac vtUt c- leclionem, deponijubemvAjed S3 eos etiam qui ordina* verunt. 51. Our Aftsalfo condemn ordaining a Succeflbr to a Minifter as long as he lives. According to the 12 Canon of the 5th. Council of Orleans, Nulii vi- venti Epifcopo alius fuperponatur aut fuperordi?:etur Epifcopus,nifi forfitan inejuiloco, quern Culpa capital* dejecerit. 52. The 16 Canon cf the Univerfal Council Quini- fextum, which declares, That the (even Deacons, Ads 6. were Minijlers only of common Tables, and not of jiltars ( \'j$o[jLiv co$ \'oyo$ cwtgIs b . , 3 1 8 The Cy prianick Bijhop Ecclefia, a noviffimo Grain uftue ad primurn or din aft Neopbytum : Et dixerunt Epifcopi, placet. Sylveflet Epijcopus dixit ; A nobis incipientes moderamim lenitaxw indicare cornmonemm y ut nulli Epifcopo liceat quemlibet gradurn clerici ordinate aut conjecrare, nip cum omni adunata Eccleda, fi placet? Et dixeruw Epi\copi % placet, f And the Council of Clermont Anno^tf, declares, That Perjbns ought to be advan- ced to the high Dignity oftheMiniftry, not by the fx vouroffome fere, but by the Suffrages of aU, * that bt to ho U a Bifrop mufl be chofen by the Clergy and People And ordain d by the Metropolitan, or with bit Conjent That it U unlawful to ufe the Interefi of Grandees, Craft Promifes, Prefems and Tkreatnings, and that thef roho uje fucb ways, Jhall be deprived of the Commumor of the Churchy whereof tbeyjhould be Bijhops j Omnium con- t It may be obferved here, that : 'the Gloft which Dr. Miurhe puts o» •mnirs F/ctevmtdS, Pltbe umvttfx, and fuch Expressions in Lypnan's Epiftlq which we have conlidered before, page 33, 34. quadrates very ill with th' words of this Council. The words or this Council demonstrate evidently that tcta Ecclil'-a, Plcbt univerfi, and the like, muf: not be understood ii fuch a liiv.itc-d aenfe, as the Doctor would make us believe they uiould bi taken in, but in the very ful.elt oenfe. NuU*. dt mtmkrit Etcley^ intetci derate fti emm Eulejia conveniente. In a word, the words of this Counci can no more admit Dr. ALiunce's Glofs, ttun the words we have cited ou of Oztatus in the beginning of this Chapter, can bear the Glofs which 1. S puts' on Suffrjgium Populu * Hence it is evident, that Perfons are conftituted or made Bifhopsbj the Election of the People, and noc by Ordination, which is performed b] the Bifnops. One is made or conftituted a Biiliop by that by which he 1 advanced to the high Dignity of the Miniitry, but according to this Coun «il, the bufir^e of the people is the thing,, and not Ordination that ad vances one tolhe high Dignity of the Miniitry, therefore the Synrage the People is the thing that creates or makes one a Biihcp. This is alio e> vident rrom the iid Canon of the Council of Ccnjtantimple here cited, fa in it the Election and Prcmoticn of a Bishop are one thing 5 wherefore the* who elect a Biiliop, make a Bilhop, if the Clergy eled one to the Epifco pal Office, they make the Bishop * and if the people elect to the Epifcopi Office, the People make the Bishop. And feeing Mr. DcdwePs Book 01 Schifm is built upon the Supposition, that the Epifcopal or Mimfteria Power is convoyed by Ordination from Bishops to Bishops in an uninterru pted Line of Succeilion from the Apoltles 5 and feeing this buppofition i 1 noionoufiy falte, and a molt fenfelefs Fiction, the Epifcopal Power beinj ,; convoyed to each Bishop from the People by their Election, it followed ' jnecellarily, that Mr. Dowel's Book is like a Houfe without a Foundation C th.it i<, it is nothing at all, nothing but a heap of Sophifmes and idle a v n< impertinent Motions*, Thus Cyprian fays in his43- Epift; ad PIcbem uni.U verf-im, Quod Scitritti, qu*m tanta amzre & artcre fecillis, nee dum vo A fa/utar:, & nee dum compjexibus vejiris inbdertrttontingat. Cyprian achnQUM ledges, that the People rmde him a Bishop fey their Suffrages, k had not a Monarchical Power. 519 uonftendat Eleftione, non paucorum favore. And the >3 Council of Orleans Canon 3d. J{eferves the Ordina* tion of Metropolitans to a Metropolitan in the pre fence of the Bijhops of the Province,and requires that be be chofen by the Bijhopofthe Province with the Confent of the Clergy and People of the City, it being fit, that He fvho u toprefide over all, Jhould have the Suffrages of dll thefe over whom he vt to prefide. And as to the Bijhops of the Province, it ordains, that they Jhall be vrdain'd by the Metropolitan, ana chofen bj the Clergy tnd the People. De comprovincialibuA { vel Epifcopis ) ndinandiSy cum confenfu Metropolitan, Clen i5 Civi- um y juxta priorum Canonum ftatuta, voluntas £? eleftio requiratur. This Voluntas & Eleftio, is quite ano- chei thing thanfucn Approbation ox Good-lining as is ffithoutPower^or which is nothing but meerTcj/ imony. One would think that thefe Canons dirFer, as much as the Eaft is diftant from the Weft, from the 12 Canon of the Council oi Conliantinople, in the ?th. Century, anno 869, reckon'd by the Lacines :ne 8th. General Council, but by the Greeks a Combination of Robbers,which runs in thefe Terms, Le* no lay Pcrfon, whether they be Princes or Men of Power, meddle in the Election or Promotion of any Bi- hopwhatfoever^fein^ that it is not convenient, that %U her tbey who are in Tower, or other Laick Perfons vhaxfoever have any Power in this matter, it ru- ber becoming them to be felent, and patiently to at- tend till fuchtime m the Election of the oijhop that if to >echoien,befinifi\l reguliriy by the College of tbeClergy- nen. Cum nudam in talibix poteltai:m quenqu.zm p tdpotii/A filer e, ac attendere f\bi % ufque quo regular iter I CollegioEcclef. jufcipiat finem cledti ]utun Vontifi- U. but according to f. S's Senfe of Thinj ^anon agrees with the prececdinpnoft cxaftly, no- hingof Elective Voice or Suffrage is 'allowed co he People by this Canon, as is very plain, and tccording to 3. ft as little of an Elctfive Voice is 3io The CyprianickB//^ f allowed to tliem in the preceeding Canons, tho in them it is declared exprellv and pofitively, that the Bifhops (hall be chofen by the People. They are no ordinary Perfons, you mult think, who can find out a way to reconcile fuch Differences, and caufe fuch oppofite Points of the Compafs to meet. Lei us fee how they pretend to work fuch Miracles, and -what jp. S. has to fay againft the People's Suffrage* or Elective Voice in the promotion of their Bifhops,' and by what means he pretends to elude the cleat Teftimony of Cyprian as to this particular. In the firft place, tho Cyprian pofitively declare! that Cornelius was made Bifhop by the Suffrages of the People then frtftnt % f* S. can pofitively deny that the People had any thing like an Ele&ive Voice in the Affair. Why? All that the Clergy did, fays he, toward his promotion, was to give him Good Ufti* mony ( Ds clericorum pene omnium Tejiimonio, di Pkbti) qua turn affuit Suffragio, fays Cyprian. ) And fays J. y* can we think that the People could do •more ? This can we think is Demonltration no doubt. Can we think that the People of J^ome could do more than the Senate in theEie&ion of a Conful ? Yes indeed we can thin k lb very well, and that they who think other wife thirk not right. And Cyprian fays elfe where, thai Cornelius was made Bifhop, ds CleriSS Plebv Suffragio, which gives us to underftand fays J. S. that Suffrage and U'ftimony are one thing* and therefore Suffrage fignifieth no more than TejtU mony* And, fa J I, if Suffrage and Tejlimony are on« thing in Cyprian , then Teftimony iignifies Suffrage or Elective Voice ; So that Cornelius was chofen or made Bifhop by the Elective Voice ot the Clergy and People of the J{oman Church. As to Cyprian, it is faid, that he was made Bi (hop tfndicio Dei Jay thejudgment ofGod.And hence J. *?• infers, he Was not made Bifhop by the Suffrages of the People. But no doubt f. S. knows as well i; as lean tell him, that the Call of God to an Office! hxJL not a Mdnarchicd Power. %$t U twotold,Mediate and Immediate. The Mediate is, when God calls one, for Example, to the Epifcopal Office, in an ordinary way, by the Intervention of Men, or the Miniitry of thefe to whom he has given the Right of Elections in the Church, The Immediate is,when God calls one to an Office in art extraordinary way, without the Intervention of Men, as Paw/ was call'd to the Apoftolate. If C>- prian was made Bifhop by God thefirft way, J. S's. Inference is very impertinent, for Mediate Calls are fofar from excluding the Suffrages of the People, that on the contrary they fuppofe them ; God makes a Man Bifhop in a Mediate way, by the Suf- frages of che People, the Call ot the People to the Epifcopal Office, is the Call of God. Thus Ambr. Lib. 10. Ep. 82. Merito vir tantus evafit quern omni* elegit EccleJia 7 merito Creditum quod Divinoejfeteleftui judicio, quern omnes poflulavijfent. He then who It Elefted to the Epifcopal Office by the wholeChurch, or Suffrages of the People, is Elefted or made Bi- fhop Judicio Vei y according to Ambrofe. As to the Immediate Call, it does indeed, in fome Senfe, ex- clude the Suffrages of the People, but I can't fay thit it is altogether inconiiftent therewith. I grant to J. S. that if God fhould now interpofe in an /w- mdute way, and choofe one Bifhop to a particular Diocefs, it could not be referred to the Vote of the People, whether they fhould have that Perfon to be their Bifhop or not? But it would be no ways labfurd if the People of that Diocels fhould meet ai dfay, fefus Chrijt has appointed fuch a Perfon to be out Bilhop, come therefore let us make Him our 'Bifhop by our Suffrages. Thus Saul was made King of Jj'racl in an Immediate way by the Elefiion of God, as J. S. will fay, yet he was made King by the People at Gilgal, And all \ Sam- rkt leoplewemto Gilgal, and there thej 11. 15. made ±aul King before tbeLori in Gilgal. S f NcL ^ 22 The Cyprianick Bijbop Neither would theFreedom of the People's Ele&ion be taken away in this Cafe ; I acknowledge, that if the King or Parliament fhould Interpofe or Name the Perfon, the Freedom of the People's choice would be taken away thereby, but if God (hould Name the Perfon, the Freedom of their Ele&ion would not thereby be taken away, becaufe the Free- dom of Ele&ion lyes in a Liberty to choofe the fitteft Perfon, or him whom Chrift would have to be Elefted. Wherefore Cyprian and his Collegues would not have been Cuch Dunces as J. S. fancies, tho they had thought that E\ea\xr was Ele&edby the popular Voices, notwithftanding his Immedia e Call : And tho he had proven that Cyprian's Call was Immediate, his Gain would not have been fo great as he imagines. However, Bifhop Cyprian was not Elefted in an Immediate way,or his Call to the Epif- copalOffice was not Immediate but Mediae an\ there- fore there can be no fhadow of a Pretence for ex- cluding the Suffrages of the People in the Cafe ot his Election. Now that Cyprians Call was not Im* mediate^but Mediate , is evident. u It cannot be pretended that Cyprian's Call for Cornelius's either) was Immediate, becaufe he was faid to be made Biiho^^udicioDei by the Judgment of God, as is more than evident by what has been faid. Moreover, when the Heathen Magiftrates wereduiy Elefted by the Suffrages of the People, they were faid to be made fuch Magiftrates by God. And how much more might this have been faid of a ChriftianBilhop, Elected according to the Mind of God, by the Suffrages of -his Church, in which he himfelf has placed the Power of Elections to Eccle- iiaftical Offices? J. S. will not deny that Levi* is Ring of France by the Grace cj God, which is as much as Judicio Dti % will he therefore fay, that Lewi* was cali'd in an Immediate way as Mofes or David ? 2. Pontm had not a Monarchical Power. 323 i. Pontivjs tells us exprefly, that Cyprian was made Bifhop by the favour of the People ($avore PlebU. ) This is not the way of (peaking when a Perfon is call'd by God in an Immediate way. Who ever faid thatP^H/ was made an Apoftle by tbe favour of the People ? He denyes it himfelf, in *V *?9ffiAr«r, •661 H ^Qf*.':™, fays he. But beczuk Pontius fays, Cyprian was made Bifhop by the favour of the People, J, 5, infers, therefore he was not made Bifhop by their formal and ftated Vote. A fine Inference truly! Plutarch fays, that Pompey procured the Con- fulfhip for Lepidvi, having reconciled him to the favour of the People, Lepidus was made Conful then by the favour of the People, fhould it there- fore be inferr'd, that he was not made Conful by their formal and ftated Vote? One would be thought ridiculous if he fhould make fuch an infe- rence. There is no Inconfiftency then between Favour and Vote ; fo that one c s beingchofen by the Favour of the People, did not at all hinder his be- ing chofen by the Vote or Suffrages of the People. Certainly the People favour him whom they Elefr to an Office by their Suffrages. And therefore Fa- vour is fometimes put for^ or made to fignify Suffrage or Elective Voice. Thus Lucan fays, lib. 1. That the J{pman People did Cell their Favour, that is, did fell their Votes or Suffrages. FJinc rapti Fdjces pretio SeQorque Favoris lpfe fui Populus,lethalifq:'.c amiitus Vrbi Annua Venalirejercns CettaminaCampo. Moreover, Cyprian himfclf fays, That he was made Bifhop by the Suffrages of the People. Where- fore, when FoyniuA faid that Lyprian was made Bi- >y t t \e Favour of the People, his meaning was, that he was made Bifhop by the ElcSivc Voices of the People. S f 2 3. q- 324 T^Cyprianick Bijhof 3. Cyprian himfelf determines this Point, tellingi us what to underftand by Judgment of God, in Epift; «[9, where he fays, Nifiita eft perditx mentis, ut putet fine Dei Judicio fieri facer dotem, cum Dominus in Evan* gelio dicat, nonne duopajferes ajfs veneunt ? & neuter eorum cadii in terramfine V&tris Voluntate : Cum illet vec minima fieri fine voluntate Dei die at, exiftimat all tfuti fummatS magna, aut non Jciente aut non permit tenteDeo^inEcclefia Dei fieri; £? facer dote s^ id eft, Difpenfatores ejus non de ejus fententia ordinari 1 Hoc ejt fidem non habere, hoc eft Deo honorem non dare, cujus nutu %} arbitrio regi £? gubemari omnia fcimus W credimuu Plane Epifcopi non de voluntate Dei fiunt, quiextra Ecclefum Dei fiunt, fed contra difpofitionem S?< traditionem Evar.geli'u This is plain Language, an evident Demonftration that Cyprian never dream'd: he had an Immediate Call. According to this it may be faid of any Officer whether Civil or Ecclefiaftical, v/ho is Ele&ed duly and according to Law, that he is made fuch an Officer JudicioDei, by the judg- ment of GocJ *. It cannot be pretended then, thap Cyprian or Cornelia had an Immediate Call, or fuch a Call from God as excluded the Suffrages or Elefiive "Voices ot the People, on the contrary, the Call they had from God, was by the Ekftive Voices of the people. In the next place, f. S. fays, That the Sentence Quando Plebs tpja maxime habeat poteftatem vel el'u gendi dignos facer dotes vel indignos recufandi^thztls, ieing thePeople themfelves efpccially have thePower either of Electing worthy Bilhops, pr rejeiting the Unworthy, has nothing to do with chooiing Bi- lhops by popular Votes when a Chair is Vacant. But this is a Mifreprefentation. If this Sentence has * Ilfujtriflinttu Annalijta ( Cardinal: Ba r cn' U s ) Divino alitjuofgrjo dtfana- ium ( Curneliuqn ) fvt'at. £ej nojrum non ejt nuroiuia iUsitr: ll'e L>ci Judicio eUllut dicitur, qui ta'lv, eif, qua I em Ux Divit.a u» id wurMi abeun wit •xntit, U) s. t:ie iCwtiiieU biu.up ui Oxford, in Anuot: in Bfift, -ty/r. 55. had not a Monarchical Power. 325 has no relation to the Elefting a Bifoop when a Chair is Vacant, pray what is the meaning of tnir Words which go before ? Qu* ante Oculos habentes, fS foVicite acreligiofe Conf\derantes k in Ordinationibus faccrdotum, non nip immaculatos i$ imegros Jntiftite$ eligere debemm. Is not this to fpeak of the Eleftion of a Bifhop to a vacant Church ? But J. S. conceals fhisfrom his Reader, and then tells him, What can be plainer than that thit paffage hot nothing to do with cboofing Bijhops by popular Votes when a Chair is Vacant ? Plain no doubt to thefe who are for taking his word for it, or have a Itrong Propentity to believe any thing that makes iorHymifn Epifcopacy, be it true or falfe. In a word y fays J. S, nothing plainer than that all dim'd ax % to wit by the forefaitf- Sentence, is, that }he People have an inherent right to feparate from Bi- fhops when their Communions are fo poUuted y that they^ cannot be continued in without the manifejl bayard of their Souls who continue in them. It is good that J. S. has made this Conceflion, That the People have an inherent right to feparate from the Bijhops when their Communions are fo polluted that they cannot be continued in y &c. He has done two things hereby, i. He has ruined hisownCaufe. 2. He has deftroy'd his Friend M. Dodwel's Book, Entitled, Separation of Churches from Epijcopal Go- vernment pfoved to be Stkifmatical, &c. i. He has ruined his own Caufe hereby. It will benodilficul: thing to prove from this Concd&on, that the People have the Right of Elections, or Power ;oChoofe a Bifhop when thur Chair is Va- ,ant. If the People have an inherent Right to "eparate from the Communion of their own Bifhop, ivnen it is lb Polluted that it cannot be continued m without Danger, they have alio an inherent Right to ;hoo(e that Neighbouring Bifhop they Hull join with ?r not join with, until tjiey get a Bifhop of their own 3 26 The Cyprianick Bijbop own whom they may Communicate with fafely, no f cording to the Council of Ag*tha,Can: 3 in the yeai "J 5o6which ordains,Thatif theBifhopsExcommunicatt * any innocent Perfons, or thefe whofe Faults ar* 1 ? flight, OVt thefe Perfons may Communicate with a: .' ther Bifhops until fuch time as a Council do meet'' 11 Communio illU ufque ad temput Sy?wdi, a reiiquis Epifc'Ot® ps non denegetur, and if they have a Power to dc , this, they havealfoa Power to choofe a Bifhop fotj themfelves when their Chair is Vacant, there is e»;^ very whit as much Reafon for the one as for the o- J ther. But, 2. The principal thing for which I take notice oiJ? this Concelfion, is, That $. S. has thereby deftroy'd *' that Book of M. Vodrveli's we have mentionM. Foi j- Firft, IfthePeople-^ave an inherent Right to fepawjj rate from the Bifhops, when their Communion is. fo polluted that it cannot be continued without ha«' e zard, then the People had an inherent Right to fe-'S paratefrom the Bilhopsat the Reformation, becaufe i it0 the Communion of the Bifhops then was Idolatrous," and consequently fo polluted that it could not bc;| continued in without manifeft hazard. And, Secondly, If the People had a Right to feparate " from the Communion ot the Bishops, then they ha<|l alfoan inherent Right to fetup another Communi- on diftinft from the polluted and hazardous Com-,? m union of thefe Bishops, or to fet up new Affemblies. '* And tr is is evident, becaufe what ever Right theyr had to do the one, the verj fame Right they had tog do the other ; their Sou's would have been in ha-j? zardifthcy had continued in the polluted Commu-J nions of thefe Idolatrous Bishops, and this b avc . ( them a Right to Teparate from them; In like man- ner, their Souls would have been in hazard if theyf h3d lived feparately, and had not fet up new Com- , reunions, or Affemblies, thro' want ot Sacraments and other means of Grace, or of accefsto worship God had not a Monarchical Fotver. 3 27 3od in a publick way, wherefore to fet up new Af- emblies or new Communions, was incumbent on hem as a neceffary Duty, and there is no Right (lore Authentick than that which is founded on in- !ifpenfible Neceffity, in that Cafe God has not only ^iven People a Right to do the thing, but has laid [n Obligation upon them to do it. I They had a Right before they feparated to meet ji the Chriftian Affemblies with the left of the [vlembers of the J{oma?j Church in Europe, who ad- Ler'd to the Pope, and continued in his Commu* lion, this no body queftions } and fay I, what- ver Right they had to meet in the Chriftian Af- tmblies before their Reparation from the Church of \ome, the fame Right they had to fetupnewAf- emblies or Communions after their Separation from he Church of Home ; or they had as full Right to t up new Affemblies after :hey feparated, as thofe who remain'd in the Communion of the Pope, had okeepupthe old Affemblies ; And this is evident, ecaule the Right they had before their Separation o meet in Chriftian Affemblies, they did noc lofe fter their Separation: And this is evident, be- aufc they could not lofe that Right but one of thefe wo ways, either by Separation it (elf from the ~\,u\chof J\GMt y or by their iofmg that vAich gave hem a Right to meet in the Chriftian Affemblies •efore their Separation : Not the tirft, becaufc hey had an inherent Right to fcparate from the {omijb Affemblies, or Cummumon of the Popifh ^i(hops,ab being idolatrous and Hazardous ; Nol the cond eiiher,becau.ethat which gave them a Right o meet in the AflenibUei b.roie ihe.r Scpaft iou, ;as their Chiiit. unity, but their Chriftnnity r lid not lole after their Separation from the Church fJ{ome, or by feparuting from it> but on the cou- raiy perfected it, puritied ic from manifold Cor- ruptions, 33t> The Cyprianick Bijhop could not fubfift as Churches without them, without theft, fayslgnam to the Trail: a Church is not caU'd 9 or There u ?io Churchy Ecclefiaftical Societies or Churches can no more' fubfift without Bifhops and Prsbyters,thanCivilSocieties orCommon-weakhs can without Magistrates or Rulers. After they fepa- rated from the Churches of I{ome then, Bifhops and Presbyters they were neceflitated to have. Where- fore one of two muft be faid, either that Chrift gave them a Right to Create Bifhops and Presbyters to themfelves, or obliged them to have recourfe to the Popifh Bifhops or Church of J{pme for them. And it cannot be faid that Chrift would oblige them to go to the Church ofJ{ome for them, tofu'ppofe that, is, i. Ridiculous. And that becaufe the Church of Rome would create no Bifhops to them after their Separation, the Popifh Clergy would ra- ther Excommunicate them, and condemn them to Fireand Faggot, than Conftitute Bifhops and Pref- byters to them. Chrift would have put his Churches to great Hardfhips if he had obliged them either to want Bifhops and Presbyters altogether, or to have Recourfe to their Mortal Enemies for them. 2. >ionftrous. Monftrous it is to fuppofe that Chrift would give a Right to the Synagogue of Satan to Create Bifhops and Prtsbyters,but no Right at all to his own Churchesto do it, that he would inveft a Company ot Idolaters, Apoftates, and impious "Wretches who regarded nothing but their fecular Intereft, With the Right of Creating Bifhops and Presbyters to govern his Church, that the Church fhould have no Ecclefiaftical Power, no Power of Conftituting Officer , of Adminiftring Sacraments, of Discipline or the like, but what is derived from Antichrift and his Drudges. 3. When theEuropean Nations broke oft from the Roman Empire, and E- retted themfelves intodiltinct Monarchies cr Com- mon Wealths, no body doubts that after their Dif- junftioft had not a Monarchical Power. 33 1 juftftionthey had a full Right and Power to Create Kings or other Magiftrates to themfelves ; and if it fhould be faid, that thefe Nations had no Right at all to Create Magiftrates,that the Kings which they made after their Disjunction were but Ufarpers, had no Right to Aft as Kings, and that every thing they did as fuch was null and void, becaufe they re- ceived not Orilnxxion from the Roman Emperor or .Senat, that would be juftly reckon'd a very fenllefs Notion. But apply this to the Church, and im- mediately it becomes ftrong Senfe, the moft Rational thing in the World, and there are fome among us who can prove it to a Demonftration. When the Proteftants brake otFfrom the Church of P^omt, and Erefted themfelves into new Churches, the Bifhops and Presbyters which they Conlhtuted, were not lawful, the Sacraments AdminLftred by them, and all they did as Bifhops is Null and Void, and that becaufe they received not Ordination from the Po- pilh Bifhops, from whom they were Disjoined ; and let their Popifh Bifhops be Antichriftian, Moniters of Wickednefs, Devils, or what you will, no Ordina- tion is Valid but what comes thro 5 their Hands, God will call no Perfon to the Epifcopal Office, but whom they approve or ordain. Is it poflible that People believe what they fay, when they aiiirm fuch things? After the European Kingdoms were dibjoin'd from E^mCy and fct up by themielves., they were no more concerned with it, wherefore nobody is fo fenflefl as to imagine that they were obliged to goto t{omc ftill, to get their Kings Created or Magiftrates Conftituted, this would be to fuppofc, that they were ftill in Subjeftion to i{ome y after they wereda- joined from it. And as little were the Proreltant Churches concerned with the Pope or PopifhBhhops after their Separation, wherefore it is contrary to common Senfc to think that the Bi&bops and Prei- byters which they Jet up after the Reformation, T t 2 were 330 The Cyprianick Bijhop coul J not fubfift as Churches without them, without theft, foyslgnatus to the Trail: a Church is not caU'd % or There U ?w Churchy Ecclefiaftical Societies or Churches can no more' fubfift without Bifhops and Prsbyters,thanCivilSocieties orCommon-wealths can without Magistrates or Rulers. After they fepa- rated from the Churches of F(ome then, Bifhops and Presbyters they were neceflitated to have. Where- fore one of two muft be faid, either that Chrift gave them a Right to Create Bifhops and Presbyters to themfelves, or obliged them to have recourfe to the Popifh Bifhops or Church of J{pme for them. And it cannot be faid that Chrift would oblige them to go to the Church ofJ{ome for them, tofuppofe that, is, i. Ridiculous. And that becaufe the Church of Rome would create no Bifhops to them after their Separation, the Popifh Clergy would ra- ther Excommunicate them, and condemn them to Fireand Faggot, than Conftitute Bifhops and Pref- byters to them. Chrift would have put his Churches to great Hardfhips if he had obliged them either to want Bifhops and Presbyters altogether, or to have Recourfe to their Mortal Enemies for them. 2. Monftrous. Monftrous it is to fuppofe that Chrift would give a Right to the Synagogue of Satan to Create Bifhops ana Pr/csbyters,but no Right at all to his own Churchesto do it, that he would inveft a Company ot Idolaters, Apoftates, and impious Wretches who regarded nothing but their fecular Intereft, With the Right of Creating Bifhops and Presbyters to govern his Church, that the Church Ihould have no Ecclefiaftical Power, no Power of Conltituting Orficcr , of Adminiftring Sacraments, of Discipline or the like, but what is derived from AntichriCt and his Drudges. 3. When theEuropeaa jNations broke oft" from ihe Eoman Empire, and E- retted themfelves into dirt inft Monarchies cf Com- monwealths, no body doubts that after their Dif- junftioft had not a Monarchical Power. 33 1 jimftionthey had a full Right and Power to Create Kings or other Magiftrates to themfelves ; and if it fhould be faid, that thefe Nations had no Right at all tc Create Magiftrates,that the Kings which they made after their Disjunction were but Ufarpers, had no Right to Aft as Kings, and that every thing they did as fuch was null and void, becaufe they re- ceived not Orilnxxion from the Roman Emperor or .Senat, that would be juftly reckon'd a very fenflefs Notion. But apply this to the Church, and im- mediately i: becomes ftrong Senfe, the moft Rational thing in the World, and there are fome among us who can prove it to a Demonftration. When the Proteftants brake off from the Church of P^ome, and Erefted themfelves into new Churches, the Bilhops and Presbyters which they Conftituted, were not lawful, the Sacraments Adminiftred by them, and all they did as Bifhops is Null and Void, and that becaufe they received not Ordination from the Po- pilh Bilhops, trom whom they were Disjoined ; and let their Popifh Bifhops be Antichriftian, Moniters of WickeJnefs, Devils, or what you will, no Ordina- tion is Valid but what comes thro' their Hands, God will call no Perfon to the Epifcopal Office, but whom they approve or ordain. Is it poffible that People believe what they fay, when they aiiirm fuch things? After the European Kingdoms were disjoint from %ome y and fct up by themielves, they were no more concerned with it, wherefore nobody is lb fenilris as to imagine that they were obliged to goto Home frill, to get their Kings Created or Magiftrates Conftituted, this wou*d be to iuppoib, tnatthcy Were fcill in Subjection to Home, after they were dis- joined from it. And as little were theProteltant Churches concerned with the Pope or PopilhBUhops after their Separation, wherefore it is contrary to common Senfc to think that the Bishop^ and Pre!- byters which they let up alter the Rcformarioa, T t 2 were 33& T/>yPrefcription or any other way. In like manner, iay a Fortiori ( in regard that the Spiritual Life is nore Excellent than the Natural, and intitleth nore to Privileges) Chrift by giving a Spiritual Jfeto Believers, has given them an inherent Right guard againft every thing that is naturally De- iriiftive of it, and to ufe all means that are proper opreferve it, or increafe their Graces, and confe- |uently has given them an inherent Right to fepa- ate from the Communions of Bilhops when pollu- ed, and may prove Deftrudive to their Spiritual ^ife, and to fet up new Communions, and new Bi- hops and Presbyters to themfelves, feing thefe are iroper means, and means appointed by God to pre- srve their Spiritual Lite, or increafe their Graces, nd this is a Right which they cannot lofe by Pre- option, andean no more alienate, than they can lienate their Souls, or renunce Chrift and the Go- pel. And therefore they who cannot underftand /hat Right thePeople in the time of theReformation J ad to fcparate from the Komiyi Bilhops ( or the Dif- fers have to feparate horn the thglijh Biihop>, ippoiing that their Communion is polluted, and can- 3^4 The Cyprianicik Bijbop cannot be continued in without hazard ) or, wha Right they had to fetupa new Communion, an new Bifhops and Tresbyrers to themfdves, or ho* they come to have true Sacraments, 6v. are as fenfc lefs and Stupid as they who cannot underftand wha Right the People in trance or Holland have to ab Train fromPoifbn,or to build Houfes and Cities, fe up Trades and Manufactories, or to caufe Food an Raiment be prepar'd for themfelves, &• Seing then, the People at the Reformation had an inherent Right to feparate from the -polluted an 1 hazardous Communions of the Popifh Bifhops an Clergy, to fet up pure Communions, and to mak new Bilhops and Presbyters to keep up thefe Com niunions, farewell to the Line of Succeffwn ; thi Conveyance of the Epifcopal Power, and a Righi to Adminifter the Sacraments by Ordination in a* uninterrupted Line of Succeflion from the Apoftles is an idle and impertinent Fiftion ; the Proteftam Churches at the Reformation, had true Bilhops am Presbyters, and confequently true Sacraments, in' dependently on %pmij)i Ordination, and would hav«, had,tho they had not had one Biihop or Presbyte among them that received Ordination in the J{cmiJ.\ Church, or any* where elfe. Wherefore M. DoL well's Book we are fpeaking of, being wholly buil on this falfe Suppofition, to wit, Where there ii no true Church, there is no Salvation ; and when there are no true Sacraments, there is no tru< Church; and where there are no true Bifhops, ther< are no true Sacraments ; and where there is not On dination of Bifhops in an uninterrupted Line of Sue celiion from the Apoftles, there are no true Bifhops cometh to nothing. Saith M. Claude, this way o arguing is Sophiftical, Vain, Deceitful and Illufory to which we oppofe this Reafoning, where there art true Believers, there is a true Church •, Anc where there is a True Church, there is A\ True Miniftry, or True Bifhops •, And wher< then had not a Monarchical Power. 335 lere is a true Miniftrv, there are true Sacraments, I Neither has M. Dodrocll proved that the Dif- nters are Schifma ticks, becaufe they have feparat- 1 from the Communion of the EngUJh Bithops ; for ing the People have fuch an inherent Right as . s. grants they have, proving the D^enterstobe :hifmaticks ; or not ichifmaticks, depends upon the ifcuffing of this Point, to wit, Whether or not the mrnwnion of the Engl ijb Mftops U fo polluted that it ymut be continued in without raanifefi Hazard ? Therefore M. UodweL's pretending to prove them 1 beSchifmaticks, without entering upon the dif- ifling of this Point, and independently on proving at the things on the account of which they fepa- te from the faid Bifhops are unfinful, is altogether ;liculous: If the Communion of thefe Bifhops is >lluted, or if they require Terms of Communion atareiinful, fo far are the DilTenters from being thifmaticks, that they havedone nothing but what ey have an inherent Right to do, noching but it what they were obliged to do; fo that if they id done oiherwife, they would have been guilty of ebellion againft Jefus Chrijr. But J. S. mufc low, that we do not reckon our felves much obliged him fur defcroying t;,at Book of M. DoiweH\ ing that was done before to purpofe by Writings, iblifhed long ago, and which are well known ir the lorld, particularly, M. Claude's Defence of the i\e* man unhand M. l'ajon's Anfvoer to the Boot: E< } tit* iy 3 u Jt Prejudices againjt the Calvinijts, which two >oks will make M. Vodwell's Treatife eternally In* nous cc ndiculons.To return again to our par pole, The Sentence in debate, to wit, {Suando Plebs 'a maxime habeatpotejtatem vel eligendi dignos fater. f€Sy &c. is in the 67 among the CjprianuEyiiWcs, nch was writ upon this occafion. Bafilides a ^/u- h Bilhop bcingguilty of great Crimes, demitt-d iu:udrly,andanothcr,^/tfK5 was atiually Subl'ti- tuted 336 The Cyprianick Bifbop tuted in his room; Bafilides beginning afterward t( Rue that he had parted with his Bifhoprick fo eafily prevailed with the Bilhop of i^wie to mterpofe tha he might be repon'd, this brought the People of th« Diocefs into a great Perplexity, and obliged then to Write to Africa for Advice how to behave in thi Affair, to wit, whether they fhould adhere to thei prefent Bilhop Sabinia or re-admit Bafilides wh< had forfeited nis Titte by Misbehaving fo grofly, i they should be urged fo to do by theBiihopsof th- Province, thro 4 the Inftigation of the Bilhop I{pme, who hade already given to Bafilides the Righ hand of Fellowship. Whereupon the African Bishops fend to the Peopl of that Diocefs a Synodical Epiftle, which is this 6- we are fpeaking of, and therein they advife ther to adhere to Sabini/A y as being a Holy and worth Perfon, and lawfully Conftituted their Bishop, ac cording to the Prefcript of the Gofpel an Praftice of the Univerfal Church, and by no mear to admit of Bafi lide s. And this their Advice the found on Scripture, which holds forth that Bishoj should be blamelefs, and of an untainted Life. The they reprefent the Danger thefe People arei who join with pro phane Bishops, that by partakin with them in their Sacrifices, they become Guilt of their Crimes,and will be made to share with thei in their Punishments : And that therefore tt People who are tryfced with fuch Bishops should parate from them,and have nothing to do with the Oblations : thereby inlinuating to this People, th; they would bealtogether inexcufeable if they snou receive Bafiiuits after they were fairly shut of him If it would be their Duty to ]ppa rate from him, he were aftually in tneir Chair,they needed not qu ftion that it was their Duty to hinder him to r enter into it. And that the People have a Right feparate from Scandalous ana Prophane Bisho I ai had not a Monarchical Power. 337 ifand confequently that they had a Right to keep ttiUSabwM, and to hinder Baftlides's Re-admifiion ) Ithey prove from the Confideration, that the power af Eleftion is lodged in the People, Quindo^ fay fthey, Plebs ipfa maxime babeax poteftatern vel dignos facet dotes eligendi, vel indignosrecujandi. And here- by they anfwer the Objection this People did or anight make, to wit, That the Bifhops of the Pro- vince would readily urge Bafilides upon them, and rorefs them to receive him, feing the Bifhop of%omc 9 ^whofe Opinion had great weight, was for his Re- ception ; giving them to underftand, that neither the Bifhops of the Province, nor any other had a Power to impofe upon them in that Affair, feing the [People them/elves hive the power either of Electing good Bifhops or receiving bad ones> infinuating, that if Bjfilides were Re-poffeft of their Epifcopal Chair, they would be in the fault principally themfelves, fe- |jng by Divine Right they had the power of Elections [in their own hand ; Quod C ipfum videmus de divint YAuxhoritaxe defcendere y fay they. And that it is in- Meed of Divine Right, that the People have the [Power of Elections, or choofing Bifhops to them- jfelves, they prove by three Scripture |Precedcnrs,that of EUa\ar who was con- Numb: 2o $ [ftituted High Prieft in the face of the 26. Acts 1. [Congregation j of Matthias and Barfabas Alls 6. who were Eltfted by the Peoplejandof [the feven Deacons who were chofen the fame way. In a word, ttiit African Fathers fignity to the Peo- ple, that they needed not be difficuked with thac f Affair, feing it was in their own Power to determine which of the two Pretenders fhculd henceforth fill their Epifcopal Chair, that it was in their Power cither to make choife of the good Bifhop Stbinwu or to rejeft the bad Bifhop Bafilides. And this ia plainly to affirm that the People have the Right of Eleftions, Seingthe Queen has it in her Power to U u de- 338 The Cyprianick Bijbop determine whether the prefent Chancellor (hall con- tinue to fill thatPoft, or he (hall be brought in who ferv'd in the former Reign, none will call it in Queftion that (he has the Power of Elefting the Chancellor, but unreafonable and contentious Per- fons. It is evident then, from the whole Series and< Drift of this Epifile, that the meaning of the Sen- tence, guando Plebs ipfa maxime habeai poteftatem vel tligendi dignos facer dotes, vel indigvos recufandi, is, and can be no other than this, that the power of ele&ing Bifhops is lodged in the People, or body of the Church. Now tho the thing is thus clear and evident, J. S* can tell us, that this Sentence we are fpeak- ing of, has nothing to do with choofing Bifhops by popular Votes when a Chaifis vacant, and that all aim'd at, is, That the People v have an inherent Right to feparate from Bifhops when their Communions are lb Polluted ( as Bafilides's was ) that they can- not be continued in, without manifeft hazard of their Souls who continue in them. And as to the three Scripture-Precedents of Elegit, Matthias and BurfabM,and thefeven Deacons, he affirms that this Ajrican Bifhops adduce them Only to prove, that the People have a Right to give Testimony to the Lite and Converfation ofthefe who are to be made their Bifhops. But $. S. abufes Cyprian and thir African Bi- (hops, by putting this Glofs upon their Wcrds, and faying that they intended to affirm and prove no more but that the People have a Right to feparate from the Communion of the Bifhops when they are lb polluted that they cannot be continued in without hazard, and by this means makes their Synodical E« piftle Impertinent and Ridiculous, as if it had beert writ by Men that were not in their right Senfes, For, 1. By bad not a Monarchical Power. 339 1. By putting this glofs upon their Words, he jnakesthem give an impertinent, wheedling, ambi- guous and contradi&ory Anfwer to this People, and which could afford them no Satisfaction at all, an Anfwer which had another meaning than the Words they expreffed it by, did naturally bear, which is in- conliftenc with that Simplicity and plain way of dealing which was among Chriftians in thofe Days. In the firft place, he makes thir Africans give an I Anfwer that was impertinent and not to the purpofe; The People have an inherent Right to feparate from the Communion of Bifhops when they arefo polluted that they cannot be continued in without i hazard, anfwer thir Africans according to f. S. that is, They inform the People only what to do when £4/F//4ej is repon'd by the Bifhops of the Pro- vince. But this People did not inquire how they fhould carry to Bafilides when reftor'd to their Epif- , copal Chair, whether then they fhould feparate from him or not ? But whether they fhould dif- mil's their prefent BithoySabinus who was a blame* lefsPerfon, and with whom they were well plea s'dj and admit the Scandalous Bafilides, if the Bifhops I of the Province fhould prefs him on them ? In the next place, he makes them to give a wheedling and : ambiguous Anfwer, for they fay, That the 1'copls \tbemfclvcs have the Power either of electing good J5;'- Uhops,or reletting bad ones, not intending hereby to [afferc that the People have the power of electing i their Bifhops when their Chair is vacant; yet if they had intended to affert this, they could fcarcely have expreffed themfelves more clearly and pufnive- 'ly. Then he makes them give an Anfwer that was Rfafatisfaftory, for it left the People in the fame perplexity they were in before they conl'ulted with thir Africans : You fhould feparate from the Com- munionof a Scandalous and Prophane Bifhop, fay the Africans \ but the Bifhops of the Province U u 2 W0U |j 340 The Cyprianick Bijbop would Anfwer to the People, Bifi tides is no more Prophane but Penitent, his former Crimes are blot- ted out by Repentance, and his being reftor'd by the Bifhop to Clerical Communion, And then this Anfwer which J. S. makes them give, is contran ditfory; for they inftruft the People to feparate from Bafilides when put in their Chair by the Bi- ihops of the Province, and yet advife them not to part with their prefent Biihop SabinvA nor to re ceive Bafilides tho the Bithops of the Province fhould be for putting him in their Chair. Indeed If they had made an Alternative of it, had advifed the People to do what in them lay to hinder the Re- pofition of Bafilides, but if the Biftiops (hould reftore liim to their Chair over their Belly, then to feparate from him,that would have been fomething purpofe like: But there is no fuch thing, thir Africans ad- vife the People pofitively to adhere to Sabinwrnofk firmly,and never tocondefcend to the Repofition of Bafilides, nor fuffer him to fet his Foot in their E? pifcopal Chair, yetnotwithftanding they fpend the moft part of their Epiftle in bearing in upon them, that a People fearing God should feparate from Scandalous Bishops, and confequently that they fhould feparate from Bafilides when he fhould be put in Poffefiion again of their Epifcopal Chair. 2. J. S. makes thir Africans in their Anfwer to affirm one thing and to confirm another thing, to fay one thing, and then in ftead of proving what they faid, and intended and propofed to themfelves to prove, to prove another thing which was of a quite different Nature. Quando riebs ipja, fay they, Maxims habsat poxeftaiem vsl eligendi dignos facer dotes 9 vel indignos recufandi, quod. C ipfumvidemus de divina Author it ate defce?idere t utfacerdos Plebe frgjeme fub' omnium oculU deligaxur, £? digrnis ataue idoneus publico judicio ac teJirmc?no compr obeiur.fi cut inNumerisDomims Mojfipr vel indignos recu- \fandi y and this they fay is of Divine appointment* and that it is of Divine appointment tney under- take to prove by the Scripture Examples of the E- leclions of Elea^ar, Matthias and Birfabu^ and the fevenDeacons. And j 1 . S. tells us, that tne mean- ing of the Sencence, Quando plebs ipfa maxime habeat potejiatem vel ehgendi y &c. is, that the People have an inherent Right to feparate from the Communion of Bifhops when they are to polluted, BV. And the fame J. S, tells us, that thir Africans adduce thir three Scripture Examples of£/e^r, &c. to prove that the People have a Right to give Teftimony to the Life and Converfation of thefe who are to be made their Bifhops. According to this then* thir Africans fhould have, and did intend to prove that the People have an inherent Right to feparate from the Communion of Bifhops when they are fo pol- luted that they cannot be continued in Cu-.but inftead af proving this,they fet themfclves to prove,that the People have a Right to give Teltimony to the Life and Converfation of thefe to be made their Bi- fhops. Itfeems $.S* is for making the venerable Bifhops of this ancient African Synod -Dunces in good arneft. 3. Thir Arguments, or three Scripture Prece- knts, neither prove that for which $. S. pretends :hir African Fathers adduced or made ufe of Chen, ior that which the Series of their Difcouifc makes evident that they intended to prove by them, it* f. S y s. glofsbe put upon their Word, if we look the Series of the Difcourfe, that which thir Afru an Fathers propofed to themfeives to prove by thefe Scripture Pi ^cedents, is cnac riebs ipfa mupime ha- >Ct potejiatem vel eligtndi ili&nosjucerdotss vel iniig. ms 342 The Cyprianick Bijbop nos recufindi % and if you put?. S*$. glofs upon thefc Words, and fay that all aim'd at bythen^ isonlj this, That the People have an inherent Right to ; feparate from the Communions of Bifhops when they are fo polluted that they cannot be continued in without hazard, you will make the African Father* to argue after this manner, Elea^ar was conftituted High Prieft publickly in the face of the Congrega- tion, Matthias and Barfabaa, and thefeven Deacons were elefted by the People, therefore the People have an inherent Right to fepirate from the Com- munions of Bishops when they are fo polluted that; they cannot be continued in without hazard. But there is no Connexion or Coherence here, nor any thing that looks like common Senfe in fuch reafon- ing. And as little do thir Precedents prove that; which f* S. fays they intended to prove by them,to wit, That the People have a Right to give Teftimo- liy, or fhould becall'd to bear Witness to the Life; and Converfation of thefe whoare to be made their' Bifhops. Not the firft Precedent, or that of Elea-\ ^ar^ when Eha\ar was conftituted High Prieft, Numb. 20, 25. the Congregation wasaffembled for another end than to bear Teftimony to his Life and' Converfation, God needed not conveen the People: that they might inform him what EJea^s Conver- fation and Life was. As to the third Precedent, there is not one word of the, People's giving Tefti* mony to the Converfation of thefe that were to be Conftituted Deacons, this was not proposed by the Apoftles, or in the lealt motion'd to the People, but when the Apoftles conveen'd the Multitude, the thing propos'd to them was this, tochoofe or eleS feven of their Number to be conftituted Dea- cons. And as to the fecond Precedent, it is as little to thepurpofeasany of the former, there is not one word of the 120 Difciples or the People's being calfd to give Teftimony to the Life of thefe whont the had not a Monarchical Power. 54 5 he Apoftles fhould nominate, but Feter propofed to hem, that they fhould elect two, which they did, ind one of thefe that they ek&ed, was fubftituted in :he room offudu. I hope that it is now evident, that $. S. has ahufed hir African Bifhops, has made them fpeak things hey never dream'd of, has put a Senfe upon their Words which they cannot be made to bear, a Senfe vhickthe drift, Series and fcope ot their whole E« piftle notorioully rejetts. And feing the ienfe that ve have put upon the words is Natural, and if it be bllowed, theEpiftle will be confiftent with itfelf, nd the reit of Cyprian's Works, and the Argu- ments ftrong and conclufive, and thir Fathers will >e made to give a Sentence conform to Scripture and he Practice of theUniverfal Church, what more lear than that it is the true and only .ienfe r> But if the Senfe we have put upon the Words is he true Senfe, and thir African Fathers intended o affert that the People have the Power and Right Eieft their own Bifhops, how thought they to irove this by the Example of Eka\xr t Who can magine, fays J • -*"• that Cyprian and his Collegues vere tech Dunces as not to have known that neither l\za\ar nor Matthias was chofen by popular Voices ? This is the only plaufible thing f. S. has fa id upon he Head, the reft of his Subterfuges are but mile- able and mean Shifts. To this i fay, 1. What if I fhould fay, I cannot tell how thir Uric an bifhops thought to prove the Divine Righc f popular Elections by this Precedent of Eka\ar ? Vill it thence follow, 'that*;?. J's. ground! efs Pan- y muft take place e What if I (hould fty that it is ighly pdHible that thefe Bi (hops ( efpecially if we appofe them to have written thi* Epillie in b?i night have been capable of fuch a harmlcfs Mn'cake s this, that Elea^ar was Eleficd by the People's uffragts when he was not ? Wlut Danger can there j 44 T/tf Cyprianick B/^/> there be in fuch a Plea? Certainly fuch anOverfight f being at mofcbut an efcape of Memory can never weaKen their Authority in any matter of confer quence. And the truth is, it is very poflible tjiey might fall into a little Miftake here thro*. Eorgetfulnefs. However, this is enough to ftop; J. £'s. Mouth, for this is the very Anfwer he gave on a certain occaiion, when he knew not well how to reconcile fome thing Cyprian had faid, with his Hypothefis. See Vind. ?rin. Cypr. age, p. 236. And what if I ihould fay, 2. That thefe African Bishops had not/perhaps the manner oi£/e^rs Election in View, but con- fider'd only, that he was Conftituted or Inftal'd inhisOffice publickly, and before the face of the Congregation, and thence infer'd, that a Bishop should be created in a publick way, that is publick- ly Ele&ed by the Suffrages of all the Peop)e,or whole Fraternity, and ordain'd by Impofuion of the hands of the Bishops in the face of the Congregation? Inferences as unexaft as this, are fome times to be feen in the Works of Cyprian. 3. If the firft Precedent, the Conftitution of Ehi* jar, did not fo very nicely fuite theCafe of popular E« le&ions, What then? leing the other two anfwer it exactly. Matthias { Afts ch. 1. ) was without doubt Elefted by the People. But Matthias was choien by Lot. True, but the two Perfons Matthias and Bar/abas were choien by the People, that one ol themmignc be made Apofcle by Lot, and this was fufficient for the purpofe of our African Bishops : and makes it evident to a Demonftration, that the Church it felf( and not its Officers or Rulers) h by God's appointment the Source of Eletfions. if the Power ot Elections was lodged in the Churck Rulers, why did not the Apoftles themfelves Elefl Matthias and Bar/aba* ? The African Fathers ther «iid very pertinently make ufe of this Precedem t« had not a Monarchical Porter. 345 to confirm theDivinelnftitution of popularEleftions. As to the feven Deacons it is no lefs evident, that they were chofen by the People, and $. S. himfelf does not deny it. And hence it is demonftrable, let him fay what he will, that by Divine Authority they have a Right to Eleft their Bifhops. Tothink that God would give them a Right to Eleft fome Church Officers, and not to Eleft others of them, is Irrational. They tell us ordinarily, it will not fol- low that becaufe they have a Right to choofe in- ferior Officers, therefore they (houldhavea Right to Eleft their Bifhops who are fuperior Officers, a yninori ad maju* von valet con\ec[ueririi. Say I, they have a Right to choofe their Deacons, therefore d fortiori they have a Right to Eleft their bifhops. A Man has a Right to choofe his Servant, therefore much more has he a Right to choofe his Wife, be* caufe hislntereft and Happinefs depends much more on the right Eleftionof a Wite. The IntereJt of the Church depends much more on the Bifhops than the Deacons,therefore if it has a Right to Eleft its Dea- cons, much more (houlditbe fuppofed that it has a Right to Eleft its Bifhops. Then the People E- lected Mattkiu and BarfabM 9 one of which was to be made an Apoftle, and that was more then to Eleft ten Bifhops; to have a power to Eleft two, that one of them may be made Admiral, is more than to have Power to Eleft ten Captains of Frigats. Then fay they, the People are not competent Judges of the i^ualifications or fitnefs of Perfons to be made Bifhops, therefore they can have no |Right to Eleft them. Why then did not the A po- lities fay to the People ( Act u ) you are not Ca- pable to judge of the Qualifications requifite in art pVpoftle, therefore not you, but we mult Eleft two UPerfons, that one of them may be made Apoftle in [the room of JikIm ? It one fhouid pretend thac the People of Rome, being a Company made up of ;Tradesmen, Weavers, Coblers, Cfr, werevery un, Xx fi c 346 The Cyprianick Bijbop fit to judge of the Qualifications requifite in a Gene- ral or Conful, and never did choofe them, that it is much more rational to think that the Senate did E- lett them, a Court in which there were many Per- fons who had been, or were fit to be ConfuU or Ge- nerals themfelves, would not that be to fpeak igno*i rantly and fenflefly ? There was more Skill in the Senate, but the body of the Common-wealth had more Intereft in the Elections, and therefore it was agreeable to common Senfe, that the power of E- leftions fhouJd be lodged in the whole body ot the People, feing naturally the right of Ele&iont refid* eth in them who have the greateft Intereft. Per- haps one witty Fellow, fuch as Diogenes, was as able to difcern, or had more skill to judge what Perfons were fitteft to be made Magiftrates, or to be put in fuch or fuch Offices, than the whole Bod|> of the Athenian People, who were made up of Mer* chants and Trades-men,and Perfons of very ordinary Capacities ; But would it not be ridiculous to in- fer hence, that the Power of Ele&ions was not, or lhould not have been lodged in the body of the People of Athens , but in Diogenes ? And the Reafon is e- vident, for tho Diogenes had more skill that way than moft or all the Citizens of Athens^ jet he could not pretend to the like Intereft, and the Right of Ekttion belongs to them who have the greatell In- tereft. J. S. may be, has more skill to manage a Lordfliip,and to put the Rents belonging thereto to right Ufes, than my Lord himfelf hasj but it will not follow, that therefore $. S. fliould fpend or difpofe upon theRents of theLordihip;myLord (hould do that himfelf, becaufe he, has the Intereft. In like manner with refptft to the Election of Bilhops, the People have the Intereft,becaufe theFun&ions of theEpifco- pal Office are perform'd to them, and therefore they have the Right to Elett their own Bifhop, and it lyes on the Neighbouring Bilhops as'haYi'ng more Skill to affift them in their Elections, to give them Advice had not a Monarchical Power. 347 Advice, and todireft them, to put the Perfcn E- tlefted toTryal, 8V. as f. S. who is a Perfon of great Skill may give his Lordfhip Advice to what nfes he fhould put his Rents. Then the body of the Church or People is not fo j eafily byafled, with refpeft to Elections, as others, J or the Neighbouring Bilhops would be, if the Right (■of Elections were lodged in them. For feing the •Bifhop to be chofen is to perform the Works of the Miniftry to the People ( and not to the Neigh- bouring Biftiops ) the melius ejft at leaft of their iSpiritual State depends much on the Eleftion of a [fit Perfon to fill their Epifcopal Chair; And it is (difficult to Byafs a confidering People againtt their lown Intereft, unlefs you will fuppofe that they are Gracelefs and Unconcern'd as to their Spiritual State and in that Cafe I do not pretend that they have the Right of Elections, this being a Privilege which belongs to thefe who are a Plebs obfequens fraceptit Dominicu 15 Deum metuens, to 4ife Cyprian's wife and judicious Words. Does not common Senfe inform us, that it is much better that the Power to Eleft the Ring of Britain be lodged in the People of Britain themfelves, than in a Court or Confiftory of the European Kings f Is it rational to think that a Coniiftory ol the Kings of Europe would have as tender a regard to the Inte- reft of the People of Britain as the People of Britain themfslves? Might they not be much more eafily Byalfed in an Affair which their Intereft is not much concerned in ( fuppofing their Inrcreft to be as little concern'd in the Election of a Britijh King, as is the intereft ot a Synod or Presbytery of Neigh- ' bourin^BKhops in the Ele&ion ofaBilhopto a Va- cant Church) than it would be poffible to get the [ People of Britain Byafled againft their own Intereft, I whether to Eleft a Papift,treacherous Perfon, or an < Idiot to be their King ? We may be fure, that the •good of the Church is that which Chrift looks to, X x 2 and 348 The Cyprianick Bijbop and not the fecular Intereft of fome particular Per- fons ; Minifters, Bifhops, Presbyters and all, were inftituted for no other end, but to be fubfervient thereto: Wherefore it is moft certain, that God Jias placed the Right of Electing Bifhops where the greater good of the Church requires that it fhould! be placed. And feing it is as much contrary to the Intereft of a Church that the Right of Elefting their Bilhop, fhould be placed in others than them- felves, as it would be contrary to the Intereft of the People of Britain, that the Right toElefta King andParliament for them fhould be lodged in aForeign State or Court, we may conclude with the greateft Evidence and Certainty imaginable that God has not given the Right to Elefta Bifhopfor a Church, to the Neighbouring Bifhops or the Bifhops of the Province c far lefs to a Patron, it being notorioufly evident that a Turk or a Pagan will have as much regard to the Spiritual Intereft of a Church, as a i Prophane pj Self-feeking Patron ) but to the : Church itfelf. What a pitiful and weak Contriv- ance is it then to devolve the Eleft ion of a Bi (hop on. the Bifhops of the Province ? How contrary to common Senfe and the Maxims of Government I Muft the Major of London be chofen by the Majors of the Neighbouring Cities? How comes it that the Church of England never thinks of devolving the Eleftion of a Bifhop to a Vacant Church, upon the reft of the Bifhops ? 4. The African Bifhops fpeak in thisEpiftle, not only with refpeft to the Eleftion of a Bifhop by the Suffrages of the People, but alfo with refpeft to, Ordination by imposition of Hands ( which was performed by the Bishop of the Province, at leaffc io and after Cyprian's time ) and confound them to- gether, fo that what they fay muft fometimes be un- aerftood with reference to the one, fometimes to the other, fometimes to both, according to the Nature of the thing. In ordinationibus facerdownj, " - - n0 y had not a Monarchical Power. 349 \\ton nifi immaculatos & integros Antiftites eligere de- \bemM) fay they, and, EtmanuA ei in locum Bafilidis in* poneretur. Wherefore it may be faid that thir Fathers intended to confirm or prove two things by thefe :hree Scripture Precedents, to wit, That a Bifhop hould beordain'd pubiickly, or that hands fhould >e laid on him before the face of the Congregation ; The other is, that he fhould alfo be Elefted pub- ickly,«or by the Suffrages of the whole People of :he Church affembled together. To the firft of hefe, the Precedent of Elea^ar anfwereth exadly, or he was Conftituted, InftalM or Ordain'd pub- ickly, in the prefence of the People, and it appears hat this is the ufe that thir Africans intended to nake of the Example of Elea\ar^ to wit, to (hew :hat a Bifhop fhould be ordain'd pubiickly, for when :hey propofe it they fubjoin or infer, Coram omni Sy~ tagoga jubet Dcva conjiitui facerdotem y id eft 9 inftruit Soflendit BJ) 1 NAT 10 N E S Sacer dot ales non \ifi fub Populi afftftentis confcientia fieri oportere. *nd the other thing, to wit, that the Bifhop fhould >e Elected by the Suffrages of the People, they )rove excellently by the Examples of Maitkia-s, and he feven Deacons which they propofe, who were ilefted pubiickly, and by the Suffrages of the Peo* •>le. And that this was their mind it fecms to be evident from whac they fubjoin. For after they lave thus from Scripture manifefted the Right nethodof conftitutingBifhops, have proven by the Example of Elea\ar that they fhould be ordain d jublickly or in the prefence of the People, and by he Examples of MatthiM and Bar/abas, and the even Deacons, that they fhould be Elefted pub- icklv, or by the Suffrages of the People, they Pub* Din, that this Scripture method was exactly follow- xl by this People in Spain they were writing to, in heConftitution of their Bifhop Sabinus. j^uod & •fudvos faftumvidemus, fay they, inSabini College ttojtri 35<> The Cyprianick Bijhop noftri ordinatione, ut de univerfie Fraternitatu Suf* fragio, C de Epifcoporum qui in prafentia convener ant^ qui que de eo ad vos literas fecerant, judicio 9 Epifcopa. vja ei deferretur % & manus ei in locum Bafilidit impo* neretur. f. S. objefts that the Bifliop was not Elefted by the Suffrages of the People, but only in their Pr*- fence, becaufe Cyprian fays, Ex Epifcopu* deligatur plebepr&jente. But this is frivolous. Cyprian fays in other places, and ofter than once or twice, that a Biftop fhould be, or was EleQed by the Suffrages of the People, and not in their prefence only : So that in Cyprian, Deligatur Plebeprafeme, is as much as Deligatur Suffragiu Plebis prxfentti. Thus *}. S. himfelf fays, that the People gave Teftimony to the Life and Converfation oftheBifhop to be conftitut- ed, difcover'd the Faults of the Evil, or publifhed the Merits of the Good, wherefore when Cyprian fays, Vt Vlebe prafente vel detcgantur maJorum cri* mina vel bonorum merita praiicentur, his meaning was not, that the Faults of the Evil fhould be diS covered by others than the People in their pre- fence, but that their Faults fhould be difcovered by the People themfelves there prefent; in like man- ner the meaning of Deligatur EpifcopmPlebe pr*fenxe t is not that the Bifhop was Eletted by other than the People in their prefence, but that he was Elefted by the People being there prefent. In like manner Cyprian fays, with refpeft to the Eleftion of the (tven Deacons ( Ads 6.) Quod tarn diligentertf caute convocataPlebe iota gerebatur, but thefe feven Dea- cons were Eletfed by the People: wherefore, the Deacons were elected the Whole People being call % i together, is as much as to fay, that they were E- kfted by the whole being cali'd together. In the next place, f. S. comes to give us a plain and pofuive account, as he fays, of the Creation of Bifhops in thofe Days. How were they Elected then? had not a Monarchical Power. 3 5 1 then ? They were Elefted, fays he, by tbe Bifhopi of the Province, thus fays Cyprian, sabinus the Suc- ceflbr of Bafilides was promoted to the Bifhoprick by the Suffrages, that is according to ?• *• bv the Approbation or Good liking of the whole Brother- hood, * and by the Judgment ( Judicio ) of the Bifhops who were prelent. If this be, Judicium muft iignify, Suffrage or Elective Voice ; But who informed jr. S. that Supagium Topuli figni- fies only, the People's Approbation, or Good-liking, and that Judicium fignifies Eleclive Voice ? . Is it not a wonder that the Man could have the Con- fidence to advance fuch things without the lealt (hadow of Probation, without being able to let us fee that thefe words may be taken in fuch a Senfe, by fo much as one Example ouc of any Auihor what- soever, Sacred or Prophane < If one may take the Liberty to caufe words fignify what he pleafes, or take them in a Senfe unknown to the whole World excepting himfclf, he may eafily prove the BiQiop's Chancellor's Court out of Cyprian's or lgnatius'% Epiftles, and Prelacy from Virgil's Georguks, or Ovid's Meiamorpbofis. But if J. S. will be at the pains to look his Dictionary, he will find that Ju. diciurn fignifies Approbation or Advice j fo that the meaning of Cyprian and the Ajrican Biihops is, that the People Elected Sabini'A, and the Bilnops of the Province approved their Choice, or had advifed them to pitch on that Perfon. ?, •*• * It is a wonderthat J. S. could not perceive the unrejfoiul jhai he here fays, or ihe Iraperunency of this g m»otber-bcod had no more imereit in the Llecnun -r a Bi.nup th.. Bff'M^ hddySafan-ji no doubt haa the Affx-htien uud Ga-ltk- :he Mitcr=,a:>well j 3 or the tircihrjr., bow comet it then thai {.ynJn fays promoted to the Bilhc .- auftrages of ihc Broincr-houi, cing he was promoted as much by the auiira&esorche Miter-hoca * Nci- per does J. Si. Hypotheiis hang well [. klhop was Monarch of his Church. Butbyw;> sa Monarch Elected by the Neighbouring Monarch* > 11,. 5raais*dlincethc n _.t baib.irou* - s'ationl tere never fcuiliy or fucbajv.. * J $2 T^Cyprianick Bijbop $. Si adduces the Teftimony of Lamprldius to nt purpofe in this cafe. Might not Lampridius affinfi that the Chriftians m'd to proclaim the Names ol fuchas were to be ordain'd Bifhops, without pre', tending to deny that thefe Bishops wereEle&ed by the Suffrages of the People before they were or dain'd, or proclaim'd either perhaps? Abundance of Law breaks not Law, as we uie to fay. What to make of the People jtanding by out of Grigen, i t is eafily to guefs by what has been faid. P a g«4i8, f. S. propofes an Argument (if what he fays deferves to befo call'd) to prove that the People in Cyprian's time could have no definitive Voices in matters of Government or Discipline, even in particular Churches. What he fays comes to this. Even the Martyrs and Confeffors thenvv felves had no fuch power, tho they were held ioi mighty Reputation, were reckon'd Chriftians of higheit Note and greateft Value, £5^ to Petition was all their Prerogative amounted to. And becaufe the Martyrs had not a Definitive Voice, he con- cludes that the People had not* Whether the Peo- ple had Definitive Voices in theAffairs ofDifcipline, or not, in thofe days, is what we are not at prefent! concern'd with; But leaft he fhould pretend to in- fer, the Martyrs had no decifive Voice in Affairs of Government, therefore they had no Voice in the Eieftion of Church Oificers, and feingthe Martyrs ^ fuch privileged Perfons could not Eleft a Bifhop, u therefore the People could not. I muft tell him, > that this has no weigh: at all. It is to argue after i this Fafhion. The wiliies emeriti among the l{o. : mans, or one fingle Tribe by it 1 elf, could not make ,» a Law, or create a Conful, therefore the Homan People could not, or the Dukes and Marqueffes in ! Scotland cannot by them felves fettle the Union, k therefore they cannot in Conjunftion with the Par-; ' liament. The Ma rcyrs tho they were the Nobleftl parCT had not a Monarchical Power. 35$ *part of the Church, yet they were but a part of it> nd to infer that became a part of the Church could otdo fuch a thing, therefore the whole Church :ould not, is a piece of Weaknefs indeed. We (hall conclude this Point with fetting down the Opinion of two Divines of the Church of Eng- land of the firft rank, excellent Perfons both of :hem, whofe great Names will obfcure J. S. extra- >rdinarily. The firft is Dr. Baron, who gives this iccount of the Creation of Bifhops in Cyprian's time, r be neighbouring Bifhops, fays he, ( being advertifei f a Vacancy) did conveen at tke place ; then in the Congregation the Clergy oj the place did propound & ? erjon, yielding their Atteftation of kit fitnefs, which he People hearing, did give their Suffrages, accept. rig him if no weighty Caufe was objetted, cr refufing im if fuch caufe did appear . then the Bijlwps prefent id adjoin their APPROBATIONS Ctofcnt pon futb Recommendation and Acceptance, and lajed on ands. Popes Supnp. 326. in Quart: The other D. Pearfon Bifhop of Chejier, Tho, fays he with :fpeft to the Creation of a Bifhop, Cyprian attributes eftimony to the Clergy, and Elective Voice to the 'eople, the Cardinal on the contrary, gives Elective oice to the Clergy, and only Tefiimony to the People }/ which means he deftroys the People's Elective Voice* hub Cyprian every/ where afferts, then he tells us* hat Cyprians words will not at all bear the Cardinal's that is J. S\. ) glofs. Annal. Cypr. pag. 29. This, chat the People elefred their Bifhops in the lird Century, is a Truth fo certain and evident lat thePopiih Dotfors, thefe among them, to wit* ho are Men of Honour and Integrity, offer not > call it in queltion, and affirm it very positively, hus Du Pin in his Abridgment of the Dilcipline in teti.ird Century, fays, That Chrilhans took great re in the choice of their Minijters, to elect fuck Perm if, whofe Life and Conversation wat unblamable Y y Aftu 354 The Cyprianick Bijbop After the Death of thofe who had been ordain 1 d by ti jipoftles, the People Elefted. TheBiJhops -were gem rally ordabfd by their Brethren, who impofed the Hands upon them. And he gives us this account < the manner of the Creation of Bifhops in the fourt Century. Wkw a Bijbop died, fays he, all the Bijboj of the Province were called together to ordain a Succe for in his %oom> he was commonly chojen by u Clergy and People of the vacant Church* And to L Pin we may add Higaltius who is no lefspofitive as i\ this particular, and whofe Honefty and Ingenuit may put many who profefs themfelves to be Pn teftantstothe blufh. Nay the impudent Jefuite Bellarmin himfelf coul not for fhame abfolutely deny this palpable and ev dent matter of Fa#, and was forced to betake hin felf to this filly and childifh fhift, that where th People injoyed this Privilege in Ancient time they injoyed it by the Condefcendance of the B fhops * and particularly the Biftiop of %ome. An it appears that M. Vodwell is convinced in his Coi fcience that the People dideleft their own Bifhop and injoyed feveral other Privileges in the Goven ment, in the Primitive times, elfe he needed nc have betaken himfelf to Bellarmin's fhift, and fhewe usfeveral things, (in the 19 Chap; of his Sepan tion of Churches, &c* from § 18.) which, as he fay might induce the Churcii-Rulers to condefcend t th * Says the learn'd M. If Blanc, Denique de eleftione five defignat tone cert turn perfonarum ad mutter a Ecclejiajtica 5 Bel lar minus iff alii fonti fieri cum **ncedunt } illam inantiquaEcclejja,tnultisfaltem in /ocm, ferns Populum Chrijt anumfuijje, adeout cemmunibus Populi Suffragiu futuri Epifcopi ower of Elections, and gives occafion to Quiblc anent the Right of Heretical or Cprrypt Congre- gations, had not a Monarchical Power. 357 If they had told us that the Community of th e faithful People, or Body of the Church or Congre- gation is not the Source of Ele&ions, or if they allow them to be fo in part, as it feems they do, if they had told us precifely what ihare others have inE- le&ions, we might have known better what to have laid. However if by wholly and folly be underftood that the Church Officers fhould not be excluded from Elections, but fhould Vote together with the People ex gr\ if there be a Congregation that has a Minifter and Elders, or a Bifhop and Presbyters, if another Bifhop or Minifter be to be elected, the Minifter they have and the Elders may join with the Congregation in the Eleftion, and give their Suffrages, this I beliere will not be much contefted. But notwithftanding of this, the power of Eleftions will be ftill in the Body of the People : For in this Cafe, the Minifter and Elders will give their Suf- frages, not asChurch-Oificers, but as Members of the Society or Church, neither can they Vote in any other Capacity, Or if the meaning be, that a Congregation fhould r.ot fall about the Ele&ion of a Miniiter at random, but fhould confult with the Presbytery, or neigh- bouringBifhops, & take their Approbation of the Per- fon with refpeft to his Abilities & Qualifications for the Sacred Function, before or after they call himj this I think will not or fhould not be denyed. But neither will this hinder the power of Elections to be wholly zn&Jolly in the body of the Church or faithful People. If a Noble Perfon were to choofe a Go« vernour for hisSon, he would take the advice of a Perfon ol Learning, and maybecauie that Perfon fry him as to his Fitnefs or Abilities, but ftill the power of Electing the Governour is in the Noble- man w/:0//> and /o//^ Our Argument they propofe in thefe Terms. [ The firft, fay they, is taken from the choice of * Mattbias 9 3 $8 The Cyprianick Bljhop ' ^?hTA nt ° the Office of an Apoftle, which was the p/n ^ l2 ° Difciples there prefent, and if mnrh m P have P ow ^ to Cho°fc an Apoftle, weAnr reto choofean ordinary Snifter. But two **r-Zl f thatth ofe Words, And tbej *pp$inted nVol^kV * cai rd Barfabas and MattV", do in all cio£ • r7 relate t0 the A P° fiIes & ^t to theDif- Pomed y a PP°' nted two > that is, tb s Jipoflles *p- L1V W : Thus our Annotators, they aP- 2 n JS d two, that is, the fore-mentioned Apoftles nit two in the E | eaion# And if the Hi ftory be wen obfervM, it will appear, that the 120 Difciples ar ^ nam 'd only in aParenthefis,and thatPe*er,in his whole Difcourfe, relates efpecially if not only to his Fellow Apoftles. It is faid, v. 17. he was numbred with us, u e. with the Apoftles, not with the Difciples. And fov. 21. which hath companied with us,/, e. withus Apoftles. v.22. muft one beordain'd to be a Witnefs with us, u e. with us Apoftles. And then follows, and they ap- pointed two, that is,the Apoftles and not the 120 . Difciples. 4nf. If the Title of this Chapter eighth be con- fidered, and feverai Expreflions the Minifters have in it, one would think they allow the People fomc lhare in Eleftions, but it appears from this Anfwer, they intended no fuch thing, for they are for (hut- ting up the Difciples in a Parenthefis, and allow them no fhare in the Aftion, but only the favour of being Witneffes to the Ele&ionof Mattbiw and Bar- fabus performed by the Apoftles alone. Yet I muft fay that they underftood their Point better than did our M GiUeftic for to allow the People the Right of Elections, and to mantain alfo that the Church-Officers are the firft Subjcft of the Power of the Keys, or of all Ecclefiaftical Power, as he does, is to maintain Contractions. However it xnuft be granted that M. Gilkfpie was very confe- quential had not a Monarchical Power. 359 quential to himfelf,in afferting, that the Effence of the Call to the Minifterial Office, or what he calls Mifiiopote(lativa y lyeth in Ordination and not in E- leQion ; For feing he lodgeth the Right of Electi- ons to the Minifterial Office in the People, if he had made the Effence of tne Minifterial Call to ly in Election, he had palpably overturned the principal Hypothefis, to wit, that the Church-Officers ex- cluding the People, are the firft Subjeft of the Ec- clefiafcical Power, or of the Keys. But feing the London Minifters do not place the Right of Elections in the body ot the People, what could have induced them to maintain than abfurd Principle, co wit t that the Effence of the Call to the Minifterial Of- fice lyeth in Ordination, is more than I can under- ftand. But to come to the purpofe, I fay, In the firlt Place, they propofe our Argument difadvantagioufly, which is taken commonly not from the Eleftion of M attbijs, or the preferring him to the Apoftlefhip before Birfabu, which was done by the Lot ; but from the Eieftion of Mattkij* and Birjabas out oi the Body of the Difciples, or the nominating of them two, and putting them in the Lift for the Apoftlefhip, which was done not by the Apoftles, but by the body of the People. And hence we conclude, that the body of the People have the Right of Eietlions; For if they had not, why did the Apoftles put it upon the People to elect or ap- point the two? If the Church-Officers had the Right of Elections, why did not the Apoftles them- felves nominate and appoint the two ? If Peter had thought that Chrilt lodged the power of E- leftions in the Church-Orhcers and not in the People, he would have made the propoiai to the Apoftles, and not to the 120 Difciples. ^ They tell us in the next place, that not the Dif- cipies but the Apoftles nominated and appu: the two. But the contrary will appear to any I $<5o The CypmnkkBifljop fon who reads the Hiftory. They nominated and appointed the two, to whom Peter dire&ed his Dif- ccurfeC Ms l.from v. 15. tt>23.) and to whom ia his Difcourfe he made thepropofal that one fhould be put id the place of fudas ; But Peter direfted his Difcourfe, and confequently made the Propofal not to the Apoftles, but to the Difciples : And this isevident, becaufe Peter directed his Difcourfe to thofein the midsof whom he ftood up, but he ftood up in the mids of the Difciples. And in tbofe days Peter ftood up in the mids of the Difciples, and [aid, Men and Brethren, this Scripture muft needs have been fulfilled — Muft one be ordain* d to be a witnefs with «a. Then the Evangelift acids, And they appointed two, &c. to wit, They in the mids of whom Peter flood up, and to whom he faid, Men and Brethren, &c. that is, the 126 Difciples. Nothing can be more Evident, But fay they, the 120 Difciples are named only in a Parenthefis, When Lute is giving account than Peter ftood up in the mids oi the Difciples, he adds in a Parenthefis, that there were of them there to theNumber of one hundred & twenty.But dothLuke's telling in a Parenthetis how many Difciples were prefent, prove that Peter did not dirett his Dif- courfe to thefe Difciples, or that hedid not make the Propofal to them, and that they did not appoint the two ? If an Hitiorian ihou'd give account that the Chancellor made a Propofal in Parliament that two Commiffioners fhould be fent up to London about ibme Affair, and (hould exprefs himfelf thus, And in tbofe days the Chancellor ftood up in the Parliament, ani faid ( the Number of the Members prefent were about 120; My Lords and Gentlemen, two Perfons muft be fent to London, &c. and if the Hiftorian fhould add, and they appointed two, would any Per- son conclude, that becaufe an account is given in a Parenthefis how many Members of Parliament were pre; had not a Monarchical Power. 361 fcreferit, therefore the Chancellor dire&edhis Dif- courfe not to the Parliament, but only to the Of- ficers of State who were alfo there, and that the Officers of State only nominated the two Commif- fioners that were fent to London? Then they fay that Peter's Difcourfe relates principally, if not only to the Apoftles, He vom numbrei with us to be a voit- nefs with as, &c. What is that to the Purpofe ? Teter in his Difcourfe to theDifciples fays fomerhings which relate to the Apoftles, will it thence follow* thatP.24,ThouLord which knoweft the Hearts of all Men, (hew whether of thefe two thou haft chofen. It was the Diyine Lot not the 120 that choofe the Apoftle, Objetli But it is faid, v. 26. He was number'd with the eleven Apoftles. GvyKcLTz^wpi&yi) /• e* fay they, he was together chofen by Suffrage of the 120 Difciples. Anj: The word vvyKcm^ifidn pri- marly and properly fignifieth to choofe by Stones or Counters, with which they were wont to give Voices in Commiffion or Judgment, but here it muft neceffarly be taken in a more general Senfe, for the general Confent and Approbation of the whole Company ; for it is certain that Matthias was chofen by Lot, and not by Stones; by God, and not by the People. And therefore when it is faid He was number' d> the meaning is, he was ac- knowledged to be one of the twelve Apoftles, they all refted contented with the Lot, as being confi- dent that God difpofed and approved the event thereof. ForAnfwer, As to the firft thing, that the Apo- ftles guided and directed the Difciples in their choice, and therefore the power of Election was not in the People wholly and folly. We pre- tend to no other whole and fole Power of Election in the People but fuch as this. No Eleftion is performed in the Church of Scotland without fome Minifter or Minifters prefiding, and guiding the Aftion. If the Apoftles only guided and direfted the Difciples in their choice, the Difciples choofed, and not the Apoftles. If a faithful and skilful Neighbour guide and direft a Friend in his choice of a Servant, he choofeth his Servant wholiy and folly. Indeed if the Apoftles had nominated the two, and the Difciples had been confin'd to that No- had not a Monarchical Power. %6 j Nomination, or obliged toacquiefce when the Apo- ftles made the choice, that would have been fome> thing, bat no fuch thing appears from theHiftory the Difciples were left to the freedom of their own choice. The Election of Mattkix and Barfabas was eleciio Populi pracuntibus 2? dirizentibu* Apoftolu^ and fo was the Election of a Magiftrate at Athens, cleftioPopuli prxeumibm & dirigentibus Tbefmothetu 9 and at Rome it was eleftio Populi pr&eunxibm C? dirii gentibm Tribunis PlelU, yet no Perfon will deny that the Power of Eleft ions was in the Rgm&n and Athe- nian People wholly and folly. Then fay they, the Apoftles limited the 120 to a certain fet of Men, they were obliged to Eleft two outof thefe that had accompanyed with theA, 0- ftles all the time that Chrift was with them. It il true the Difciples were limited to that fet of Men, and could not go either to the Synagogue or Hea- then to Eleft, but they were limited to this, noc fo much by the Authority of the Apoftles, as the Na- ture of the thing. I fuppofe that if the Apoftles themfelves had taken upon them to make this E- leftion, the Minifters would not have denyed them the whole and fole Power of Eleftion, yet they would have been limited this way as well as the Difciples were. As to the next thing, That it cannot in any good Conftruftion be laid that they Elected Mjn j/b/'^any more than BirjubM, it is not to the pur- pole, tor as was faLi, the ftrefi of the Argument lyesupon the electing or appointing the two, which was done by the People and not by the Apoftles, If it be faid it will not tullow that the People have a Right to Eleft their Bilhop, becaufe the People e* leftcd two, one of which was taken to be an Apo- ftle. I fay it will follow very clearly. For its being put upon the People by the Direction of the Holy Ghojt to Eleft. the two, manifcfteth that the People are the Source of Eleft ions, if the Church- Z z 2 Rulers 364 The Cyprianick Bijbop Rulers had been the Source, or if the Right of E* leftions had been lodged in them by the will of God, the Apoftles would have elefted or appointed the two, whereupon we thus argue, They in whom God hath lodged the Right of Ele&ions, and they only, fhould nominate and eleft Bifhops or Paftorsj but God has lodged the Right of Elections in the body of the People, therefore Bifhops or Paftors fhould be nominated and elefted by the body of People, Further, the People here did all that could be done by Men in the Affair, they £- lefted two, and did not nominate the individual Per-? fon, not becaufe they were not the Source of £« leftions, but becaufe the Perfon to be Elected was to be put in the Apoftolical Office, and it was re- quifitethatan Apoftle fhould be Elefted in an ex- traordinary way, and in fome fort immediately by tfefus Cbri/} 9 as M. Claude doth obferve. But that we may omit nothing that c^n be faidoa thishead > it is told us, $u& Div\ f?egi;EccJ: p. 99 in Marg: out of fome Author, * The Text doth not; * make it clear that this Nomination of Matthias c and Barfabas was by the Church or body of the c People, bun rather the contrary may be collected * v. 25. And they appointed two, who appointed 4 them? v/f. Peter and the Difciples thac were * affembled together, v. 15. And this Affembly € wasaCouncil or Synod of the Apoftles andDifcipleg 1 (the firfc Council mentioned after Chrifc) extra- ' ordinarily met for choofing an extraordinary Of* * ficer, even an Apoftle in the place of fuias, which * Eleftion was alfo managed in an extraordinary c way, to wit by Lot, wherein they had recourfe * to God's immediate Providence. And therefore * hence to Argue to an ordinary Eleftion of an or* « dinary Pafcor, is very invalid. To this I fav, firft, Whether this Church, Society, or body of People met in an ordinary or extraordinary way is go( to the Poiqf, what ever wgy they met, they E? had not a Monarchic al Power. 365 Je&ed Matthias and BarfabM^ or appointed the two* >tbat one of them might take the place of Judas* fAnd therefore much more have the People now a [Power to Elect ordinary Officers. As to what he fays in the Second place, That the 120 was a Council or Synod of Church-Officers or Minifters ; If he had made that good, he had fpoil'd the Demonfcration indeed. But that he nei- ther did nor could prove, only ic mufc be fuppos'd becaufe the Hypothefis requires it. In the firft place the People mufc have no Ecclefiaftical Power, this is the Hypothefis which mufc be adher'd to jnoft firmly, come of it what will. Wherefore in the next place, it is impoflible that Matthias and Barfabts could be Elefted by the People, and therefore the 120 Difciples who Elecled them, muft be converted into a Synod of Minifters, or it mufc be fuppos'd that they were Church-Rulers. This is truly to handle Scripture after the Socinian Mode. Thus (hey lay down this Hypothefis that Chrift is not God in a proper Senfe. Wherefore in the next place, it is impoflible that he could be in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin Mary. But be- caufe it is pofitively afferted in lome Texts of Scrip- ture that Chrift came down from Heaven and was aftually there before either his Refurrection or A- fcenfion, that they may elude thefe Texts, they fuppofe without any Probation at all, or feign that he was taken up to Heaven Corporally, and re- mained fome time there, before He enter'd upon His jwblick Miniftry. Thus this Auchor fuppofes with- out any Ground at all, that the 126 was a Synod or Council, and if the Hypothefis had required that they (hould have been a Company of Aitrolo- §ers or Mathematicians, who doubts but it would m aye been a very found Doctrine to affirm it. But if we may make what Suppoiition we pleafc and build Theological Conclufionsupon them, I know no Text of Scripcure that will be able toliand out againit fuch 366 The Cyprianick Bifhoj? fuch Art. It never enter'd into the thoughts ol Cyprian and thefe Bifhops who were with him when be wrote Epift. 67. that thefe Difciples were Church-Officers, for there he faith, guodpojtea fecundurn Divina Niagifleriaobfervatur in attU Jpofto* lorum^uando de ordinando in locum$ud<* Apoftolo Pe- irus ad plebem loquitur, furrexit, inquit, Petrus it medio difcentium, fuit autem turba inuno. Now after all, I confefs I can fee no Reafon vrhy it may not be faid that Matthias was elected to the Apoftolical Office by the People or 120. For the Lot is of popular Inftitution * as well as the Cbeirotonia or Election by Suffrages, or at leaft in popular common-wealths Perfons ufe to be chofen to Offices by Lot, as well as by Suffrage, and thefe whom the People Eleft to Offices by giving forth of Lots, are Ele&ed to thefe Offices by the People, and made fuch Officers, as well as thefe whom the^ Eleft by their Suffrages. There is nothing more ordinary, in popular Commonwealths than the E- leftion of Officers or Magiftrates by Lot. Thus Saul was chofen to be King of Ifrael by Lot. Thus Athens the Senat of theBean conrifting of 406 Perfonswas chofen by Lot, which us'd to be per- form^ by Beans : And this Senate was divided by Lot into four parts call'd Prytanys, every one of which Prytanys were in Office, for a quarter of a year Tour about, the firft Prytany for tne firftQuar- ter, E3V. Alfo the great Court there call'd the-tfe- 1 Mai was chofen the fame way. And at this day in ; Venice out of the Configlio de Dieci y or Council of. Ten, there are three chofen by Lot every Month, j call'd Capi de Dieciy and of thefe three one is chofen , by Lot every Week, who is the Provoft of the Died. And thefe Perfons who are Elected to Offices by Lot t 0** ratl ° t er EleRionem Rsipu&lic* Arijlocratic* maxime etiatn convex mebat, (icut Sortit'Q Reipublic Pkbti-fcitum, an Aft or Decree niade^ by the Will or Suffrage of the People. ' W ^h (xbvov \v tgIs ^ntpitjfjLAcri ^ rau$ i 'iKK(£ ^9 ToT? s^o/f.Thatyou may fight againft . Thilip, not by Decrees and Epiftles only, but by Aftions. Vemoft: Or. 1. contra Philip: And >$$<\v\qi7cL}j!wQr > morte tUi decreta -J-. JElian % /. 2. c. 7, And yiq>l£ 2>Q\) xl 8 tL#®&'. Vut eriim nQncalivlisfuffragiafirun* bad not a Monarchical Power. 373 been ele&ed by God, fo as to exclude the People, this would have been fomething, but feeing God elefted him by the Suffrages of the People and thei? Lots, it doth not at all follow^hat wnicrum Rtgetinfufragiitf.- £*th fyyif ft i ffn : f rf : 'ifr- ,: i That is. That the I . each of them two Votci or Suflr.-. . 374 The Cyprianick Bifbop chew, and guided the Suffrages of the People or 120 the fame way, fo that both the Suffrages and Lots were ordered infallibly, in fuch fort, that if Jefus Chrift had interpos'cl in an immediate way, and nominated the Per I on by an audible Voice from Heaven, or the Meffage of an Angel, Mirt'/.j* would have been the Perfon he would have pitched upon to be the Apoftle, and no other. And that was in my Opinion an Apoftolical Call Authentick enough. And if it be enquir'd, why Chrift call'd Matthias after this manner, and not in a way altogether im- mediate, as he calYdPaul and the reft of the Apo- ftles? I fay, He did it, firfl, that none might pre- fume to quarrel mediate Calls* feeing one was cail'd. even to the Apoftolical Office that w^y ; Secondly. to let us fee who they are, who have a Power or Right to give lawful Calls to the Bifhops or Mini- sters of the Gofpel, who are the Succeflours of the Apoftles, even the Church and Spoufe of Jefus Chrift : Wherefore thefe Calls, which come from another Airth, areagainft the Mind and Inftitution of Jefus Chrift, are not lawful and Gofpel Calls, and the Blefling of God cannot reafonably be expected upon tbeMiniftry of fuch Perfons, who enter not by the Door into the Sheep-fold, but climb up fome other way. Now, for further clearing of thisPoint, 1 fhall fubjoin a few Propofitions, and then con- clude* i. Youmuft confider a Church or Congregation as an Ectleiiaitical Society ( a Common-wealth, Epbef: ih. 2. v. 12. or a City or Incorporation, Pfal. 46.4. and 87.3. Hzbr: 12.22. J^evel: 22. 19.) hav- ing its Ecclefiaftical Privileges, as a Civil Society has its Civil Privileges. 2. The Privileges of the Civil Society or Incor- poration belong equally to all thefe that are the Citizens or Burgeffes. In like manner the Eccle- fiaftical Privileges belong to all thefe in common who had. not a Monarchical Power. 375 who are the Burgeffes of the Heavenly Jerufalem, or Church. 3. All thefe are Burgeffes of the City, who are admitted by the Corporation, and get Burgefs- Tickets. In like manner all thefe are Burgeffes of the Heavenly Jerufalem or Church, who are ad- mitted to the Table of the Lord, be they bond or free, Matters of Families or not. There U neither tfew nor Greek, there U 'neither bond nor free, there it neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Chrijt $efut. And thefe who cannot be admitted to the Table upon the account of Ignorance, Profanity, or Herefie, CSV. be they great or fmall, rich or poor, they fhould have no Elective Voice in the Choofing of a Bifhop or Minifter. 4. In the Corporation or City, Perfons act or vote, not as they are rich, but as thev are BurgeP- fes, the meaneft Burgefs has his Suffrage or Ele- ctive Voice in the choofing of the Major, and th* richeft Burgefs can pretend to no more. In like manner Perfons give their Suffrages in the Election of Bifhops or Pafcors, not as they are rich, bur as they are Chriftians, not as they are Lords, Barons, Heritors, GV. but as they are Faithful in Chrifc Jefus, and have a Right to Chriftian or Ecclefiafti- cal Privileges. Wherefore the poorefc Servant, Weaver or Cobler, has his Eleftive Voice in the Creaiion of a Bilhop, and the greateft Lord or Ba- ron can pretend to no more. The meaneft Trades- men belong to the peculiar People, the Rjyal Priefthcod are l\ings and Priejts to God, a?:d to Cbrfft , have as full a Right to fit dowa at the Table ot the Lord, or to demand Baptilm to their Children, as the greatefc Princes or Nobles; and therefore have as g< od a Right as they to jive their Voices in the Election of Bifhop.. Thefe then who object that our Pafcors are elected or call'd by Weavers, Shoemakers, GV. freak profanely and ignorantly. 5. In 17 6 The Cyprianick Bijbop 5. In a City or Corporation the Female Burgef- fes have a Right to emolumentary Privileges, fucli as Buying and Selling, 2fc. but are excluded, upoa the account of their Sex, front thefe things that have relation to the Government, have no elective Voice in choofing the Magiftrates, Parliament- Men, S$V. And thus it is with refpect to the Church or Ecclefiaftical Corporation* Thus Atts Ch. 15. we read of a Meeting of the Apoftles and Elders and Brethren about an AiFair of Government; but not of the Sifters. Thus Cyprian, Vt de univerfa* Fraternitatis/aj^g/o Epiftopatut ei deferretiir. Sa- binvA was elected by the Suffrages of the whole Brotherhood. And when one was to be fubfcituted in the room of $udw, Peter ftood up in the midfE of the Difcipies, and faid, Men and Brethren. Where- fore I confefs I cannot approve the Practice of our Church in allowing an Elective Voice to fome Women, as to Hereffes a Right to fubfcrive Calls to Minifters or Bifhops. 6. In a City or Corporation the poorer BurgeC* fes are not deprived of their juft Privilege of giv- ing their Suffrage in the Election of the Mayor, on pretence that they may perhaps be obliged to re- jaove fome time afterward and dwell in a neigh- bouring City or Place for greater conveniency of living* Neither fhould the poorer fort of Believers, and Sons of God or Brethren of Jefus Chrift, fuch as Farmers, Trades-men, or Servants, be deprived of their juft Right of giving their Suffrage in the Election of a Bilhop or Pafcor for the Church of Congregation of which they are Members at the time, becaufe perhaps fome of them may remove afterward, and dwell in a neighbouring Church. Now from what is here faid two things may be gathered* \^i) When we fay that the People have the Power or Right of Electing their Bifhops, by People we do not underfcand the common People only* had not a Monarchical Power. 377 Only, but all thefe belonging to a Church or Spiri-* tual Corporation, Lords, Barons, Magiftrates* Trades-men, Servants, or be who they will thatars admitted to the Participation of the Sacraments* (2; It is as much contrary to the Light of Nature or common Senfe, and Rules of Government, that one Member of a Church or Ecclefiaftical Society^ or a Patron have the Power of Electing a Bifhop or Paftor to the Church or Congregatiou, as it is contrary to the fame Light, and Natural Privileged of the Citizens of London, that one rich Burgefs choole the Mayor of that City ; or as it is contrary to common Senfe, that one toping Gentleman or Nobleman fhould be permitted to elect Parliament* Men for the whole Shire; or one great Lord or Duke to elect theRing, if the Throne were vacant, And from the whole that has been faid on this head, we may conclude, that the Bifhops were not Monarch* of their Churches, and that the Supreme Power Eccleiiafcical was not lodged in them : for the Power ot Elections is a pare of the Supreme Power of the Common-wealth, and a principal part too, and in all Monarchies this Power is lodged in the Perfon of the Prince : but the Bifhops had not the Power of Elections, nay not of the meaneft Of- ficers, not of the Deacons themfelvesj it is ridicu- lous then to pretend that they were Ecclefiafacal Monarchs. To falve this, they ordinarily tell u% that the Bifhop has the Power of Ordination. Buc this is a meer Jeft. For befides that the Right of Ordinations in a Church was not lodged in the Bi- (hop alone, feeing the Presbyters concurr'd with him in tnat work, the Power of Ordination can fcarce be call'd any Power at all, Election or the Determination of the Perfon is tne main thing, and the effential Point in the Creation of Officers whe- ther Civil or Ecclefiaftical; and Ordination is no- B b b thine 378 The Cyprianick Bijbop thing but a Circumftanceor Ceremony: Thefe who ordain Officers, if the Election ofthera be in the Power of others, have little or rather no (hare at all in their Promotion* Thefe who elect, fay they, do nothing but name the Per/on^ but they who or- dain, create and make the Officer, and confer the Office-Power on him. But our Churchmen cheat themfelves by fuch weak Contrivances. The No* tnination of the Per/on is the very principal thing in the Creation of any Officer Civil or Ecclefiaftical, Bifhop or lvdagiftrate;and Ordination is but a meer trifle if compared with it. Whether has the Par- liament who elects the Ring, or the Bifhop who or- dains him, anoints him, confecrates him, or crowns him, the greateft hand in the Promorion of the King, or which of them confers the Office or Re- gal Power upon him ? If our Parliament fhould make an Aft by which they (hould referve the Ele- ftion of ail Officers Civil and Military in their own hand, and (hould fend word to the King, that they did not at all intend to deprive him of the Prero- gative he had before of creating all thefe Officers, that he fhould ftillhave the Power as formerly, to conftitute all the Officers in the Kingdom, to make them, and to confer the Office-Power upon them, whether by Ordination, laying on of hands, or any other way he thought fit, and they (hould referve no more to themfeivcs but only the Nomination of them, would not the King have reafon to think, that they were mocking him ? If he were depriv'd of tne Power of electing them, what would that which they call the Power of Conftituting or Con- ferring the Office-Power upon them, fignify to him ? Thai. Power would be next neighbour to nothing* I think that this may be fufficient to open People's eyes, and to convince them that the Power of Or- dination is in etfeft no Power at all ; and feeing Ordination is all that belongs to the Biftops in the Con- had not a Monarchical Power. 579 Conflicting of Church-Officer?, the (hare that they hare in the Promoting or Conferring the Of- fice-Power upon them, is fo very fmall, that our thoughts cannot teel it. Mr. Doimel fays, That tho the People ( Aft 6.) eleaedthe Ch ^fif Seven Deacons, the Apoftles not only gave p. 45^ them the Inveftiture, but the Authority it felf, becaufe they faid, U K-iTeimfcouii', fo that the Deacons did not derive their Authority or OrEce- Power from thefe who elefted them, but from the Apoftles who conftitutel or ordain'd them. But Vm afraid that Mr. Vrtlwel's Admirers will get the be- guile, if they rely too much on his word here. Ifo* crates ( in Pamtbem ) fays, That the Ma^iftrates of Athens conjtiiuted thefe Perfons Officers or Rul- ers, whom the People did eleft, &46iraiu nejfeth ) it was ordained^ that in every City one of the Presbytery Jhould be called a Bijhop, who Jhould have Vreheminence over his Collegues, to avoid Confufion which oft times arifeih out of Equality. And tru- ly this form of Government all Churches every where received. Theodorus Beza, in bis Trail De Triplici Epifco- patus Genere, confejjeth in effett the fame thing : For having dijiinguijhed Epifcopacyinto three kinds,Divine 9 Humane and Satanical, and atributing to the Jecond {which he talis Humane but we maintain and con* ceive to be Apoftolical ) not only a Priority oj Order, but a Superiority of Power , and Authority over Presby- ters, bounded yet by Laws and Canons provided againft Tyranny ; He clearly profeffeth, that of this kind of Epijcopacy is to be underjiood, whatfoever we read con- cerning the Authority ofBiJIwps or Prefidents ( as Juftia "Martyr calls them) iwlgnatius, and other more ancient Writers. Certainly from thefe two great Defenders of the Tresbytery we Jhould never had this free acknowledg- ment, Jo prejudicial to their own pretence, and foAdv an* tageom to their Adverfaries purpofe, had not the Evi- dence of clear and undeniable Truth enforced 'era to it ; It will not therefore be necejfary to Jpend any time in confuting that uningenuous Afjertion of the Anonymous Author of the Catalogue of Jejiimonies for the Equality of Bijhops and Presbyters, who affirms, that their Dif. parity began long after the Apojlies times ; but we may fajely take for gt anted that which thefe two learned Ad- verjaries have confejfed ; and fee whether upon tbufoiw* Aation ( ?.«? ) Aation laid by them, we may not by unanfwerable Zeafon raife thu Superftruclure. _ "\ That feirg Epifcopal Government is confeiledjy fo Ancient, and foCatbolick, it cannot with Rea- fonbedcnyed to be Apoftohck. lor fo great a Charge, * between ^esbytenal Co. venmentand Epifcopal, could not poffibly have pre, vail'd all the World over, in a little time. Bad E- aifcopal Government been an Abemuon from or x Corruption of the Government left in the Churches by th Apoflles, it had been very firange,that it jhouldp.r.e been received in am one Church jojuddenly, or that it (kould have prevailed in all for wny Apes after. \an- afledebuerat Error Ecclefiarum, quod autem apud omnes unum eft, non efc erratum, fed trad. cum. Bad the Churches Errd, xhn v>ouli have vim J, what therefore is one and the fame amonglt ad,came not jure bi Error, but Tradition. Thus Tertullian argues rjcry probably from the Confent of the Churches of hit time,not long after the Apoflles and that in matter of Opinion much more fub\eci to unobserved Alteration. But that in the frame andfubftanceof the r.ecejfiry Govern. ment of the Church, a thing always m uje and Prtffcc, there fbould be fo fudden a change asprejently after xhc Apoflles times, and fo Vniverfal, as received m all the Churches, this is clearly impojfible. ■ ~ ,. For what Vniverfal Caufe can be affigv'd or fain £ of this Vniverfal Apojlafie? Tou will not imagine that the Apoftles, all or any of \m,made any Decree or tbjf Change when they were living, or left order for itin am VViU or Teftament when they were Dying : Tl:i( Were to grant the Quefiion, to wit, That the Apotlet being to leave the Government of the Churches v (elves, and either feingby Experience, <>r foreseeing % the Spirit of God, the Derations and Bfjori tohicb would arifefrom a Multitude of Baud tuted Epifcopal Government in ftead of tkftr own Ge- neral Councils, to make a Law fore General Ch^ *i ..~~* TU+r*» mdA >1Q Chit tuft %tra* Lowing, »«/ /»•*" + +-~^ j , . r or tntnj Atf* there were vor.t. Jbere rw no QtrfflW ( 3S6 ) Emperor, no Coercive Power over the Church to enfor* it ; Or if there had been any y rve know no Force was e qual to the Courage of the Chriftians of thofe times Their Lives were then at command ( for they had no then learn'dto fight for Chrift ) but their Obedient^ to any thing againfi hit Law was not to be commanded ( for they had perfectly learn 9 d to Die for Him ) there* fore there was no Power then to command this Change \ or if there had been any, it had been in vain. What Device then jba'J we ftudy, or to what FourtJ tainjhall we reduce this fir an ge pretended Alteration ? Can it enter into our Hearts to think, that all the Pref-\ byters and other Ckrijliansthen being the Apoftles Scbo- lars, could be generally Ignorant of the Will of Chrift, touching the necefftty of a Presbyter ial Government ? Or dare we Adventure to think them foftrangely wicked all the "World over, as againtl Knowledge and Confciencz to Confpire againft it ? Imagine the Spirit of Diotre- phes had entred intofome, or a great many of the Pref~ byters^ andpoffeffed them with an ambitious Defire oft forbidden Superiority^ was it poffxble they Jhould au tempt and atckieve it at once, without any Opposition or Contraditlion ? And befides that the Contagion of this Ambition fiouldfpread it felf and prevail without flop and controul, nay without any Noife or Notice taken of it, thro' all the Churches in the world, all the Watchmen in the meantime being fo faft a fleep, and all the Dogs fo Dumb f that not fo much as one jhould open bis Mouth againft it ? But let us fuppoje ( tko it be a horrible untruth ) that the Presbyters and People then were not fo goodChriftians as thePresbyters are now,that they were generally fo Negligent to retain the Government of drift's Church commanded by Chrift, which now wc arefo Zealous to reftore ; yet certainly we muft not for- get nor deny that they were Men as we are. And if th fhould have demonftrat- ed, evidenced bv making k appear, that the An- cient Bifhops were Paltors of one Congregation only. Dr. Maurice s Exceptions anfwered. 12 CHAP. III. The fame thing is further evidenced bv Arguments from Cyprian's Epiftles, and Dr- Maurice^ Exceptions taken off. 2 4- CHAP. IV.. The Faifity ofthefecond Propofition Mr. Ckillhgworth lhould have demonftrated, dis- covered by making it appear, that the Ancient Bifhop aftedin Affairs ot Government, in conjun- ction with ail the Presbyters ofthe Diuceis,and not a convenient Number of Affirtants only. 54. CHAP. V. The Falfuy of the third Propofition Mr Chilling-worth fhould have proven, manifeft^ ed, 5$ CHAP. VI. The Superftruiture, which Mr. ChiU iit/gworth build* upon the forefaid falfe Founda- tion, overturned. 6-t CHAP. VII. The Arguments of the Prelatifts for their Bifhops are as weak as the Arguments of (.he Papirts for Franiubrtantiation. 67 .APPENDIX, wherein it is made evident,That not only the Epifcopal Diccelfes or Churches, were fmgle Congregations only in the days ok' Cyprian, but that it was reckon'd a Crime then, and even to defiroy a Church, to ereft a Congregation in kbdkies the Bilhop's Congregation : By way of . Addition to Chap. 3. pig. 24. 85 The Reverend Arch bifhop Vjber's Original of Bi- fhops and Metropolitans conlider'd; where it is mule evident, Thar it-' makes nothing for that which is now called Epifcop&cjo 105 It: the Bifhops in Cyprian' J time bad neither Abfolute Power nor i ISTegative Voice in their Churches. 109 CHAP.'l* The State of Epifcopacy in the days of Cffrian. or an Account of the Power that the Br- fhops had then. The Difference between the Bi- fhops in thofe days, and thefe which the Apoftles left in the Churches, and the Degrees by which it may be fuppos'd, the Alterations that Epifco- pacy fuffered, were carried on. 109 CHAP. II. That the Bilhop had not Abfolute Power in the Church. 12S CHAP. HI. That the Bifhop had not a Negative Voice in the fecond and third Centuries. 133 CHAP. IV. The Arguments of the Prelatifts, from Terms and'Phrafes in Cyprian's Works or elfe- where, or from the Epifcopal Prerogative, prove not, That the Bifhop had either Abfolute Power, or a Negative Voice, in the third Century. 183 CHAP. V. The Sentences in Cjpfiaifs Works, which feem to import, That the Bifhop had Ab- folute Power, or that he alone could difpofe of Eccleiiaftical Affairs within his own Diocels,more particularly coofidered. 211 CHAP. VI. Other Arguments anfwered, by which they think to prove, That the Bilhop had a Sove- reign or Monarchical Power in Cjpriirfs time. 259 CHAP. VII. That which is now call'd Presbyterian Government in Scotland, is really Epifcopal Go- vernment, in the fame Sen fe the Government of the Church was Epifcopal in the third and fourth Centuries. 269 CHAP. VIII. The fame thing is further eviden- ced, by comparing the Difcipiine 0: this Church with thac of die Ancient Churcn in many Parti- al! 286 CHAP. IX. The Power of the People in electing the;r Bilhops or Parlors, ailcrted and vindicated. The Apoftolical Inftitution of Epifcopacy Demon- tfratcd, by Cbillin&vtortbt AD- ( > ADDEND A: Pag. ito. line 4. in Marg: after T/9«/ add, It trill be faid here, that the Scholiaft miftakes the meaning of this Word.. But what then? ieing in the very next words Nicias fays what the Scheliaft makes him to fay here, «./ oppcOcPfis tI dVcL'XtiQlCTcu, i. e. If you are afraid to refcind this Decree, that is, to put it to the Vote again that it may be refcindcd by the People. Moreover, M. Hu4- fm renders this word thus, De Conciln Sententia c9nprma t which makes no left for our purpofe. Page 320. lin; 2$. after Right, add Very well we can think that the People could do more than all the Presbyters in the Eleftion of the Bifhop ; for when Cjfriun was made Bifhop of Car* tbage, there were eight Presbyters in that Diocefs, of which eight fix did oppofe his Election +, and only two of them approved thereof ; yet the Suffra- ges of the Body of the People and the two Presby- ters carried the Eleftion of Cyprian to be Bilhop, notwithftanding the Oppofition made by the fix Presbyters and their Adherents, or thefe who join'd with them. t Hoc tnim quorundam PreshyterOYummalignitds iff pttfidia per fecit 9 nt ad •of ante diem ¥afcbo. 1. 32, after unlawfully ordained, add, or want- ed Epifcopal Ordination, p. 271. 1. 34. after to, adi % be. p. 273. 1.24, 25. for, or Diocefs of the Church, r. of the Diocefs or Church, p. 280. L 5, r. Courts* p'282. 1. 26,r.abeis. p. 283. 1. 9, r. Judges, p. 284. 1. 7.inmarg; for divers, r. Divine, p. 285. 1. 15. for it, r. 14. p; 295. 1. 23, r. £ha. p: 300. 1. 30, r. it is; p. 304. 1. 24, r. a Pagan. Ibid: 1. 30. dele is. p: 309. 1: 17, t. negligent Penitents, p; 312. 1: 7,r. taken off* p. 3 19. 1. 5, r. Bithops. p. 3*7. 1. laft, ajter hncy,add 9 they made her Queen denovo 9 tor that would be to no purpofe, and no more would be underftood. p: 383. 1. 12, 13. for Epifcopal Deraoaftation, r.£pif- copacy demonfcrated • . I Q