r \ -t A I I ,( W SI."t.j„v„f ^ PRINCETON, N. J. Wmen/e/j/. (U-r. j.6^. {^-^..^Ul, AA, Section /. . Shelf. Nttmbcr \ //.,.. y^^^^c^^ /;7j SUPPLEMENTi T O T H E VIEW of the EUaions ofBiJhops PRIMITIVE CHURCH: Wherein that Treatise is cleared from the ObjeBions made againft it, in a Book lately publifhed, entituled, An EJfay on the Nature of the Church ; and A Review of the Ele^ iiions of Bijho^s in the Primitive Church, AS ALSO, The mofl: material Errors of that Book are expofed and refuted. By James Dundass, M.A. Tresbyter of the- Church ^/Scotland, Author of the VIEW. I Pet. iii. 15. Be ready always to give an anfwer to every man that ask" eth you a reafon of the hops that is in yoUy with meeh^ nefs and fear. . Hie murits ahencus ejfo : Nil confcire fibi^ jjulla pallefcere culpa. Hor. EDINBURGH: Printed in the Year M. DCC. XXX. i 1 Contents of the Preface. § I. A Breach ma^e upon the Authority of Bilhops^ as fuch, by A Xlu fimple Presbyter, ;; of the highejl Contumacy. Pag. i § 1. Ihis is the Caje of the Breach made by the Proteftation. 2, §5. T^^ Defign of the Proteftation 5 whersy of Bijhop lrullarton'*j Title to b§ Metropolitan. " ^ $ 4. The Defign 0/ the View. ^ 8 $ f. l/7tf Wcaknels of the Arguments advanced in the Proteftation, for proving its Defign, 10 § 6. Whether the Bifiops of the ScottiOi College are Bijhops at large. 13 §7. Whether they were fo, cr to be fo called^ ivhea the Proteftation vjas rnade^ or at any Time fince^ 27 § 8. That they were then^ and are nozvj really local, Diocefan Bi* fiwps, ' 30 § p. That the Protefter and his Party are the Separators, where, of the Kcvkyvcr's groundlefs Poliiivencfs. 51 § 10. Remarks on the Preface to the Eflay and Review. 4i § 11. Why the following Treatile « not fo methodically digefied, as may be wified, 45", §12. Two fljort Advices : One to thofc who are to enter into holy Or- ders, m thisChurchj the other to all Pcrfons in it, in general, ^f Contents of the Supplement. § I. >Tpi/f Occafion of writing this Supplement. Png. I § a, X That the Elfay and Review contain a fufficient Confutation of thcmjelvesy as to the main Points in Difpute. ^ § 5. Remarks upon the Reviewer'^ manner of Writing. 9 1. Of hii Civiliiy tozvards thcfe who differ from him. Ibid. 2. 0/ /?/; Tranflations. i^ 5. Of his Shifts to evade the jirgumcnts in the View. 24 4; t>f his total Omiftions of fame of the ftrongefi of them. 34 J. Of his infifting, even to Naufeoufnefs, on Things ^/leflcr Mo- ment, and where he fees any Ground oj caviUing. 5^ ^ i'.Of C 3 i^, of his arguing from ISegatives, cr SilcnceT 5^ 7, Of his making References without repeating the Words of the Authors. ^o 8. Ofhis/irugglingfor the Ufages. ^y §4. Of the Meaning of feme Terms ufed in this Dif^ute', and of fome Things of moment in it* 49 I. O/Suftragium. 50 i. Of 4w/ a Nic. Council y the 12 <2»i 15 ^/ Laodicea, ^^« 15 ofth» African Code^ and the 37 Apofto- Ileal. 96 I. G/EHgere. Ibid. . 2. O/Eledion. 102 3. O/^^e Decree / the State of the Gallican and Britifli Churches, as to Elections, in the Time of Charles the Great ^ and there* about. 1^4 § ^. 0/Dependency4»i Independency. 17 5" I. Of the Independency of the Church upon the State, Ibid. X. Of the Independency ofBifljops among themfelvcs, • Ibid. § 7. Of Bijhops at large. . ^93 Where there is a fliort Digreffton concerning the Meaning of the unus Epifcopatus in St. Cyprian. 217 § 8. 0/ Metropolitans. 2.17 $ ^. 0/ Vicars-general. 2,J» THE THE PREFACE. JiTow f»;>» »i); 4^ ?//i5-5 /(?^ i//i 'i >?^/j ruejferunt, Et cum hdrefes o* fchifmata poftmodum nata fum, dum convcntkula fibi diver/a conjli- tHunty veritatii caput atque originem reliquerunt. Cypr. de unit. Ecdef. T ^ !• fh m ^HESE are the Beginntngs of Heretic ksy fays St. Cjfrian {a\ and the Rife and Endeavours of ill-defigning Schifma- ticksj topkafe tbenifeheSj and defpife tbeir Bilhop with fweUing Pride. Thus they depart from the Church : Thus a profane Altar is rear" ed without : Thus Rebellion is raifed againjf the Peace of Ciirilt, and the Appointment and Unity of God. And if Herefies ^.xidi Schifms be the EfFe6l and Confequence of de- Ipifing one Biihop, the Certainty of that woful Efte(5t muil be no lefs^ when the whole Bifhops of a Nation are defpifed and infulted, and that too even when they are aflembled together in Synod, to deliberate upon, and regulate the weighty Affairs of the Church, and when they may be thought to be directed by the Spirit of a God (.t) Hxc (unt enim inicia h.vrcticorum, & ortiis atqiie coiiarus fchiunacicoiura male cogitantium, ut libi placeant, ut ria:poIicum lupebo tumore contcmtvinr. Sic de Eccledd receditur; lie altara profanum foris collocutur : lie contra paccm Chxilti Sc oidinationem atque uoitatem Dei icbdlatur. Cypr. i->. 45. cd %pg* 1 3 and ' aj. as to the 'third Century ; where the Author fays, That he has proved, that then every Jingk Bi(hop bad a Negative, as well as the Metropolitan ; and that he can-' not fee what Privilege the Metropolian had in this Matter above the rejl. I wifh he had told us when the Mctropc^"- litmh Negative commenced ; for he fays, ibid, thi^t it was his peculiar Privilege at the Time of the Council of Antioch^ that is, before the middle ot the Yoiirth Cmtiiry. But his only Reafon for it is, That then 'things were car" ried by a Majority of Suffrages^ From this it may be as well concluded, That any ordinary Bifhop chofen Pr ing the Meaning of any Word, according to my Know- ledge. And when any one occur'd which was of du- bious Signification, I made ufe' of the beft Dictionaries and Tranflations I could get, comparing them with tho Context and the Scope of the Paflage, to afcertain its true Meaning in that Place. Thus I coUefted all the Eleftions of Bilhops among the Orthodox^ whereof I could find Accounts any wife dillind in the Greek Cbiirch'-HifiQrieSj and in the Writ- ings of fome of the moffc confiderable Fathers ^ for the firll 450 Years, to difcover who had the chief Power in thefe Eleftions. To thefe I added fome plain Primitive CamriSj and T'ejlimonies oi Fathers. All which I found agree in this Pointy viz. 'that the fiver eign Power in Ek" &ions ofBiJhops Moused tOj and was originally e^erafed by Bt/bops. I found alio. That the Billiops who were to chufe and confecrate the new one, ordinarily informedt thernfelves of the Inclinations and Defires of the Peopk- pver whom the Bifliop was to be fet ; and often times, tho' not always, made Choice of fuch a One as, all o- ther Things being equal, was moft acceptable to them. And moreover, Tha^ frequently they allowed them to declare their Inclinations by Petitions either verbal or writteny or to give their 'fejfimonies concerning the Life and Converfation of fuch as were offered to them. And that thefe Things they did, that, the Eiiliop having the AfFeftions of the People, they might be the more edi- fied by his Minillry ; or, as Leo the Great words it (^). Zejf an unwilling People Jhould either contemn ^ or hate the Bifhop whom they had not deftredy and fhotild be lefs reli^* gioiis than they ought to be^ when they could not have the ferf(^n they inclined for^ But id) Nc plebs invlta Epifcopum non optatum aut contemnat tiut odeiit, & fiat, jims religiofa quaai ^. «i ^naji, cap, s^ miims religiofa quaai couvcflit* cui non licijqjfit hal^cre o^cra vpliiitu Le0 f-^^ 4 PREFACE. But tho' this was ordinarily done, yet I found that it was not always lb ; for fundry times Bilhops were fent to have the Charge of Diocefes, without previoufly con- fulting the People in the Affair : Nay fometimes, e^e-« cially in fuch Cafes where indireft and liniftrou3 Pradi- ces were to be fufpefted, a People were not allowed to have the Bifliop they inclined for, though they required him with the utmoft harmonious Unanimity. Probably the Inferior Clergy^ not the Presbyters only, but alfo the lower Orders^ fuch as Deacons^ Stihdeacons^ LeBors^ Aco-* lyths^ Exorcijls^ &c, had the fame Privileges allowed them as the People had ^ tho' there be not near fo much Mention made of them in this Matter, either in Hijior rians^ Canons^ or Fathers^ as of the Laity, $ 5. F R o M thefe Things thus found, I evidently concluded, That the fupreme Power in EleBions of J5/* Jhops was vefted in other Bipops ; and that any Sbare that the Inferior Clergy or People had in them, was but Liberties allowed them by the Bilhops, out of Prudett^ tidl Conjiderations, And that therefore the Arguments advanced in the Protejlation for proving that the Right and Power of EleBions was vefted in the Inferior Clergy and People^ or that their Votes and Confent were neceffa" ry in that Affair, were not of fufficient Force to prove that Point, but had the Shadow^ and not the Suhftmce of Arguments, This alfo I Ihewed by a particular Exa- mination and Refutation of each of them, according as Vhey fell in my way in the Profecution of my Subjedrh And if this my Conclufion holds good (as I think it will do in the Judgment of all unbyals'd Readers, not- withftanding the Exceptions made againft my Argu-^ ments in the EJfayy Review^ and Appendix longer "than both) then I flatter my felf that this Difpute may be at an End, fince there are no new Arguments adduced in the forefaid Treatifes, but only fome Obie6lions made againft mine j the weaknefe of which, I faope^^ fliatt be^ PREFACE. xi made appeal more evidently in the following Sheets : As alfo, that the Protefation was an iinhccomi?ig and «»- '-joarr ant able (nay, I mayjuftly fay, zfaBious 2ind fcbijma^, tical) AfFault made upon the Authority of Biihops. And iurther I mull add that for which I purpofely paved the way in the VicjOy 'viz. That the Eleftions of Mr. Rattray of CraigbaU^ of Mr. William Dimhar at; Crowden^ and Bifliop Miliar for Edinhirgh^ are all u?ica^^ mnical and null^ as being made by fome Presbyters only, without the Order or Corifenty and the firfl two without; lb much as the Knowledge of the Majority of the Bifliops colkgiated in this National Church. Nay, the People^ for whole RigJot^ and for the Necejjtty of whofe Confenty the Protcftation^ E.fayy Review^ and Jppendi:>^j make fo much Pother and Struggle^ were not fo much as regarded at them. So conii&nt the Praftices of the Party are with their Principles. I cannot omit to fay here alfo (tho^ it comes not fb> properly under the Head of EleSiions^ as oiConfecrations)) That the pretended Confecrations of the faid Mr. Rat'* tray^ Mr. Dunbar^ and Mr. Lumfdcn at Edinburgh^ are moll uncanonical and irregular^ and that therefore thefe Perfons are not to be owned as Biihops of this Church, . becaufe thefe Confecrations were performed without the Coiifentj or even the Knowledge of the Majority oi i^q College. A Pradice downright contrary to the 4th and 6th Canons of the great Council of Nice *^ by which it is appointed. That if three or more Biihops ihall be obliged fometimes to confecrate a Eiihop, becaufe of urgent Ne- celiity ; yet that Confecration iliall be of no Force nor Effect, unlefs they have the other Biihops of the Pro- vince who are abfent, at leail the Majority of the whole Provincials confenting by Letters. And this fame is the Cafe of any others who have been, or may be, pretend- ed to be thus clandeflinely and uncanonically confecrated , % this Kingdom. Nay, this is the very Cafe of the (dd Schifmatick xii PREFACE. Schifmatick Novatian^ who was thus confecrated by thn^^ Biihops without the Confent of the Majority of the Pro-, vincials of Rome : Fqr which he was never by the Church owned for one of her Biihops, but: for a wretch-?, ed Schifmatick. And therp is a further Irregularity and Nullity in Mr, Lnmfderh Confecration, viz. That the Conlecration of fome who join d in his pretended Con- fecration, had been before that Time declared void as to that purpofe by the College, According to the Catholick Principles laid down in the View concerning this Affair, the AB of the Collj^gc of Bifiops at Edinburgh xhQ 29th oiJune\j%j^ declaring the EleBions of. the aforefaid Mr. i^^/'^r^j); and Mr. D/z^Z'^r to be void and null^ and their Confecrations uncanonical and irregular^ and themfelves to be no Bipops of this National Church, is agreeable to ancient Canons and Precedents. That ASl is as follows, " We the Majority of the College of Biiliops con- ^^ veened at Edinburgh about the weighty Affairs of the ^' Church, being well aflured that fix or feven Presby-: ^' ters had taken upon them, without fo much as ac- ^' quainting their Superiors, to eleft Mr. William Dun-* ^^ bar to be Bilhop o{ Murray^ and alfo fome Presbyters ^^ who had contemned the Authority of the College of ^^ Biihops, by refufing to fubfcribe the Formula Ibme- " time ago, had eleded Dr. Rattray of Craighall to be " Biihop of the Dillrift of Angus y Mearns^ 6cc. by vir- ^^ tue of a Mandate from Bilhop FuUarton a few Days ^' before his Death, when he was opprelled with a Le-, ^^ thargy, and incapable of making a Judgment concern- *^ ing the fmallell Affair, and had no Power to grant a- <^ ny fuch Order without the Concurrency of his Col-?, ^' legues ; and that the faid Eleftion was carried on af^. ^' ter the Death of that Bilhop, tho' 7nortuo mandante mo" ^' ritur mandatum : We being further aflured, that Bi-^. ^^, ihops G adder ar^ Millar and Cant^ had moji uncanoni"! PREFACE. xlu *"" caJty confecrated thefe two Gentlemen Biflidps, with- ** out the Knowledge and Confetit of their Collegues J *' and that thefe two lately confectated Perfons, with ^^ Bifhop Gadderar and Bifhop Millar, had in a Paper ^' fubfcribed by them mofi frefumptiouJJy excluded the ^' other eight Bifliops from any Jurifdidion in this ^' Church, or having ally dcciftve Vote in the Aflemblies ^' of the Governors thereof : We therefore have thought ^' our felves obliged in Confcience to declare, and by ^' thefe Prefents do declare the faid EleBions to be null ^^ and void, and their Confecrations moji irregular and un" ^^ canonical*, and that the faid Dr, Rattray and Mr. Dun^ '^ bar are no Bijbops of this National Church, and ought *^ to claim no Pozver not JnrifdiBim aS liich. Where- ^' fore we difcharge all the Clergy from owning or fuh'-^ ^^ mitting themfelves to them, or giving them any Ohe-^ '^ dience as Biihops of this Church, ay ^nd until they *' lliall appear before the College of Bifliops when cited, ^'^ and give Satisfaftion to the lawful Governors of this " Church, particularly by obliging themfelves under ^' their Hands not to encourage or ufe in the Puhlick ^^ Worpip the Ufages, Prayers for the Dead, &c. which ^* have fo wofuUy difturbed this Church, and given ^ great Scandal to the moft of the Reformed both here.. *^ and elfewhere ', and to cenfure all fuch who may be ^' under their Jurifdiftion that make any Innovations m ^^ the Puhlick Worpip, contrary to the Formula : And " appoint this to be intimated. Given at Edinburgh the " 29th oijune 1727/' $ 6. Upon my hinting in general Terms in the View, p. 86. at the Protejiations being a faSiwus and fchifmatical Aflault upon the Authority of Bifliops, fay- ing, I'hat it was a Thing altogether unheard of, for any inferior Clergyman to have dard to have protejled againjl the Decijions of Bifliops either in General or Provincial Councils : The -Reviewer has taken Shelter under a Shift, both aciv PREFACE. both imtrue in it felf, and of a very late Birth ; even f» late, that it had not drawn its firfl Breath at the Time of making the Protejlation^ but has been hatched lince, to be laid hold on by the Party as their laft: Refuge^ in cafe of extreme Necejfny ; and that is, to give it in his own Words, Review^ p. y6^ That the Biiliops of the College are only a few Utopian Bijhcps^ a[fumtng an Ati" thority to which they can lay no Canonical Claim, This is alfo a darling Notion of th^E [lay er^s^ and that not with- out Reafon, being in all Probability his own genuine 11- fue. Thus he writes, p. 53. T'hey were dej/gned only to keep up the Epifiopal Ordefy and to prevent the Hazard and jnconveniency of being obliged to have Recoiirfe to Foreigners, 'Tis true,, this is not the firft Time this groundlefs Fan-- ey was advanced, feeing the Protcjler with fome others of his Party had the Hardinefs to broach it in the l^erms propofed by them to the College of Billiops in June 1727, aiming by fb doing at the cutting oft'of thefe Bi- ftops from exerciiing any Authority in this National Church, and at gralping all of it in their own Hands, Two of thefe Terms j viz. the id and 3d, are conceived in thefe Words. The Second thus, " Seeing all Aflemblies of Biiliops are intended prin- ^* cipally for deliberating upon and regulating the Af- *' fairs of the Flock of Chrijl reipedively committed to *' them, it is evident that none can have a deci/ive Vote in ^' thefe Aflemblies, but fuch Bilhops as have a portiogre^ ^' gis intrulled to them. The Uird is, " The Bifliop of Edinburgh^ and his other Compro- ^ vincial Bilhops are willing to maintain good Corref- " pondence with luch Biftiops as have no portio gregis *^ thus committed to them, but are only Bilhops at large^ *' to call them to their Meetings, and ask their Advice in ^' weighty Matters : And if any of them hereafter fhall ^' have particular Charges, /. e. Diocefes or Dillri6ts '^ committed to them, by a regular Eledion from a *' coni'* PREFACE. ^v <*^ competent Number of Presbyters, confirmed by the *' Comprovincial Billiops, they will then come to have *^ a Right to a decijhe Vote in Affairs relating to the ge- ^^ neral Benefit of the Church/' From thefe Things, we fee the Party aimed at no lefs than the eulndmg the Majority of the Btfloops of this Church from having any Share in its Government, as being only Bipops at hrge ; and at ufurping the whole of it themfelves, that they might aft in it without Controul. But I fay, I. This is but a Conceit of their own de- vifing, fprung up in their Heads but of yefterday, which I am perfwaded was never dream'd of before the patching up of thefe infoknt ^erms. I am fijire the Party of Ufage-men had no Thoughts of it fome few Year» ago, but of the contrary, "viz. That the College of Bilhops were the only Ecclefiaftick Governors of this Church. I fhall evidently prove this from forae aU'^ thentick hiflances of their own Praftice. 1. Biiliop Falconar begun the Letters of Orders given by him thus {e\ We John Falconar by the Mercy of God me of the College ofBipops o/^ Scotland. By this he de- clared his Title to his Authority in the Government of this National Church. 2. The Protejler himfelf in the Protejiation never offers to quellion their Authority, but homologates it, fubmit- ting his Caufe to their Examination, and only alledging again fi: them. That the Paght oiEleBion was veiled in the Presbyters and People^ and that the Metropolitan had not confented to what they did. Which Things he might have done againfl a Meeting of Billiops the mol!: regularly fettled that ever were. But if he had then be- thought himlelf of their A^c-^//?/?i)r//_^', without Doubt he "would have infilled upon that at fuch a proper Occafion, lince (f) Nos JoAtmti TaUonAT mifwatione Domini uous c Golieijio Epilcoporum •[uod ajiud Siitii e(i. ixvi PREFACE. fince that alone would have done his Bufin^fe without more ado. 3. Did not Crdighall in an Anfwei: of his to a Pojifcript of Mr. George Sempilfsy dated A%; 18. 1723, fay, Tour Pojf^fcript 'doth not concern m^ hut the JBions ofoxxv Supe- riors (meaning the College of Biihops) which yijohatfoever yoii may doj neither of us ought to pry into nor meddle with. It feems he lookt upon it then as a Crime of Pre- fiimption of no ordinary Magnitude to offer to lean the Actions of the College. What would he have faid, if at that Time any Perfoh had been fo bold as to proteft againftthem? Heu quant u?n mutatiis ah tllo! 4. When the fame Mr. Sempill refufed to comply with the 'Y\{Q,Q^Xx)X.VL Arhuthnot in the Praftice of the tffageSy did not Biihop FaJconat apply to the other Bifhops of the College for an Order of Licence for him to pra6tife them ? Nay, did not Biihop Fakonar a6t in Concurrence with the College, in enjoming the Subfcription of the Formula under his Hand ? 5. Does not Biihop Gadderar in the Concordate lubfcri- bed by him at Edinburgh the 4th of July 1724, own that he holds the Diftrift of Aberdeen by their Authority on- ly ? The 4th Article of that Concordate begins thus, ^h$ Primus and the other Bijbops above named do grant the Au" thority and CommiJJion to him (viz. Biihop Gadderar) to offi^ date as Bi/hop of the Dijirih of Aberdeen /(?r the future. 'Tis true, that in the End of that Article it is agreed, ^hat he do not afcribe his officiating there to any Delegation or Subjlitution fro)n any other Perfon whatfoever^ but alk" narly to the Election of the Presbyters, dnd Authority of the Biiliops o/this Church. But the EleBion of the Prep lyters is mentioned here only, becaufe the College had given a Licence and Power to them to make the EleBiony us fhall be told immediately. But firit I mult remark by the by, that notwithftanding all the Noife the Proteflet and his Party make for the Necejftty of the Peoples Con- fent P R E F J C E. xvil fint to EHeBions ; yet both in the forecited ^hird Article of their TermSy and in this Concordate^ the People's Right is quite Ihut out of Doors, and the whole Monopoly of the Election appropriated to Presbyters. 6. Then, did not the Presbyters of Aberdeen addrels the Cx:)llege for a Bifhop to be fet over them? And when the College defired them to chufe one out of their Number, did not thefe Presbyters go about the Ele- ftion^ and divided; Dr. Garden letting up for Mr. Gad-- derar^ and Mr. Dumbreck for Mr. Camphel? The latter carried it by a lingle Vote : And the ele6kd Candidate was returned to the College for their Approbation ; but he was rejected-, till he ftiould renounce the Ufagcs. - 7. Did not all the Presbyters of Pi?'/?^-fliire (Mr. G^- rard^ Mx. Angus ^'axvA Mr. J-antefon not excepted) fub- mit to Bifliop Irvine (who received that Diftrift from the College only) and attended him at his Meetings? Nay, at that Time Craighall attended him alfo, tho' partly to fbllicite his Intereft with the College for their Allow- > ance of the private Mixture. 8. Did not all the Bifhops of this Church, even be- fore they had particular Dilb:i<9:s allotted tliem, claim de^ cijive Votes in Affairs relating to the general Benefit thereof^ when foon after Bilhop Fullarton was conltituted Bijb(jp ^ t)f Edinburgby they took upon them to difmember his Diftrift, by cutting of two Shires from it ; and alfo to oblige him to give it under his Hand, that he Ihould do nothing of moment without this his now curtaifd Di- flrift, but with the Advice and Confent of the Majority of the College? This was (if any can be) an A61 of the higheft Juriididion and Authority, thus to fetter and limit the Powers of one, whom the Party will have to have been a Metropolitan. And it is remarkable that the moll adive Perfons in that Aftair were Biihops Faknnar and Miliary for thie oat propofedand urged, that Bilhop Fullarton s DUtrift ihould be confined within the Pprts of b the ^viif P R E P J c k^ tht Citfot EdMnrgh'^ and the othet had the wieakhefe to boall, that he was the Perfon who drew up the In-' iirum^nt, by which Bvihop Fullmton^s TerHtory, as wiell as Power, was thus limited. And this by the by ihews tis lii What fenfe the Exprellioii faid to be uttered by Bi- ihop Fdkonar^ EJftiy^ p'. 59. w\n 'That they [the College t)f Biihops] did not pretend to have Junfdi^ion over any pdrtituJm Place or DiJiriB^ is to be taken. For if Mens Actions are generally reckoned the belt Interpreters of th^it Words, then the plain Meaning of that Expteffioii can be no othet than this^ That tho' at that time none of' thefh had any patticular Diftrifts aligned them, yet that did not hindet but that the Government of the Epifcopal Church oi Scotland in common was lodged in thei^ Handa.; and what was determined by ail, or the Majo- tltyOfthem, was to be a RAileto all that owned them^ felves Members of that Churchv i- ■h-.i^ { {la.} -, ^v: .p Morelnftancss might be adduced to ptdve^thatj til!'* C5f very late, even till the Time of propoiing the Terms afotefaid^ the whole Party owned and fubmitted to the Authority of the College, as the only Governors of this Church. But thefe Tm fure are fufficient. 2i But as this Shift of their being Btfhops m large^ Utopian Bijhops^ and of their having no Authority over this Churchy is fo vety lately forg'd ; fo it isfalfe too. I ihail prove this by a mbfl anthentick Document^ cfven theix Injfruraents of Confecration^ of which I ihall hete fet down an eSJa^t and full Copy^ and make forne Obfervations 5(3pon k to cleat ^p this Pointi \t is this^ ^< At N. Day /v. Year of God K We N^ Bifliop con* ^^ fecrate aiid dltirned into the Numbet of the Scottip *^ BiJhop3 : And Ni Blfhop confecrate and aflumed into ^^ the l:^umh^r oi iht Scottip Eijhops : And Hi Biihop- ^ confecrate and aiiumed into the Number of the Scottip ^ Bijbops^ (and fo on through the whole Number of the ^' Confecmo?s) pondering in the Fear of the Lord, how " that PREFACE. XIX' *^ that the greateil part of our moft dear Brethren atid ^ CoUegues in the Epjficpal College (in this lately elapled *^ and mournful Period of our Church) do now/kep in tbe ^^ Lordj and that the very few of us, who by the Mercy " of God remain hitherto, are on the Point of being quito ^ worn out by manifold Cares, Difeafes and old Age: " Wherefore from the fenfe of our Duty, which we ^' owe to the High Go d our Saviour, His holy Church, ^' and our Poiterity, we have refolved to commit the " Office^ CharaSfer and Power Epifcopal to other good and ^^ feithful Men, apt to teach Q.nd to govern: Among " whom, when we are abundantly certain of onr proper ^^ Knowledge J that our Rev^-end Brother N'. Matter of ^ Arts, Presbyter andMinifter of iVI is apt and fufficient ^ for fb great a Charge *j We therefore relying upon the *' Afliftance of Almighty G o d, according to the Grace ^ granted to us, have, upon the Day, Month and Year " of God above written, ordained and confecrated, in ^ the Houfe of AT. the above defigned Perfon A^ and *^ aflumed him into our Epifcopal College. In Teftimony ^ whereof we have fortify'd this Inftrument by our Sub- ^ fcriptions." The original Latin is on the Margin (J)i h 2 Any (-f) ApudM Die N. Anno. -•— jffos N, Eplfcopus confccratus & in nu- mecum Epifcoporam Scotorttm adfcitus : jEt N. Epifcopus confecratus, & in nu« merum Epifioporum Scotorum adfcitus : Et N. Epifcopus confecratus, & in nume- lum Epifioporum Scotorum adfcitus (Jr fic de reliquis confecratoribits) in timoic Do- mini ponderantcs pUrofotte fratrum noftrorum chariflimornm Sc in ColUgiu E-tp- cipdH Coliegtrtm (nbc nuper elapfo & Ecclefiac noftrae hiibuofo curriciilo) in Do- mino obdormiijfe^ nofcfue paucos, qui Divina mitericordiu fuperftites furaus, multi** plicibus curls, niorbis, arqiic ingravcfcente feuio tantum non (onfeHos ijfe. Qiiapropter e^ eo quod Deo fnprenxo i'ervatori noftro, Ikciofanftae ejus Eccle- fix, & pottcris d^bemus, in aninio induximos ojficiumt char Antrim 8c fa:iegmm cooptavinius-. In tujus tci ttftinwnium chirographis noftiis munivi- >uiis hoc inftrumcncunu inc PR E F A € £. Alfiy intelligent Reader will at the firft Perufal of this Inftrument, perceive that thefe Bilhops are defigned and fet apaft by their Confecrators fot the mfpeSfingj teaching atid governing c3f this National Church in particular, and tiotfir keeping up the Epifcopal Order in it only^ as the Ej^ fayer fays of them* But this will more evidently appear from the following Obfetvations, w«» li Evety one of their Confecfators aflerts, That he i^ uffumed into the Numbet of the Scottijh Bipops ; not on- ly Into the College of Bifhops fpread over all the World, laccotding to St. Cyprims ordinary uTe of that Word^ (for their being confecrated Bilhops had been lufficient for that) but into that parti^lar Body of them which is peculiarly defigned for the inJlruSiing md. governing of the Church of Scotland* This further appears ft om what they fay^ 2i That the iriofl part of their deareft Brethren and Colkgues in their Epifcopal ColJege^ have fallen alleep in the Lord* This cannot be faid of the whole Fraternity of Bifhops all the World over, of which, for ought they could know, there ate as many at this Day, as have beeit in many Ages pail* This Expreflion therefore plainly reftrids the College they fpeak ofto that of this Kingdom* And fo does what is faid, 3* That there are feisj of them leftj and thefe almo^ worn out by manifold Cares^ Difeafes and old Age : This is only applicable to that particular Number of Scottip BiJhopSj into which they were afftmed, and with whom they were acquainted ^ for they could not talk fo of all Bilhops throughout the World. Then^ 4* They fay exprefly, That they are fo far from ap- pointing them only to keep tip the Epifcopal Order, and to prevent the Hazard and Inconveniency of being obliged to have Recourfe to Foreigners, as the EJfayer talks without Book, that they de/fgn to commit to them not only the ChardSfer^ PREFACE. xxi CharaEief^ but the Office and 'Pow^r Epifiofaly as to AIq^ fit both to tea(;h and to govern, Apd^. 5. They declare. That; they have oi'da.ined and con*'. fecrated the Perfon, becauf^ they know him fit and fuffir. cient for fo great a Charge^ Is it fa great and weighty a, Charge, J pray, to be no more than Officials to. the Pref^ hjterSy in conlecrating the> Perfons they ftall pitch upon? 6. And lajfly^ they fay. We have aflumed him. intQ our Epifcopal College ^ not the Epifeopal College^ as they^ would have faid, if they had meant the Fraternity of Bifliops in general, but our own in particular, even that of the iScottiJh Eijpops^ as they defignedthemfelvea above. Indeed if thele. Expreffions are not fufRcient to prove, that they are peculiarly fet apart for the InfpeBioUy Go^, 'vernment and InJlruBipn oithis partiQular Chtmhy I know* not what can be^ I marvel therefore oeceedingly (to i&y no- worfe, I Ibun Kefle6tions and hard Words, for my Caufe and Arguments do not need them) to fee the £/72?j^r politive* ly fay, p. 58. In Collegium nofirurn Epifcopale coopta^'imuSy^ does tberefqre import no morcy but that they made him. one of their own Order, that isy of the Order of Bifliops^. And in his Note, p. ^6. It plainly appears from the Inijbru-^ ments of Confecration ofthefe BiJhopSy that no more was. intended by themy but only xo keep up the Epifcogal Suc-« ceffiou, From thelnftrument itfel]^ and from the Obfervations,. I have here made upon it, let the Reader judge of the Truth of thefe his Allertipns*. His Caufe feems to m^ to , be at the laft Gafp, when it Hands in, need of fuch Suggprta^ Nay, he is pleafed to fay,, p. 59.^ W^hat then i^'as.tQ have, kindred the Pr^j^j^-^^rj (?/ Edinburgh, and fo of thrasher Djocefes or Dijlri^h throughout the Kingdpmy to .have pajf them (the Bimops) all byy mid to have chofenjjne of their own Number in each D^iri^ for their Bijbop? jndwhat Injury couli, they have pretended to. ham bee ji- done to,, them b ^ thereby^ xxil PREFACE, thereby ? What? Might the Presbyters (here's not a Word of the People) have paft by all thofe whom God in His Mercy and good Providence had appointed them for their Governors, and have fet up others of their own chooftng ? Well might then have been applied to them what the Prophet fays in the Name of G o d, Hof^ viii. 4. ^hey hanje fet up Kings^ hut not by me ^ they have made? Princes^ and I knew it not. And this not improperly in the EJJayers Stile, who honours Biihops with the Title oi Monarchsy Ejfay^ p, 45, near the Beginning. I doubt this would have amounted to fomething more than bare-^ ly Re-volt and Rebellion againft their rightful Governors^ And would the Bifhops have fuffered no Injury thereby, when their ^7/yf Rights would have been fo manifeftly in-^ vaded, contemned and overthrown ? I thank God I ani not acquainted with fuch Pivinity. But he goes on, p. 60. faying, jlnd fuppofing they (the Bifhops) had refufed it (viz. to confecrate thofe Men Bifhops whom the Pref^ b^ers had chofen in Oppofition to them) why might not thefe Presbyters have had Recourfe to any other Catholiclc Eifliops, in any Part of the World, for doing it ? Is this the Confequence and EfFe6l of Presbyterial EleS^ions / To teach them to dejpife their Governors ^ andfpeak evil of Di" gnitiesy to throw them off at their Plealiire, and to have Recourfe to Foreigners ? Well But, p. ^^, he alledges (and we mufl take it upon his Word) 7%at Bijhop Falconar declared in the Name and Prefence of allhAs Brethren^ ^hat thd they were Bifhops of this Churchy for preferving of Epifiopal Succeffton^ yet they did not pretend to have JurifdiSlion over any particular Place or Dijlricf. Indeed that one Part of the Delign of their Confecration was for preferving of Epifcopal Suc- ceilion, cannot be doubted. But if Bifhop Falconar meant that this was all the Defign, might he not bave been miHaken in that ? Yet I think that his owning that they were Bipop of tipis Churchy imports a great deal iiaore> P R E F J C E. xxja inore, even the being peculiarly fee apart to teai^h and gc^ vern it alfo. For thefe Duties, I think, as much apper?? ^in to the OiSce of a Bilhop, as the preferving of Epifco^, pal Succeffion does ; and therefor^ they are particularly i^ecifie(i in their Infiruments of CQf?fecratig^h And wli^a^^ ^ho' he faid, ^at they did not pretend to h^ve Jtmfdi^mi mer my particular Flace or DiJiriB? His very ufing ^e Word particular J fliews that he ^leant, that they had it not jmpre over one than another. That indeed was wha^ at that Time they did not pretend to, b^aufe th^ ^heU^ Jurifdiftion was equally and in common over th^ whole Nation,^ It is only a poor Fallacy therefore wha^ the EJJayer ikjs in tliat fame p. 59. viz^ flamig no ^ttk to my JtirifdiBion on)Qr any Part^ they could home nom (^"ver the $^bole. Who faid this ? 0ja.t they hrM no fitle to miy Ju^. rifdi^ion over any Part,_ This is a mincing of Bilhop JFV^. ^ona/& Words, and feems to be far from his Meaning, it takes out the Word particiilary whereby he rellrl(Sed ^he Jurifdiftipn of any one of them to fome qne Placo o| ■ J)ij[lrift, Buth{sfaying,thatr;&^jy'Z£'^rcJB//Z?ci/)j;0/f|?/5C|?^f^^^ is, as I faid before, a, plain owning that they h^d Jurifdiftiii pn over the whoky and over every Fart of it, tho^'oyer na particular Place or Diftrift more than ove^ ^nothe^, at '^hat Time^ And thi^ is what Bifhop Fulhrton exprefly wrot^ t^ Bilhop Miliar in his Letter which I citedt above, ^. 5* fayj,ng, fou move in a larger Sphere than I do»^ Tou are a Bi^ Jhop of Scotl^-ndy and I ara by yourfilf and %yy other Reverend; Colkguesy refirSed to the Diocefc o/'Edinburgh ;. and the?e«?. fore tells him, That h^ could daaThin|concerniBgthe. t^overnment of this Chi;irch asy^^/jy and a^ properly aah©. could,, Heunderllood Bilhop fi^^o^.^/s Meaning, I hope* But Bilhop Falconars own Gond^ft (^s w%s. oble^ved a-?, bove) puts that Matter out of alj, Doubts Jt is not undiverting to fee the Effayer^ p. ^6y K7* ftraining fo hard for having the Word Collegium m tl^. Injinimeifi taken in the fam^ fenfe that ifertuUian or S^» ^4 Cy-^ XXIV PREFACE. Cyprian ufe it in, as if it were capable of but one Mean- ing, and they ufed it in that very one^ and no other. The fenle which he thus llrains for, is to have it lignify the fame Order or Ofice in general 'Tis true that St. Cyprian frequently takes it in that fenfe, yet he does not lo al- ways^ particularly, in the Rev-iewers Opinion, he does not fo in a very famous Sentence in his E^ifi^ 52. to ^;^>- tonianus. It is this (^), Cornelius was made Bijhop by the Judgment of God and His Chfift, by th& ^€fifmony of almofl ail the Clergy ^ by the Suffrage of the People that were there prefenty and by a College of ancient Bijhops and goo^ Men, This Collegium here the Reviewer j p. 145; wtH have on^ ly applicable to the Biftiops of the Province of Romey who ordained Cornelius. For thus he fpeaks. Nor is the Confent (fo he renders the Word. CdllegiuMj which by the by is a quite different fenfe from that which the EJfayer fixes upon St. Cyprian) of the ancient Bipops and good Meny to be underjlood of the after Confirmation of the Bipops of the other Provinces^ as the Viewer would have ity but is the fame with the Aft of our many Gollegues who were then at Rome, — — that iSj the Confecrator3 of Cornelius. Thus tie. Here then Collegium is rellrid-f ed to a particular Body^ as it is in the Inftrument oi Con" fecration. Again, St. Cyprian plainly reftrifts it to a par-» ticular Set ot Men in his Epijl. ^^. to Cornelius (h)^ where fpeaking of one Privatus an Heretick, he fays. He made that Fortunatus a f (life Bipop to himfelf one worthy of his own College ; that is, offuch 2, particular Crew. In this fenfe does Horace fay (/'), 7'he Colleges ef Muftck-wcmen* And as for -Tertulliany tho' the EJJayer quotes him as a Vouched (.?) Faftus eft autem Cornelius Epifcopus de Dei & Chrifti ejus judkia, dc clc- ricorum pene omniani teftrnionio, de plcbis quat tunc affuit fuftragio, & de fa- cerdotum antiquorum & bonpjum viioium ColUtio. Cypr,' Ep. 52. § 4; {h) Fortunatum iftum fibi Pfcudo-cpifcopum dignum Coli^Uf^a fecit; Jd^Bf^ 55. 511. ' (0 Ambubaiarum Collegia. Hot. PREFACE. XXV Voucher for the fenfe he puts upon the Word, elfe I know not for what purpofe he quotes him; yet though 1'ertulUan ufes that Word in five or fix other lenfes, he does not ufe it properly and precifely in the EJfayers fenfe, fo much as once in all his Writings, viz. to figni- fy the whole Order or Fraternity of Bilhops, all the World over. And if we look into modern Authors, there i$ nothing more ordinary with them, even with thofe whom the EJfayer cannot deny to have fufficiently underftood the Languages, than to take the Word College fo as to ligni-! fy precifely the Body of Bijhops within a particular Na^ Hon or Province. Thus Dr. Hickes, ufes it in his Letter prefixt to Lay-haptifin invalid^ Edit. 2. Ann. 1 709, fay- ing, ^^ Could they {viz. the ancient Fathers of the *' Church) ever imagine, that in three famous National ^' Churches reformed after the ancient Pat;tern of ^' Churches fettled !n the Primitive Times, and profefr. " fing the fame holy Faith, a Itrong P^rt;y of Presbyters, " and People fliould be fo wicked, as by Force to de- ^f pofe the whole College of Bilhops ?" I hope he does not mean here, that they depofed the whole Order of Bi-. ihops throughout the World. And Dr. Brett ufes the. feme Phrafe, fhi College of Bijhops^ to fignify theBifhops. oi QXitfingle Province ; faying, " But then it is not the. ^^ Prince, but the Metropolitan, or College of Biihops, ^^ that makes fuch a Perfon a Bilhop, Indep, uj the Churchy p. 44. And in fuch a fenfe as this, how often do they Ipeake of a College of Presbyters ? As Mr. Sage does in his Fourth Letter concerning ^oleration^ i^yii^g? "' Y^t it is *' certain there was all along a College of Presbyters at ^' EphefusJ' From all thele it plainly follows, that by reftrifting the Word Collegium in the hijlrument to figni- fy the Society of Bifliops in this particular Church, therei is no Ml/lake of that Wordy as the £/7^^r pofitiv^ly, tho .liTpn^oufly aiferts, EJfayy p. ^6. * ^ Bu| xxvi J> R E F J C E. But fays he, Ibid. p. ^^. Jfthis ExpreJJionJhouUijnport ^\t feems that, for all his Pofitivenefs, he is in a Doubt- about it) what they would infer from itj it is more than was in the Power of the Confecrators to give ^ hy any fiich D£ed. What ? Is it U) ? I wifh he had proved this bold Afler- tion. Did not the Apoftles fettle Bifliops in Churches throughout the World ? Did pot they leave the faipe Power to the Bifliops their Succeflbrs ? Did not thofe Bifliops exercife that Power during the firil three Centu- ries at leaft ? I think this learned Gentlemen fl:rikes at the very Foundation of the whole Chriftian Church. Thus then I have denionfl:rated, that the Bifliops of the Scottip College are not Bijhops at large^ even though they had not been fet over particular Diftri(5ls. ; but that they have a proper and direB Right and canonical' Title to govern this National Church in particular, tho' in com- mon. The doing this does not make them Bifhops at large^ nor Utopian Bifiops* A Bipop*at large y as the Ex- preffion imports, is one who has Right to govern all Places throughout the World alike, asthe Apoftles had, and did ; that is, he is not confined to any particular Church, Diocefan, Provincial, or National. The Scot--. tip CoUege of Bifliops are not fo ; their Charge is re- ftrifted to this Nation. This Church is their portio gre^ gisy over which they have direB JurifdiSiion. This I have demonftrated from their Inflruments ot Confecra- tion, and removed any Exceptions the EJfayer has made aeainfl it. I have alfo demonftrated this from the Sub- miflion of the Party to them, and from their acknow- ledging their Authority, till they brought themfelves under a necelTity of altering their Behaviour and Words, to buoy up their finking Caufe. And I dare fay, had not the CoUege of Bifliops zealoufly oppofed them in their refllefs Endeavours to introduce the Ufages^ but concurred with them in that; Attempt, they had conti- nued at this Day to magnify th^ir Power and Authority,. P R E F A € E. xxvil as much as they did before and immediately after Bifliop ^ofs's Death. Butlhm ilia lachrymae^ this is the Source of our prefent Convullions, that they were thwarted in their innovating ProjeSis ; and this put them upon bearing down their Oppofers by all means poflible, right or wrong. And though they now feem to difiemble thefe ^heir Intentions concerning the UfageSy yet that they have them ftill at heart is too well known, and fliall be made further appear from fundry of their Exprellions in the Review^ $ 7. But though the College of Bifliops might have governed this Church in common, yet it was not their Intention fo to do. That they ipight have governed it in common, and that according to ancient Pradices of the Chutch, I have Ihewed in the View : Particularly from the Example of the Apojiks^ and their Fellow-lar hourers^ who ruled all Churches in commpn 5 irom the Example of feveral Diocefan Churches, which anciently had two Bijfhops in them at one Time ^ from the Cuftom' of the ancient Catholick Bifliops, who in Times of Per- fecution undei; Heaihenifm and Herefy^ exercifed all the Parts of their Epifcopal Funftion indifferently, wherever they happened to be ; and from the Praftice of this iV^-» tional Chmchj which its Bifliops ruled in common, from the firll planting of Chriftianity here, till the Reign of King Malcolm Canmore^ that is for 700 Years, Yet all thefe Perfons (the Apojlles and their Fello'W-lahourers not' excepted) and all thefe Examples the Effayer makes no fcruple to condemn at on^e as guilty of ^ downright over-' turning of the original Inftitution of Epifcopacyj and of the JOcfign of Almighty of GOD in that Injiittition \ faying, ^hat the Government of a Provincial or National Churchy ty a Multitude of Bifhcps in comfnon^ that isy without a' Pivifion o/rfe National or Provincial Church into farts'^ cular Dijlri^s or Churches^ and an Allotment of aparti'^^ mh:jr Btfhop to each cf thefe particular Churches^ is a dowur^'^ right xxvni PREFACE, right overtarning of the original Injiitution of Epifcopasf^ and of the Defign of JImighty GOD in that Injiittition^ Thefe are his Words, Effay^ p. 42, yea, and he con*? demns them of Herejy in Fa0j p» 44. Whether this fa-? vours more of Meejcnefs, Modelly and Humility, or of Boidnefs and Rafhnefs, and worfe, which I Ihall not xianie, I leave to the Reader to judge. This one thing feems to be certain, That as long as Bifliops aft in Uni-? ty with one another, whether there be but one, or two, or more even in a Diocejan Church, they .(lill reprefeni^ our one High-Pricji either fingly or jointly. And of them may be truly faid what the EJfayer fays of all the. Bifliops of particular Churches conjundly, EJfayy p. 21^ viz* All thofe Bifhops are but one Bilhop, as all reprefent^: ing the one invifible Bijbop. For their tlnity makes them. all to be confidered but as one High-Prieft or Bifliop. And indeed all St. Cyprians Arguments againil ^fecond Bifliop, are rather levelled againil the Oppoiation be-, twixt the Peyfons, than againft their Number. If their. Epifcopatus be umsj their Office be one in Commi/^Qn and ^xecution^ then a fmgulis in folidum pars tenett^r 5 each, one has the whole Office in Partn^rlTiip. But tho' the College of Bifhops might;, for thefe Rea- fpns, have governed the Church in common, yet they did not intend toi do fo, becaufe, for fundry Conlidera- tjons, it was more convenient to have the Nation divided into Diftrifts, and a Bifliop let over each of them. In- detd both the EJfayer and Reviewer are at; much Pains to rnifreprefent the College in this Matter. The Title which the EJfayer ordinarily beflx)ws upon them is, fThefe Bijhops at large^ as/). 54. near th,e Beginning, and again, p. 58. in the End, and p, 59, not; far from the Be- gmning; nay, he fays, ^. 60. in the Middle, f here could, he no National or Provincial Synod in Scotland, when there were no local Bifliops in any of the Provinces thereof*^ yea^^ he even loads them with the odious Epithet oi tyrannical ' ' upoo, P R E 1? A C ti xilxf iipbn this Account, and endeavours to perfwade the Clergy and People to withdraw their Refpeft and Sub- miffion from them, and rejeft them altogether for it, fay- ihg,p. 66. B^th Clergy and People are- hot to regard any Set of Men whatfoevet^ thatwould^ contrary to aliEcckJia^ Jlical Prindples and Difcipline^ grafp at an unlimited ani tyrannical JurifdiBion, And the Reviewer ^ building up*- Oil his Ground'^iuorky diilinftly ecchoes back his NoteSj faying, Reviewy p. y6» For if they be only a few Utopian BtJbopSy &c. And in the Note, p. 237. he fays, They have exalted themfehes under that novel Denomination^ (w;^. of a College) and as yet labour hard to do* This alfd the Party infill upon in the twb Articles of their Terms cited abovcj and endeavour to cut off the College from any Concernment in the Government of this Church, for that Reafon^ Yet this Pofitivenefi notwithilandihgj thefe are all grofs Mifreprefentations, fince each of them (except Bi-« Siop Canty who has got none even to this Day, nor fo much as a Title to one among the Party ; and Bifhop Noriey who was at that Time receiving one, and about which was the Struggle) each of therri, I fay, at the ve- ry Time of making the P^of^/^^/o»j were in Pofleflioti ' ofDiftrifts, as BifhcSpFullarton of Edmburghy Bifhop Miliar of the MerSy Bilhop Irvine o£ Stirlmg^-Mve and a Part of Perth'Mtey Bilhop Duncdn of GlafgoWy &c. fo that nothing can be rriore certain than that the College did not intend to govern this Church in common, nor were they then fo doing, without Divifion of Dillrids, ahd the Allotment of a Bilhop to each of them. There- fore the charging them fincethat Time with being JB//^(5/)X at largey is altogether falfe and calumnious. But the Party are fenlible that without that their Caufe is defpe-^ rate: For if they be Dwcefany local Bilhops, their Oppo-* fition to them, according to their own Principles, and according to St. Cyprian's Teftimony quoted in the very firlt tek P R E F A C E, fijpft Words of this Preface, is downright Schifm. ^ ^ 8i I cannot well conceive upon what Ground thefb Gentlemen fo mifreprefent the Biflidps of the College in this Matter, unkfe it be that they build their Afletcions bj^n this Foundation, viz. That the Preshyters only, and not the BipopSj have the file Power of making Choice of Bifhops to the particular Dillricfts. This per- haps they build upon, becaufe each of theBifliops of the Opliege have their Diftri(:!t 3 afligned them by the othet Bifliops. Yet in this Alignment the College did not difr regard the Presbyters of the Difl:ri<9:s, where there were any; but previoufly to their alligning the Bllhop his Charge, required the Presbyters of the Difhrift to declare whether he would be acceptable to them, or no : And the Affignment was- not made till j^ter the Presbyters re- turned their Anfwer. Such Presbyters, I mean, as had not. joined the Ufage^Party, but had fubfcribed the for* m^Ja. This is true to my certain Kipwledge, : the Cafo of one Bilhopj whom I have been Under,, only excepted,; a3 Ifliall tell immediately. For tho' in the Corre3ions before the Effay^ ^.9. not far from the Beginning, it be laid, that I have been engaged in eleBing a Eifhop or two j-- yet I declare that what I have faid was all the Concern (or, as it is worded. Engagement) j Yi^di tv^ti in Bifliop NorieSj or Bifhop Ouebterlonie's Settlement. And^ as I remember, I had lefs in Bllhop Falconav^s: For he being appointed by the College, without previoufly advifing the Presbyters of it, all that I, or any other Presbyter had to do, was to promife to fubmit to him, as our Bifhops Which I readily did. The Words wherein I am charged with having a'ihare in elefting of Biihops, being pretty oddj and Nonfenfe to boot, I fet them down here : They, are thefe, And I am much mifmformed^ if a good Friend of the Author of the View {if not his pretended felf) was even engaged in electing a Bifhop or two^ notwithftand* in^ all the Indignation he vents againfi fuch a PraBic^ T« PR EPA cm xxxi Td proceed. Ifthls be the Foundation they build up- iOtoj when they call the Bilhops of the College, Bifhops at targe^ and tftopian BiJbvpSy 'viz. Becaufe thef are not lelefted by Presbyters, but only by Bilhops; then the View was direftly defigned to overthrow this Founda- tibn, by ftiewing, that Bifhops had xhtftvereign Power in the EleSions of othei: Bimops; and that the Share of the inferior Clergy and People was only to petition^ and give their ^ejUmony^ when called to it by the Bilhops ; but not formally and deciftvely to ek6i* And if this hold, then the Bilhops of the College are really Diocefan^ local Bi- lhops ; and the Party, according to their own Principles^ ScbifmatickSj for oppofing them, feparaiting from them^ and makmg (as they pretend) Confecrations without themj whatever they can fay to the contrary. § 9. 'T I s true the Writer of the Pojlfcript to the Ap^ pendi^y pi, 177. is pleafed to aflert, T'hat no Separation has, been endetm)ouredj no Impolition fof TetmsJ has been attempted from the other Side \ that is, from the Side of the Ufage-Party. Nay, he fays there, That the Separa- tion and Impoling o/*Terms can^ amongft us, only be apr plied to the N^w College; Really this Gentleman is not balhful ; for nothing can be falfer than both thefe Afler- tionsi For as to the laji^ The New College^ as he is plea- fed to call theni^ hevei: thought upon /;;^;)o/% any /^^^ ^ermsy but of retaining to the old, and of hindring the Party itom innovating^ by introducing the UfageSy^ and rhoft probably from impojlng them upon others alio, if they had had Power. And as to the firfi^ How can a Separatiori be any wife imputed to them, who have not made any Change in the Doftrine, Worlhip or Govern- ment or the Church ; but endeavoured to hinder the Party from doing it ? But as for the Party, they, and they only, have made the Separation. Fil condelcend up- on {bme inllances in which they have manifeltly done fo* 1. \Vas it not a manifeft Separation from their Bre- ^-^: threa ixxii P k £: P J C E. tliren of the College, for Bifliop MZ/^r, Bifho^Gadderar^ and Bilhop Cafit^ to pretend to cOnfectate Craighall and Mr. Dumhar^ and perhaps others alfo, without fo much as the Knowledge of their Brethren, the other Biihops, though the Majority of the Rulers of this Church ? a. W^s it not an Endeavour ^t this Separation for Craigbalh Friends to prac^tife upon Bifhop Fuilartony and Bifhop Rofs, to confecrace Craighali clandeltinely before that Time? .3. Was it not a Separation from them, to acknow- ledge Bilhop Millar as Bifhop of Edinburgh and Metrbpo-' IHafiy upon a bare pretended Election of Presbyters^ with- out die Confent of the College ? 4; Was it not a manifeft Separation, to pretend to con- lecrate Mr. Lumfdefty without their Confent or Concur- rence ? 5. Was it not a Separation from them, to refufe to fubfcribe the Formula^ and renounce the UfageSj when all the Bilhops (except Bilhop Gadderar) Biftiop Fakonar being among them, peremptorily^ afid with Certification, enjoin d it? 6. Was it not a icandalous Sepatation, and an open Schifm^ to fet up one of their own Party in a Conventicle at Dtmdee^ in Oppofition to the regularly fettled Mini- t Hers there ; and, by fo doing, to rend their Congrega- tion in Pieces, w^ithout ib much as giving them a Hear- ing in their own Caufe, or alledging any Fault or Irregu- latity againfl them ? 'Tis true, they pretended Bilhop Ftillarton's Mandate for Mr. Raifs deferting his own Congregation in the Country, and fetting up his Conventicle at Dundee. But I anfwer to this, i. That I have demonftrated before, that Bifhop FuU Jarton had no Power to grant any fuch Mandate, with- out the Confent of his Coilegues. '%. Tho' he had had fuch a Power, as he had not) yet PREFACE. xx^iir ths Mandate would have been invalid^ as' being granted rafhly^ without hearing both Sides. 3. Bilhop FuUarton was really impofed upon, by Mif^ information^ to grant that Mandate ; which he would not have done, perhaps, had he known the true Matter of Fad: : For Proof of this, I Ihall here infert a true £x- /m6^ of a Letter of his direded to Bifliop Duncan at Glafgorjjj in March 1727. The ExtraB I took from the Original myklL Bifhop Duncan had wrote to him a little before concerning that Aftair j and his Anfwer was as follows, " There was one Mr. Carnegy a fufficient Gentleman ^^ from the Shire ci Angus ^ that was fent by Exprefs to ^^ me about the Differences that are at Dundee concern- ^' ing a Presbyter to fucceed Mr. Norie at Dundee, Had ^' the Account of that Aftair come to me Time enough, ^' I would have been determined by that Choice which ^' worthy Mr. Norie had made of his own Succeflbr : ^' But Mr. Carnegy s Account came two Polls fooner to *' me. And withal the friendly and foM Advice you ^^ gave me concerning my prudent Condud in that At- ^' fair, was laid home with fuch convincing and felf- *^ evident Reafons, that you had infallibly determined *' me, if the Letter had not come too late; nay deter- ^' mined me fo, that it would not be in any Man's Power " to alter me. But 7^6'?^ ejj; alea \ Mr. Carnegy came to *' me furnifhed with Credentials, and reprefented the ^' Matter of Faft quite otherwife than you did %3 me, *' making the Number that was for Mr. Ralfs! Side to ^^ be thrice as many as were on Mr. Ouchterlonics Side. " This is a Matter of Fad that was very well attelled, *^ and helped very much to determine me in Mr. Raif^ '^ Favours.'^ Thus he. Now I fay, this v/as an impofing upon the Man by Mifinformation, feeing, as is well known to all in aucj about Dundeey when all the Heads of Families of that ^ Coiigre- fe^^ KR E P J c r Congregation were called to Bifliop Nortecs Rodm, In different Parcels, fucceffively, according as the Room could contain, when he lay on fick-bed, fome three Months, or thereabout, before his Death, to tellify their inclinations towards Mr. Ouchterlonie^ whom he propo- fed to them as his Succeflbr in that Meeting-houfe ; of sail thefe there were not found above [even or eight Jingk Perfins who diffented from the Calling of Mr. Ouchter^ Imie^ and the greateil Part of thefe Mr. i^<^/^'s Relations^ or known Ufage^-men. And accordingly Mr. Oticbterloni& ^as brought to Dundee^ and fettled in the faid Meeting* houfe by Biihop Norie^ with the Confent of the People, when the faid Bifliop lay upon his Death-bed, to be his Helper and Succeflbr. Yet the Information given of it Was liich as Bifliop Fullarton relates in his Letter above ; and upon this was Mr. Rait,, by the Party, brought to, and fet up at Dundee^ in Oppofition to its Pallors duly and canonically fettled. Wherefore I fay, this was and is zfiandakus Separation^ and an open Schifm^ With regard to this particular Cafe, I faid in the View^ p* <5i " That the intruding into the Charges of other " lawful Pafl:ors, and dividing their Congregations, by ** fetting up their feparate Conventicles among them, ** and fo wring the Affeftions of one of them towards *^ another, by fowing among them the baneful Tares of *^ Schifm and Difcord^ was a Practice utterly inconfifl;- *^ ent with the Unity of the Church, and which draws *^ theii* Followers as well as themfelves into the perni- ** cious Confequences oi Schifm!* To evade this the Reviewer^ p. 6^. has Recourfe to this pitiful Shift, viz. His Conchjion (fays he) from the long Difcourfe of Schifm is indeed pretty remarkahley where injfead of making it to conjift in a Separation from the Com^^ ttiimion of the unus Epifcopus, the one Bifliop, as the Prin^ €ip/e ofUnity'to his Church,, according to the DoBrine of the ^ntientSy he /peaks of withdrawing from a particular Con-^ gregation^ PREFACE. XXXV l^egatlon^ as if e^very Jingle Presbyter were as much a Priw* -dple of Xlnity^ as the Bijhop himfelf To this Evafion the Anfwer is plain and eafy from what I faid of Schifm in thcFkzVj p. 24, Sfi^q* to which I refer the Reader, be- caufe it is too long to repeat here. I Ihall only tran- Icribe a fingle fhort Paflage (to which the Reviewer would do well to give more heed) which I quoted from Dr. Scott's Chnjfian Life^ View^p. 28. The PalFage con- tains the Marrowof the Anfwer, and is this, There is no particular Church can he in Communion with the Cath©- lick, that feparates itfelf from the Com?miniori of any par- ticular Church that is in Communion with the Catholick, For they whofeparate from any Part; of the Whole, muj^ neceffanly feparate from the Whole, hecaufe the Whole is nothing hut all the Parts together. And it is a Contradi-^ Slion to fay^ ^hat they who are feparated from any one Part, are yet united to all. Or, if you will, a Paftor of a fingle Congregation, who is in Communion with his Catholick Biftiop, is th^ Principle of Unity to his Congre-^ gation, under the Biihop ^ and by holding Communion with him, they hold Communion with the Biihop, and fo with the Catholick Church. And on the contrary, if they feparate from him, they feparate from the Biihop, with whom he holds Communion, and fo are alfo fepa- rated from the Catholick Church. I hope this is jufl: rea- ibning upon Catholick Principles. Again upon my faying, VieWy p. 55. " But if otherwife (that is, if People can communicate in Worfhip with their ordinary Paftors without Sin) '' both the Apoftle ^' St. Panl^ and after him the Fathers^ as we have feen, *' reckon it a Sin, and that of a moft hainous Nature, to " feparate from them, or to join any other who fets up " in Oppofition to them. Therefore neither the Call of ^' the People, no, nor even the Mandate of Superiors, " whether Ecclefiall'ical or Civil, is, or can be, a war- *' rantable Ground for this : For uo Command of a Su- ^2 '' perior, xkxvi PREFACE. *' perior, or Will of a Patron, can oblige any to commit ^^ a Sin/' Upon my laying this (which I ilill hold as ^n undoubted Truth) the Reviewer puts this oddy this falfe (1 had abnoft faid this di/higemwus) Turn upon itj in the Review^ p» 69. in the End, Nay (fays he) and he denies it to he t?i the Power of the Bi/hop^ with tpje Confent. of all concerned^ whether People or Patron^ and e^ven with the Concurrence of the Civil Aathorityy to fet up a new Con" gregation^ or appoint a new Presbyter ^ where he pall judge the Necejjities of the Place to require it. Now, where did I ever lay fo ? Fm fure my Words import no fuch thing. Kay, i here declare, that it never entred into my Head^ I was not fpeaking about the iSfeceffities of Places. I needed not. This was not the Cale. I was fpeaking about feparating from their ordinary Pafiors ; or, pining ethers who fet up in Oppolition to them^ where there was no Neccffty of a new Congiregation, or a new Presbyter. Two Pallors were fufficient for the Congregation at Dundee* There had been no more in it at once fince the Revolution, and at that particular Time that Con- gregation was not {o numerous as it had been formerly^ And though it had been otherwife, yet another Perfon ihould have been added to the former two, in Commu- nion with them, not in dire(5l Oppolition to them, rend- ing their People from them,' and without ever giving theiji a Hearing m the Alfair, to know whether there was a Neceffity tor a new Presbyter^ or no. Now 1 return to the firll of the forementioned Aller- tions of the Writer of the P^/2t//)^, viz; ^hat the Party, had attempted no Impofttion of H'ernis ; This i^ as falfe as the other: For, i.^ Did they attempt to impofe no Terms, when they fofaucily propofed to the College their forefaid uncouth, fiaughty, fcornful 'Terms of JccoramodatioHy by which they would have had them to accept of one of their own Creatures as their Metropolitan^ with I do hot know what P R EF J C E, xxxvii Wliat exorbitant, lordly, tyrannical Powers^ even fuch as would have rendred the other Bilhops mere Cyphers, and their Synods a Mockery ? Nay,, and when they had the Boldnels to tell them in th&firft of thoie TemiSy That; without fuch a Metropolitan^ neither Ou'der nor Unity could be preferved in a Nattoml or Pro^fwad Church ? And when by the other Inarms ^ which I fet down above^ ^hey would even have excluded the Plurality- of the £/- jhops of the Nation from having any hand in the Govern-* rnent of this Church? tfthat was not dttcmptir^g to hn-* fofe TermSy and that with a Witnefs too, I know not; what can be called fo. 2. Did they attempt to impofe no Terms, when they endeavoured to introduce theit new Ccmmumon-Office^ &Ca wherei,^ the T'en Commandments are expung'd, and Pray-^ ersfor the D^^^ inferted ? . And when for that End they brought from England^ and difperied in this Nation fuch Multitudes of Copies of that Office ? And I dare fay, if they had the Power, this would be o/^^oithej^//? Terms, they would impofe : And in order thereto, they would: oblige us to own their irregularly^ uncanonically and inva" lidly elected and ordained Bilhops as rightful Bilhops oF this Church. Thus, notwithftanding this Gentleman's PofitiveneiS in charging the College with impojing of Terms and I'o- ttmtary Separation^ and in denying both with refpecl ta the Party, I have proved that the quite contrary is the Truth. But thefe -ire not the only Things in which he is pofitive^ not only without Fonndatm^ but even contrary to clear Evidence.^ Of this I fiiall at prefent give an. In- llance or two, referving the reiito be moretully handled in their proper Places. " I. Take for one Inftance, his aiTerting, That the Au- thor of the original Draught is my Enemy, in his Senti^ ihents concerning the Power of eWing Bijbops being "ve fled' in other Bilhops. Of this he fays, in the laft Paragraph ^. 3. ■ ' ^'^ %s%'^vX PREFACE. of the Pofifcript to the Appendix j How Men can take Shel'^ tcr under an Author declaring fo peremptorily againft them in their main Foundations, and only feeming to favour them in one circumftantial Point of their airy SuperJirU" Bure^ looks pretty ftngular. In which Words I oblerve three Things which he at- ferts: i. That the forefaid Author declares peremptorily againft the View in its main Foundations » I fuppofe among thefe he chiefly reckons its Sentiments concerning Bt" pops having the fiver eign Power in FJeBions of Bijhops : For this, in his Words, is its main Foundation. 2. He fpeaks of one circumftantial Pointy in which that Author feems to favour the View. I fuppofe he means that of the People's having no Right to vote tn thefe EleBions. Of which he fays in the preceeding Page of that Poftfcripty ^hat the Author of the original Draught comhates all along the Pretenftcn of that Right in the Laity. It this be his Meaning, the Protefier is much bound to him, for calling that a circumflaptial Pointj which he calls neceifary in the Proteffation^ and which ail the Teftimonies of the Fa- thers, there adduced, are calculated to maintain. 3. He fays, fhat the forefaid Author only feems to fa- vour me in this. How does that agree with what I have told he fays in the preceeding Page ? viz. That he com-^ lates it all along. Is that only feeming to favour me in it ? But the Inftance I take particular Notice of here, is the firft of thefe, viz. his faying that the original Draught declares peremptorily againft the Power of elefting Biftiops being vefted in other Biftiops. And I fay peremptorily this is falfe; and I adduce the Words of that Book for Proof of v^^hat I fay. In ^. 1 1 8. lin. 7. thefe are its very Words, " The holy Scriptures fet forth to us a divme *' Right, Authority and Power of ordaining Elders (that is. Elders ot both Orders, Biftiops and Presbyters) *' in the Church, completely and abfolutely conveyed ^' (from the Fountain of all Power in it) to the fingle " Per- PR E F j9 C E^ ixxis; *^ Perfons of the firft fpiritual Rulers of it, without: ^py ^' previous or concurrent Eleftion of the People in it j ^^ and farther, that the Appftles thenifelves, or Apofto- *^ Ileal Men (eminently fo called, and adopted into tfeq ^' Number of them) did accordingly both execute and " convey the fame ordaining Power, in the fame man-* ^' ner, unto others at their firft planting of the Chriftiaa ^^ Churches in the World/' I hope i;his is plain enough. Now this ordaining Power includes, according to that Author, not only the Power oiimpojing of Hands y but of the pitching upon the Perfpns to be ordained, as his Rea- foning plainly imports ; Elfe how could it be conveyed tofmgk PerfonSy and that completely and ahfoUitelyy with- out any previous or concurrent Eleftion ? This includes all that is precedent to the Impofition of Hands ^ fo that it as much excludes the Right o'tjimple Presbyters^ as of the People inEleftions. Indeed he had Occalion only to mention the People^ becaufe his Subject req^uired no more, being writing diredly againfl Popular Elcciions ; yet his Arguments are all as pointed againlt Clerical or Preshyterial ones. Thus when he proves from the Teftimony of Clemens. Romanusj that the Apoftles did fo undertland and exe* cute their Commiflion, upon thefe Words of that Fa- ther (Ji\ viz. T'he JpoJIies appointed their firft Fruits for Bifhops and Deacons ofthofe who Jbould afterwards believe *y He makes this Remark, p. iio. lin, 5. Surcy whatever imaginary People may be fuggefted to ha-vc bore a part in the ElcBion or Ordination offuch Bifhops and Deacons as thofcy 'tis plain enough^ the People (and I add the Presbyters) they were afterwards to preftde every or minifter amongft theniy could have none at all. And/>. 127. near the End, he fays of the Texts, i ^(m^ c' 4 iii. xl PREFACE. iii. a, 10. and 7/f. i. 6. Bifhops and Deacons mtifl hepi'O" ■ "vedfirjiy a?id found blamckfs. When we have faid the moji - of it that we can^ it leaves the whole Matter to the difcre" tional Judgment of the Ordainers theinfelves. And p. 1 24, 1 25. he proves from Scripture thefe threg , Things ^ I . i'hat there was a full Right and Power of or" daintng Elders in the Church unqueflionably invcfted in thejh Priniitive Pailors of the ApoJioUcal Churches (viz. thole whom the Apoftles conilitutedj fuch as ^tmothy and Titus,) 2. T^hat each of them in their iingle Perlbns are ^x- P''^/b ^^^'ifi^dj addreffqd and pointed tOj for the Dtfcharge and Execution of it, 2 Tim. ii. 2. Comjnit thoUy&c. and Tit. i. 5, And ordain Elders^ as T had appointed thee, 3. T'hat there is not the lealt Direftion, or fo much as Hint or Intimation, given to' either of them to call in the Afiillance, or wait the Apjprobation of People (and I add, or of Presbyters) in the Cafe, And as to the Election of Matthias in particular, of which the Reviewer (whom I take to be the fame Perfbh "who \^TOte the Pojlfcript^ the way of arguing being . 1 05. in the Beginning, Tet that all the other Difcipks who were prefentj had AShars in the Appointment of Matthias, together with the EkVe^ Apoftles, feems obvious at frfi View, Of this Electioa, the original Draught fays, p, j j;6. ^> We need no more, *' I think (tho' more Remarks might be made) to prove ^- that tht.ApoJllcs there prefent were the peculiar Per- ^' fons St. Peter addrefled his Speech to ; • and I prefume ^' k will not be difputed then, but thait thofe "V\''ords at *' I'm 23. And they appointed twoy did refer to f/z^i^^dike- *' wife, 'and to them only 'y^ fo that the People had n^opki*^ ^' fo much as in the Non^ination of the Perfons to be pro^ *^ pofed as Candidates for that Divine Election/' -' Now from thefe let the Reader judge of the Veracity orthis Gentleman, and whether or no the Author of the mginal Draught be my Friend or Enemy in this Point of ■• ■ -Ek^iom P R E F A C E. 1S& £kB(ons*^ and whether the Writer of the PoJJ-fiript }x3.d vReafon to fay of me, as he does in the End of the lail Paragraph, ty upon fuch Men a^ cannot dijiinguifh hetwee/% Friends and Enemies. ' Another Inftance of the Reviewer^ afl^rting Authors to be for him, when they are direftly againll him, is his claiming Mr. CoUtcrto be fo, Re^vk'-jVj p» i6i^ 162. Mr. ■Colliers Words, which I cited Irom the Pr(?/^c^ to his Eccleftajiical Hiftory^ and which the Reviewer repeats, are thefe, '^ The Force of the Eleftions, the pronouncing ^^ upon the Meritj?, and the decifive Judgment, this bcr ^' longed to none but the Bifhops/' Now can there be any thing more contrary to tlie Pro^ •tejlation than thefe Words are ? For why were the Bi- fliops protelled againll when they were deciding in this Matter, which belonged to ?2one but themfelves to do, according to Mr. Collier ? Can there be any thing more contrary to what the EJJayer fays, £/%', p* 45. viz. The Right of eleBing this Monarch (meaning the Bifhop) mujl {by the Principle,s_ of all derive Governments) belong to thap Body or Society which he is to govern^ and more ejpecially to the fubordinate Governors thereof P Can there be any thing more contrary to what the Reviewer fays of theEleftion •of St. Chryfo/lomj Review^ p. 1 97 ^ That Bi/hop (fays he, viz, Theophilus of Jlexandria) indeed Jlruggled againjl the Confecration j but for the Eleftion, it was o^qt already'' that is, it was finifhed before it came to the Hands of the Bilhops. Finally, Can there be any thing more con^ trary to the Party's conftant Practice in uling Presbyters 07ily in the Ele6lions of their Bilhops, and in reckoning thofe Perfons canonic ally chofen whom they alone chule ? Yet the Reviewer has the Candour and Modefty to fay of it, p, 1 6a. in his Note, I embrace with all 7ny Heart this Sentiment^ (viz, of Mr. Collier) and I am glad that the Reader will find it quadrate fo exaBly with the Progrefs of the Prmiotion. of Bi/to^Sy iu th Eflay, After this he may • lay xlii T R E F A C E. fay anything; as, black is white, or white black. There is another Trick of the Reviewer Sj of which t will not ftay to give Inftances at prefent, but ftiall do it plentifully afterwards; and that is, That he frequently makes References without repeating the Words of the Au- thors, even fo much as in Tranflations : But then when he does this, it is but to make an empty fliew of Forces j for generally thefe Authors, in the Places referred to, are his Enemies, at leail not hia Friends. $io. Before I clofe this Preface, I muft add fome Remarks upon what is faid to the Reader before the £/» fay and Review. They are thefe, I. The Writer of it (whom I take to be the Writer of the Review and of the Poftfcripty for the forefaid Rea*^ fbn) tells his Reader, fhat one moderately verfed in Eccle- fiailick Antiquities cannot fail to think that that Book (meaning the Fiew) contains afttfficient Confutation ofitfelf What need is there for any Knowledge at all of Ecck'r Jiajiick Antiquities for this ? If there be any Contradictions in the Book, the bare reading of it, without any more, will difcover that to an attentive Reader. But to anfwer more particularly, I fay, this is a general Libel : It is no more than what may be faid againft the belt Writing in the World. But in Jultice to me, and for the Satisfa* 6tion of his Reader in that Point, he fliould have con- defcended upon particular Places and Instances where it does fo ; which Tm convinced (as I hope every intelligent and unbyafs'd Reader will be upon perufing it) he cannot do. But this I fhall evidently fhew of the Efjay and RevieWy by particular Inltances : Yet this I muft referve to another Place, left I fhould fwell this Preface to too great a Size. 2. He infinuates. That I endeavour to darken the frutby upon the flight eji Grounds ; nay, and evenfacrifce it fot fuch mean Purpofes^ as to ferve the Interefis of a Party* Very civilly faid, truly : But whether he or I have been {^Uty of thefe -abominable Crimes, the ijnbyafs'd Rea- ders P R n F J C ^ ^ ixKi ders will eafily perceive. In the mean time this I declare briefly and fincerely, That to the beft of my Knowledge^ I have candidly told the Truth, and nothing but the Truth ^ therefore this his Inlinuation is calumnious. If he would have kept free of this .Accufation, Jie Ihould have inftanced in Particulars here alfo : But this is what he cannot do ^ but can and does calumniate boldly. 3. What I have juft now faid, is my Anfwer to his next Afperiion likewife, viz. That I put amazing falfi Gloffes upon Antiquity. 4. Tlje whole Controverfy (fays he) in my Opinion^ hai letter never leen hrought upon the Stage, In this I hear-» tily agree with him : As alfo in what he fays a little af- ter, viz. Truth J when attacked^ mu ft he defended and clear'* ed up. This was my very Reaion for writing againll the Protejlation^ and now againft the Efay and Review. But (fays he) who is now to hlame ? Is not this candid and modefl? Had he forgot the making and publifhing the Protejiation P Or would he have io bold an AJJamt Upon the Government of the Church, and the Authority of our Ipiritual Fathers pall over without Notice? Would this have been the way to defend and clear up the Truth ^ 5. He fays next, T'he IntroduBory Eflay on the Nature cf the Church needs no Apology ^ it is the Ground-work of the whole. By what is faid of fome Paflages of it already in this Preface, I fancy it partly appears whether it needs Sin Apology or no, and Ihall more clearly appear after- wards. Wherefore i f i t be the Grounds-work of the whole, 1 muil fay the whole is built upon a fandy Foundation. 6. Next, he makes another fierce Attack upon me, faying exprefly, That the Author of the View has put Meanings to Words contrary to the confiant tife of all ancient Writers \ it was fit to pew this. This I exprefly deny, and affirm it to be pure Calumny. He ihould have here given Inftances alfo to verify his Accufation. Befides, u I have done fo, it behoved either to proceed from want ^Ijy PREFACE. >vant of Candor, or from Miftake. As to my Ca/i^or, the Reader may judge from what I have already decla- red. And he may be in fome meafpre fatisfied alfo, from what I ifaid above, that it is not froni Mifrake^ which he fliall be more fully from the Sequel \ when it fliall be mad^ appear likewife, that by the Di/fertations annexed to the Review J as long and tedious as they are, nothing lefs is done, than to Ihew what is here fo confidently aflerted. Moreover, how do his Aflertions in this Place agre^ with what is faid elfewhere in his Book concerning the chief Word in Coneroverfy, viz. yei^orov'^co? as Review^ p. 119. in the End, where are thefe. Words, / ow^ />/- deed that the Verb x^^^^^''-'^^^ which the_ Viewer doth here^ and every where elfe^ tmnjiatc Eleft, (which by the by i^ iiot true) dothjignjfy in ancient Heathen TVriterSy to elecrt. And jppendixy p. 86. in the Beginning, he fays, I know thefe Greek Writers^ when they talk of civil Mag-flrates^^ may he found to ufe the Term x^Z'^T^vtiv for to choofe. Again (and more for my purpofe, became it is not faid of Heathen Writers) in the fame JppendiXj p. 167. it ig faid. So that the y^tH^rovirt here^ which the Emperor re com- fnends to theWireSrion of the Bipops^ may very appofttely intend the whole of the Affair from firjl to lajty (that is, it may comprehend the Elccfion as well as the Confecrdtion) as no doubt it frequently doth. Why am I condemned then fo^ making it do fo^ when the Scope of the Difcourfe allows or requires it, as if I were putting a Meaning upon it con^ irary to the conftant ufe of all ancient Writers ? Nay, I mufl tell thefe Gentlemen (for I know not how many of them are concerned in their Performance) that the Prutcfler himfelf has exprefly tranflated 'x^'^9rov\a. EleBiony in the very Body of the Proteftation. Turpe efl doBori, Now let any Man, that can, piece thefe Aflertions tori gether. For my part I cannot;. But I mufl be ccntra- dided, tho' they fhould contradi6t themfelves by doing fo. And further, to ufe an ExpreiTion of their own iri their PREFACE. iuhr their Preface to the Reader, what they have faidinthefe Places, contains afufficient Confutation ofitfclf^ of all they have faid to reftri^t the Signification of xeie,'?Toueiu and yeie^Toi'U to Confecraiion only. If they be Feldsdefey who can help it ? 7. And lajtly^ He make^ Hurry atid Precipitancy his Excufe for the fliamelefs Multitude of CorreBions and Additions [that is of Errata'] that are printed before their Book, and which render it fo difficult and tedious to be read by any Perfon, there being no fewer than nineteen Pages of them, and thefe in very fmall and clofe Chara- cters. And it fhall be made appear in the following Sheets, That, withbiit a great Miftake, the Title of the whole Book might have been, l^bis is a Book of Errors, Indeed his very Escufe in this lalt Paragraph, w.s'. Hurry and Precipitancy, needs the greateft Excufe itfelfi Is that the way to piiblifh a Book upod fo fefious, and, at this fad Jundure, fo weighty and momentous a Subjed ? §' I i. A s the publiping of the Review is the Proddd of Hurry and Precipitancy, fo it feems was the compofmg of it ; for it is done with much Diforder aind Confufion of Thought, as will more plainly appear afterwards : But, at prefent, take thefe for Evidences of it, n)iz. 1. That it very feldom quotes the Pages of the Viem from whence it takes its Citations ; fo that I had much Difficulty, and fpent much Time, in finding my owri' Words, which it refers to. How inconvenient and troublefome .then mull that be for other Readers ? It : looks as if the Writer defign d that they ihould not find them. And indeed fometmies h^ had Reafon fo to do, becaufe he repeats them unfairly. 2. Another Evidence of its Dfordcr and unpardonable HcfeBivenefs too is, the wholly omitting in the Effay and Re'view, and very often in the Appendix, t6 fet down the mginal Words of the Authors, Ibme Jingle ones, or, at moil, port Fmgmehts of Sedt^nces, hete and there except- ed. xlvi PREFACE. ed. But inftead of the OriginaJsy we have only EngTtp Tranflations, and thefe oftimes unexa6t, tedious in length even to Naufeoufnefs, impertinent to the purpofe, and without Application to it, or Conclufions deduced fiomthem. Inflances of thefe Ihall be noted afterwards. This is a Thing that could hardly have been expelled from a Party that hoaji fo much of their Knowledge of jintiquity and Skill in the learned Languages, 3, A third Evidence of the Diforder of Thought in compofing that Book, is, the adding fo long and tedious an Appendix to it, which, upon fmall Conlideration, might have been all digefted into the Body of the Work : But perhaps the Multiplicity of Hands employed in it (for that Appendix feems to be colleded by fundry dif- terent Perfons) has been the Occalion of this. 4. The lall Evidence I fliall mention of this at prefent is, The perplexed manner in which it treats my Argu- ments, fometimes skipping forewards, and fometimes backwards, and often omitting the Conlideration of Ibme of the llrongell of them altogether ; others he e- l^ervates quite, merely by calling them ridiculous ! Upon thefe Accounts, and particularly the laft two, it cannot be expefted that this Performance could be digeft- ed into fo clear a Method, as may be wijQied. Yet I fhall endeavour to make it as perfpicuous and fatisfa6tory to the Reader, as I am able, by difpofing it under tho fe- veral Heads in Diipute. $12. I fhall Ihut up this Preface with two fliort Advi'- r^5,which are plain Confequences from whatis faid above^ The Firfi is, An Advice tofuch as are to enter into Holy Orders in this Church'^ and it is this. That they would be very wary whom they pitch upon to ordain or confc-^ crate them, leftotherwife their Or^cr J be uncanonicaly and their Mmtftrations invalid'^ and left upon thefe Accounts,^ Doubts and Scruples againft them arife in the Minds of People with whom they are concerned j nay, and Troubles PREFACE. xlvS Troubles be created to themfelves^ and Confufions in the Church afterwards, when thefe Matters come to be dur ly enquired into* The plain Reafon of this Advice is, becaufe the Ele'^ Bions and Confecrations of Craigball ^nd Mr. Dumbarj and the Confecration of Mr. Lumfden^ and perhaps of others al- fo, are not only tmcanonkal in themfelves, as being per- formed without the Confent of the Majority of the Biihops of this Church, and difowned by them ; but alfo thofe of xh^firji two are by them actually declared mid and nullzs to their EleBionSy and irregular and uncanonical as to their Confecrations J and themfelves to be no Bifhops of this Church, as has been faid above, and confequently to have no Power of performmg Ordinations or Confecrations in it. The Second Advice is to all Perfons in general within this Church*^ and is, That they take great Care in their Choice of Pallors with whom they communicate in War* fhip^ and from whom they receive facred Minifiratiom^ as ofBaptifm^ the holy Eucharijly and Ahfolution^ left they receive theni from fiich as, by reafon of the Invalidity of their Orders have no Power to adminifter them ; and therefore they be of no Efte6t to them for good Purpofes, but involve them in the Guilt and Puntjhment oi Schifm. The Reafon of this Advice is the fame with that of the former. ADVERTISEMENT. All that's material in the Effay^ Review and Appendky is taken in under the following Heads, as I think : And if there be any thing elfe in them of any moment, con- trary to what is laid down in the VieWj it may be eafi- ly anfwered by any Perfon of ordinary Capacity, from the Principles diftindly laid down in the following Sheets* One xlviu P R i: F J C K One Thing I will take notice of here, becaufe I have' not touched in the Supplement ; it is concerning a Method of elefting Bilhops in Scotlajjcl in the Reign of King James VL I faid in the View.y p. I ^5. " That Billiop Guthrie in his ^' Memoirs tells us, that this Method was, That when '' any Bifhop died, the Archbilliop conveenM his Fellow- ^' Bilhops, and they gave in to the King the Names of '^ three Perfons, whom they judged molt fit, out of ^^ whom the King chofe one into the vacant See/' Of this the Reviewer ^ p. 209. fays, Vmfufpicious that Gentleman is not altogether acquainted with the laudable Procedure of that King in thofe Affairs. Therefore now to Ihew that I Ipoke not that without Book, I here fet down Bilhop Guthrie s own Words from his Memoirs y p, 14. It had heen King James' j Cu- ftom (fays he) when a Bijhoprick fell void^ to appoint the Archhipop of St. Andrews to conveen the rejl^ and name three or four well qualified^ fo that there could not he an Error in the Choice-^ and then out of that Lift th^.t King pitched upon one^ whom he preferred : Whereby it came to j>afsj that during his ftme mofl able Men were advanced. To this very Paffage Mr. Lejlie refers, in his Regale^ p. 229. faying. He [King James~\ as Dr. Guthrie Bifiop of Dunkeld tells us in his Memoirs, ufed this Method in Scotland, viz. "that when any Bipop died^ the Archbpop ■ conveen'd his FellowBipops^ and they gave in to the King the Names of xhxtt PerfonSy whom they judged Jit ^ out of whom the King chofe one into the vacant Sec. I think thefe were Authorities fufficient for me to de- pend upon, for this laudable Procedure of that King. And the Reviewer has not told his Vouchers for his Story oi Patrick Forbes of Corfc. A SUP- 1 1 1 A SUPPLEMENT T b T H E VIEW, &c. § I. ^HE prefent unfeafonable and " woful Divifions that rend in Pieces the difcouraged Re- mains of the Epifcopal Church in this Nation, have made it nejeifary now to have this Point cleared up, ^ciz. iVho have the Right or Pow er to eleB a Bipop. For thefe Divilions have been begun and carried on by a Party who at firit fet up for introducing the Ufa^es among us j and thereafter, w hen they fxw A that [^ 1 that that Defign was like to prove abortive, by the Bi- fhops of this National Church chuling others for Bifliops of particular Diilricls who were averle from thefe UfageSj they not only protejfed againil the Bilhops for claiming and exerciiing this Powcr^ but alfo adventured, contrary to all Order and Unity, yea to Canon and Precedent, to confecrate others for Bifhops in Oppolition to the P///- yality of the former, under Pretence, That the Presbyters and People of each Diltrid had xhtfok Power of chuling a Bifliop for that Diftrift ; or, at leall. That he could not be chofen without their Suffrages and Corifent* The Firji is, upon the Matter, what is exprefly affert- fcd in the EJfay^ p» 45. whofe Words are, 'The Right of ehfiing this Monarch (fo it calls the Biftiop) mnji {by the Principles of all EleBi'vs Governments) belong to that Body cr Society which he is to govern ^ and more efpecally to the fubordinate Governors thereof The Lafl^ is what the JProteJlation is founded upon, according to the Abitraft of it in the Appendix^ p. 2. viz. That the Suffrages of the Majority of the whole Clergy, (it means only Presbyters) and the Confent of the People are neceffary. But here I muft obferve. That notwithftanding thefe their Ailertions are as exprefs for the People's Righi as for that of the Clergy^ and almoll all the Authorities adduced in the Protejjation are more io ^ yet they have dropt the People altogether, taking no notice of them in their own pretended Eleftions, but making thefe byfome Presbyters only, as I obferved in the Preface : And ac- cordingly, tho' Bifhop Miliar was chofen for Edinburgh by a few Presbyters only, without the Knowledge of the other Bilhops, or of the People either, yet he is cal- led the legally elcBed Bifoop^ Review^ p. 248. By which we fee, that their Defign is to have thefe Eleftions appro- priated to Presbyters only. But are thefe Eleilions legale wherein the Confent of the People (fo neceflary ac- cording to their own Principles^ is entirely negleaed ? And C 3 ] And I muft obfen^e further. That tho' anciently all the Clergy and People were obliged to be prefent in the very Place of Eledion, tliat it might be performed be- fore them, as is evident from the very Authorities in the ]? rot eft at mi '^ yet in the Elections of the Party they went about clandellinely through the Country, to the feveral Refidences of the Presbyters, pradiiing upon them a^- part, and taking their Subicriptions feparately. A Me- thod by which the ancient Dcftgn of chooling the Bifliop in the Prefence of his People, was altogether difappoint- ed, ^v;s. that they might have the Opportunity of gi- ving their Teftimonies conceming his Life and Conver- fation \ and alfo the Freedom of the Elections was quite prevented and obilrufted. Now, becaufe of thefe Pretenfions, and the Divifions and invalid and uncanonical Elections and Confecrations that followed upon them, I endeavoured ibme time ago to diicover if they were founded in Antiquity; and the Refult of that Enquiry I faithfully fet down in the VieWy which was publiihed about two Years and a half fince. But the Party finding it utterly inconfiftent with and de- ilrudive of their Scheme, have publiflied a large Boole againft it, collefted by I do not know how many Hands, and bearing the Title of ^ £^ ^^ ^^^ Nature of the Churchy and a Review of the EleSfions ofBipops in thePri" mitive Churchy &c. That Performance neither bears the Name nor Deftgnatim of any Author, by which it looks as if they were aihamed to own it. However, anonymous and expofed as it is, I have re- folved to pay it the Refped to confider it, and exa- mine and refute its principal Objedions, and notice its material Errors and Blunders, becaufe it fpeaks out the Sentiments of the Party ; and they might make a Noife to bad Purpofes, if it pail unregarded. A a J 2- B u T c 4 J ^2. But jfirft I muft obferve how little iSIecer^ fity there is for this, if its real Strength were only con- iidered ; feeing, to ufe their own Words in their Pre-^ face to the Reader, that their volurhinous Performance contmns a fufficient Confutation ofitfelf^ of what either the Proteftation ot the Book have advanced to appropriate the Right of Elections of Bifhops to the Presbyters and People^ which is the principal Point that the View oppofes. And in Truth it might have been omitted altogether, had it not been to cut off from the Party the Occalion of bodlling of the Camnicalnefs and Antiquity of their Scheme, mid of the invincible Strength of their Argu- ments in relation to this Point. For truly they have Ipoke fo undillinftly and indeterminately upon it, that fetting afide their Practice, which is for Presbyterial Ele^ €lions only, it is impoiTible from their Words (fo in-^ coniillent they are with one another) to difcern to whom they appropriate this Atfair* For fbmetimes, and that in the plainefl Terms, they alcribe it to the Presbyters^ fometimes to the People^ fometimes to the Clergy and People^ and fometimes they give the Ibvereign Power to BipcpSy at leaft they allow them a Share in Ele6tions jointly with the others. But that the Credit of this may not reft upon my bare Word, as the Ailertion of thefe Gentlemen does upon theirs, v/ith refpe6l to the View^ let their own Expref- iions be the Proof ^ fome of which I here fet down: And firft for the Presbyters. Of thefe the Reviewer fays, p, 97. JVhn there is no Chapter^ their Rights mnfi certainly return back to the, 'whole Body of the inferior Clergy, and cannot {as fome ham moji unaccountably pretended) devolve upon the Bifliop^^ 'who are a difiinB Order ^ and have: all along had a diJlinB Share peculiar to themfelves in this Matter. This is pret- ty plain i think for the Presbyters, even in Oppolition to t s i to the Blfliops • by whole ^i/fi^c'f Share peaiiiar to tlem-'. fehes^ \ luppofe he means only the Power o^Confccmt'wn *; Jpor it is not known that the Chapter, at leail in nnol^ ordinary Cafes, had all the Ecclefiaitick Power of Ek*^ Bion : And now this mult deyolve upon th^ infmor Clergy. And accordingly he tells us, Wid* p. 2,39. ^bat inthe^ Meeting of Presbyters at Edinburgh /cr tl^e EkSiiori of Mi^. Jhop Fullartojn, ;/ ijoas moved to be confidered^ 'uobether this 'Meeting had Right ajid Authority to aB in the elcBing of a Bijbop to refide at Edinburgh ; and the fame was mani'^ moujjy afferted by all that were prefent. And of Bi.lhop Mlla/s Eledion he fays^ f. 241. Jnd accordingly they (that is, fome Presbyters who protefted againll the reft for proceeding to that Eledion) avr/?-- d/ewj leaguing the reft to proceed to the J^leBiony ipho diA iinaniriionjly agree on Bifbop Millar. And therefore, ^o 243. he calk Bifhop Mill^ the legale ly elcBed Bipop. Yet in other Places he feems to afcdbe it to the Peopls, alone, as p» 94. whe'£e. his Words are, And this pofitive ^cftimony '■joas accordingly the ancient Marnier in which ths. People aci II ally. gave their Vote or Suffrage for himy and without which he cojddnat befet over them ag^jnjl their.. iVilly and without their Confent. And more plainly, p. 105. he, fays, We allo'-jj thcin. Succefcrs the Bifbops to be judges of the Perfons, ekBed by,. the People to the Epifcopate, At other times again, and that moil frequently, it is, afcribed to the Clergy and People jointly, as Efay^ p, 45^ ^he Right ofekciing this Monarch miijl (by the Principles of all eleBrce Governments)^ belong to that Body or Society, which he is to govern. And in the Review^ p. 76. this their Iligh^ is feti upt even, in Oppofition to the Bifliops, in thefe Words^^ If the Mcjropolitan himfdf favour the Clergy and^ A3" People, t ^ 3 People, in aferting their Rights^ and oppofmg the tntntjiofi cj a Bipop tqwti than. And p. 196. he fays of the Eleftion of St. Chryfojlonty I do indeed own^ that was there no other hifiance hut this Jingle one upon Record^ Ipould he entirely fatisfied (as far as Examples canfatisfy) of the Right of the Clergy and People to eleB their own Bifroop^ and that the other Bi/hops muji give their Jjjent ami Approbation^ in order to a Confecration, But of this laft he is not fatisfied ; for in the next Page he fays exprelly, For the EleBion^ it was over already* ^iw many Bijkops were called together^ as the Htjiorians in'* form us [iV. B. not to give their Affent and Approbation to what was over already, but] to render the Ordination of John the more firm and augujl. And Ms well known, that the Proteflation was made againfl the College of BilTiops, in maintenance of this very Right. Yet, thefe Things notwithllanding, otherwhiles they afcribe zht fovereign Power in thefe EleSions, or at lealt a Share in them, to Bifhops. Thus, Effay^ p, 50. it is faid, fhe Concurrence^ nay^ if you will^ the final Sentence and Judgment of the Metropoli- tan and Comprovincial Bifhops was alfo necefjary. And, Review J ^. 161. in the Note, Mr. Colliers Words are cited, which are, " The Force of the Eleftion, the *' pronouncing upon the Merits, and the decifive Judg- ^' ment, this belonged to none but the Bifhops. ^' Thus, by the Apoflles Order, the chief Governors of ^' the Church, /. e. the Bifhops, were commilfioned to ^ iecure the Succeilion, and provide for the Perpetuity *' of their Order.'' Upon thefe Words the Reviewer fays, / embrace with all my Heart this Sentiment. And p. 1 92. he fays, Ifiall once more repeat it to this Author^ 'That an EleBion of a Bipop was never completed^ until the jjeighhouring Bi/hops had approved the Choice made ty the Clergy and People. Indeed he feems tQ fay this un-* willingly f 7 ] Willingly, and as if he had repented of It as being too much, he minces it by a Parenthefis, which is, at.leaj^ the Affair was not over. And p, 1 05. he fays. We allow their Succcjfors the Bi-^ Jbops to be Judges of the Perfons eUBed by the People. And Jpper/d. p.'i6y fpeaking of the Emperor Co;/- fiantine^ Letter to the Synod of Bilhops at Antiochy wherein he tells them, " That it was their part ta " judge of the worth of the Perfon to be promoted ^'* the Reviewer puts in Clafps thefe Words, fure this is ac'\ knowledged hy every one. In other Places they fpeak of the Bilhops Share ia Elections, without diflinguilhing what it is, as RevieWy f. 1 9a. And therefore I judge that thefe many Bijhops did conveeny in order to hear their part in the Eleciion of a neist} Bipop. And in the Append, p. 117. it is faid, 7'hat Author has leen all along beating the Windy when he would labour ta frovey that other People denied the Right and Interejl of BifloopSy in the EMtons of their Brethren of the Epifiopai Order. And here alfo I mull obferve particularly, that f()me« times they exprefly rellri6l the Vote and Suffrage oi tlie People in Eleftions to their bare Teflimonyy as Review^ p. 94. where it is faid. And this pofttive Teflimony {viz* of the Perfon's being worthy) was accordingly the ancient Manner in which the People aBu ally gave their Vote or Suj'^ frage for himy as will befeen in the Sequel of this Review. See the Note, p. 1 24. Now thefe their Affertions being remembred ancj compared together, let me ask thefe following Que- ilions, viz. I. Whether any one can dillinftly comprehend their Scheme of EleHions by all that is faid? That is. Whether they are for Presbyters alone being the E.le^orSy or for the People alone, or for Bijhops alone, or for any twoy A 4 or Ml or all of thefe Ranks jointly or equally ? Or whether they be for any of them to have the chief and fovereigfp Power ; or, as Mr. Collier w'ords it, th^ rowyr of deter- mining concerning the Force of the EkBiony and the;)ro- mtincwg upon the AferitSy and the decifroe Judgment^ And if they be, Whether ^hat b^ the B^pops or th^ JPreslpyters ^ _ • • • ■ . 2. If they be for the Biihpps having it, which Senti- ment the Reviewer fays be embraces with izll, his Heart ; And that an Elecfion of a Bipoop was new completed till the ncighhouring Bpaps had approved jhe Choice : Then what becornes oitht ^roteftatton made againll the Poweff of the BiiJiop3 in this' Affair? And alfo of the Party's Ele6tions and Confecrations performed withQ.ut the Con- fent and Knowledge of the Majority of the Bilhops of this Church? They of Neceffity muft ht fatJious 2iVi^ fchipnaticaU 3. if t^his ^uppofition be true ; and alfb^ that the People's Ypte and Suffrage amounted to no more than their hare Jejfimony : Then what Occafion has the Strength ot their Arguipents or Obje6lions given for Wm\i^t\{\s Supplement ? Is not that all that the View^ contends for in this Matter ? And do nat the EJfay and JReview contain a fufficient Confutation of 'tl;iemfelves, as to their maintaining ^rcshyterial or Popular Eledions in Oppofition to Bifhops ? 4. Upon this Suppofition, or indeed upon fupppfing that the Bilhops had but a Share in Elections, what ()ccafion was - there for -contending fo fiercely in the Review and. JppendiXy th^t y^^c^Tzveiv and -^H^^TxrU were to be rellridied only to Ordination^ and not to comprehend tba^t and EleBiQn too ? And what need was there for ityiving fo Hifly for the Words 4"^©"? and fif^ fraginin^ and ^otnnjy and eUgerCy their iignifying proper^^ formal and dfi';!fi')e Voting : ' Aii.d what 'N'^jefTity was' ttere for the long i>ijJc:tat;on on the 4th Canon of the* firil k t 9 J firft N)ccfie CotnicU, and others, to reftrlcl them to Oi^ Hwation only, fb aa'to exclude Ek5fwn? If any of the Party undertake to anfwer this Suppk'*, raetJtj I require them to give a diliin6l Account of thei^ Scheme of ElcBicns^ and >Vithal ta anfwer thefc Queflions fully and clearly* y *^' BeforeI proceed to examine and arJWet their ObjecSions againft the View^ I will make fome Re-, marks upon their manner of writing; And Jirjfj Til give fome Samples of the Civility and Relpe6t the Reviewer fhews towards thofe who differ from him. Thus, p. 7.8, he falls a quarrelling with the venerable and learned Mr. Sa^ej and in a nianner gives him the Contradiction, fay-!, ing, Bat then bow his (the Bilhops) being fuhjeB to the j^uthoriTy of the Bijhops of the Province^ which is. likewif& added by Mr. Sage, can be conftftent with his Indepen- dency —"I own I am at a lofs to comprehend. Nay, he fcarcely fpares St. Cyprian himfelf, and other African^ Bifhops met wath him in Council, upon this Head of In^ depe?idtncy^ faying, Ibid, l^et even in this Cafe the Injfapce of The^apius is very remarkable. The Cafe was this, Thefe African Fathers had entrenched manifeftly upon' the Party -s darling, tho' imaginary Independency o^^v-^ fliops, by ordering their Felbw-Bifliop T'herapius to be rebuked for the firll Fault, and warned not to do fo for the future ; certainly in otder to a heavier Cenfure, it he did, becaufe in his own Diocefe he had admitted to the Communion of the Church, before the Time of his Pe- pance was expired which thefe Fathers had appointed, one Vi5ior a Lapfer. But he ufes Archbiihop Spottifwood^ Mr. Collier^ and Mr. Buchanan J with a little more Freedom. In the View^ p* ii7> ^ fiqq- I had adduced the Authorities of thefe three learned Perfons to prove that the Church of Scotland was inaled by Biihops acting in coiom.op.^ ti!i:,the '^•- ■ Reign Reign of King Malcolm Camnore. Wherefore of them the Reviewer^ p. 88. fays very bluntly, J'/jree n^try incom* fetent Witnejfes in Truth. His Rudenefs to the Emperor Valentinian is moft An- gular ^ Vaknt'mian whom the Church-Hiflorians repre- fent as a wife and piotis Prince. In the Vieixi^ p, 202. I had cited his Teftimony, afcribing the Power of Ele- ftion to Bifliops. This raov'd the Reviewers Spleen fo againft him, that p. 1 84. he breaks out into thefe Ex- preflions concerning him, Valentinian was by Birth a jRope^make/s Son : His Pajfion was enormous : H& died of a Fit thereof ■ And becaufe the Teftimonies of Confiantine the Great and Good, the firft Chrillian Emperor, are alfo pregnant for this Power of Bifhops; he is pleafed to fay ot him in the Appendiy:y p, 160. The inglorious Behaviour ofths Emperor. I fliall add to thefe the unworthy Reproach he cafls upon the Chrifiian Religion itfelf, as it the Vices and Wic- kednefles of all Ranks of Chrillians, and the Difcords, and Perfecutions, and Blood-ihed that happen about it, were as imputable to it as its natural Confequences, as Tumults and Seditions are to the undue meddling of the inferior Clergy and Populace in Eleftions. His Words are thefe. Review^ p. 288. fhe remaining part of the View is taken up with Accounts ofTtimults^ &c. raifed hy the Clergy and People at EleBwns of Bifhops. But might he not as well have added many black Samples of all forts of Vices that have been among all Ranks of ChriJiianSj and then have charged them upon the Religion ofChriJiians ? Or clofed what he hath adduced with the fare aflical Jeji of Julian the Apofiate^ viz. '' That the Galilean had once *' verified his own Declaration, that he came not to fend *^ Peace upon Earth, but a Sword." And p. 94 and 1 84. he has fome oblique Strokes at the Charafters of the fpiritual Governors of this Church. After [ " ] After fuch unbecoming Treatment of good and gfeat Men, as of Emperors, Billiops, and other learned Per- fons, the Supercilioulnefs and Contempt with which he ufes me is not at all furprifing. I ihall point to fome Inftances of it, of which there is Plenty^ fuch as, hi« faying in his Preface, T'hat an intelligent Reader may won-^ der at his acknowledging^ that the puhlijhing his Treatife is entirely owing to the View. And /). 68. fuch as it isy andfurely it is a n)eryjingular one* P. iiS* fi v-idiculous a Crtticifin. P. 1 74. the ridiculous Remarks y unfair Tran-^ Jlations^ and zvilful Omiffions contained in the View. P. 185. extravagant and ill-grounded Remarks. P. 211. his Remarks are frivolous. Jppend. p. 15c. in the End of the Note, as the Viewer petulantly talks. And yet after all he mentions not in any of thefe Places fb much as a fha- dow of a Reafon why he fpeaks fo difdainfully of the Vfcw^ or its Arguments and Remarks. Nay, Jppend. p, 147. he is pleafed to brand me with being a more fier<^ DiJJenter than even Mr. Calamy. I think my very De-^ fignation upon the Title-Page of the View might have fcreen d me from this Imputation. But this is not the only Place in which he is at Pains to traduce me : For, Review^ p. 174. he would have me pais for one who hears a particular Ill-will to the Prote" Jlcr. Which in Sincerity I declare I do not, nor to any Man ; tho' I cannot away with fome People's Principles and Praftices, efpccially fuch as tend to Schiim and Difcord. And Append, p. 14. in the Note, he imputes to me what is really imputable to himfelf and his Par- ty, viz. fhe oppofmg of the Scheme hy which the Provincial Bijhops and Metropolitan ought to he pleafed with the De-^ ftres of the People and Clergy concerning a Bifhop to he fet over them^ elfe they were not to fulfil them. For what the View maintains is, That this Affair anciently was and ought to be determined by the Plurality of their Votes ^3^cMve oqly of the Metropolitan's Negative. And ibid^ fhid. p, 1 25. he reprefents it as 'very cppoftte to th$ Viewer'^ Scheme of Things^ that the free and unanimous Harmony of the Flock in their Delirea of a Perfon to. be their Bilhop, Ihould be lookt upon as an Evidence of ^ Divine Indication ; whereas it is exprefly faid in thet View^ p. 157. " That indeed when they unanimo.ufly ^' concurred in their Teftimony and Requeils, it was f' reckoned a Signification of the Defignation of God, ^' to have fuch a Perfon, as they concurred in, to be ^/ elefted/' The fame thing is obferved over and over, V/ew^ p. 1 5:9 and 198. fo that this feems to be z very wilful Mifreprefentation. Such another is what is faid in the Poftfcriptj Append, p. 17^. yis. O;/ the contraryj the Author of the View is zy^lUng to allow it {yizu the Right of Eleftion) in the People^ but carit endure to hear it tn the Clergy. Where in all the View did I give hiin Ground to fay fo ? I verily believe their Rights were; equal ; that is, they were both equally allowed to peti-^ tion and teftify. Whether thef^. Things look like Candor or not, let the Reader judge. 1. The next Remark I make upon his mjanner of wri- ting is. That inllead of Or/^/z/^/j he.gives ua only Englip Tranflations for ordinary ; this any who but looks at, his Book will fee almoft in every Page. By fo doing, he taKes Liberty to put what Senfe he pleafes upon the Words of Authors, withou;t. a fufficient Check. But is, this the way to fatisfy learned, reafonable and inquilitive !^eaders ? It looks very lufpicious, as if ther,e were Ipme iiniilrous Deiign under it. I. Befides this, I laid in th^ Preface, That the Tran-, flations he ufes are oftimes unexaft. Now" I Ihall give fome Specimens of this, a;id thofe in material Cafes. One is in Review^ p. 148. in, a Tranflation 9^ a Paffiige of St. Cyprian^ Ep. 5. § a. it is taken from Mr. Marjhal in thefe V.^ords, " That the Presbyters who celebrate *^ the holy Eucharift v/ith thef^ Confeffoj^s^ may feve- ' ^'lally t »3 ] • ^^ rally take their Turns, and that a new one niay feacfi *^ Day attend with a new Deacon;'' The Ufe he make^ of this is to prove that there were more than Eight PrefJ byters in Carthage at St. Cyprians Eleftion; And the Obferve is, That the Numh^.r of Presbyters cotiJd not be jmall^ if new Faces and Perfons could every Day be (pared cut of It J for attending the Confeffors in their Prifons. A goodly Conclulion truly to be fo founded I For^ Math all due Refpeft to Mr. Marpal^ it is founded upon a wrong Tranflation. St. Cyprian had a very little before advifed the Brethren who went to vilit the Confeflbrs,' not to go in great Numbers at once, left they fhould be hindred altogether from performing that charitable Of- fice. His Words are, famen caute hocj £^ non glomera-* tim^ nee per inultitudinemftmuljunBam puto effe faciendum .* tie ex hoc ipfo invidia concitetur^ ^ introeundi aditus dene^ getur^ y dum infatiabiJes mult urn wlumusy totum perdamlL And then goes on in the Words tranflated, viz. Confur^ lite ergo ^ providete^ ut cum temperamento hoc agi tutius pof/it : it a ut Presbytcri quoque^ qui illic apud confeffores of^ feruntj finguli cum lingulis Diaconts per vices alternent : quia £? mutatio perfonarum ^ vicij/ttudo convenientium ml" nuit invidiam^ Here's not a Word of a new one each Da)'y but of one Presbyter going with one Deacon at a Time, and changing about ^ whatever their Number was. For there might be but very few Presbyters for ail this: And I believe he will not fay there was a great Multitude of Deacons, tho' they were to go fmgly^ and chancre a-^ louty as the Presbyters did; This is one. a. Here's another very apt to mhlead unwan^ Rea- ders. For tho' the Reviewer^ by not fetting down the original Words, takes Occ^alion to invert them to hi^ own purpofe \ yet they make diref^Hy againlt him, by appropriating both the Eledion and Coniec ration ofBi-^ Ihdps to other Bilhops. The Words which he gives the Tranflation of, tho' he tells not whole it is, are in Cypr. Ep. 63. t M ] £p> 68. § a. thus, «^//^ afite ociilos hahefttes ^ foIVmte a& religiose conftdcrantes^ in ordinationihus facerdotiim non ?nji imtnaculatos y integros Jntijlites eligere dehemusj qui fa?i6i^ ^ digm facrtjicia Deo ofere?iteSj audiri in pxcctbns poffinty ^c. The Epiftle is writ by St. Cyprian and many other Bilhops in CounciL Here they fay of themfelves, If^ crdinatimihus facer dot urn Antijiites eligere debemus^ i. e. In the Ordinations ofPrieJis we ought to ekSifuch Ei'* JhopSy &c» where they join the EleBion and Co?ifccratioH together, and appropriate to themfelves the one as well as the other. Yet by the Reviewer ^ p. 154. the Words are thus dubioufly and indefinitely rendred, JVherefore upon full and impartial Enquiry^ fucb only are to be ele6t- cd to the PrieHhood, wbotn we have Reafon to thinky GOD will hear. Which is very unfair. 3» And Review^ p. 123. the Words, left Fabian bis Succejforj tho* they be in Italick Characters, and a Note upon them too, yet are not in Eufebius. 4. Such another is his rendring, />. 156. the Words of St. Cyprian and his Collegues in the fame Epijl. § 4. viz* fub populi ajjlfientis confcientia ; with the Knowledge and Concurrence of the People. He adds Concurrence^ to force the Words to favour his Scheme. 5. Of the fame kind is what he has in the fame Page, ^iz. being approved hy the Suffrage and Judgment of alU Where the Word rendred approved^ is only esaminata^ examined* Thus he gives his Account of the whole Subjlance and Connexion of that famous 68th Epiftle, as he fays, p. i^p* which I ftiall confider at more length in its Place. 6. He has alfo, ^.79. a palpably wrong Tranflation of thefe Words of St. Cyprian and 66 of his Collegues m Epijl. 59. viz. Sed librato apud nos diu conJiltOj fatis fuic objurgare Therapiuni Collegam nofirum^ quod temere hoc fecerit^ y injlruxiffe^ ne quid tale de catero faciat ; which he. thus renders, Aftirr ranch Deliberation thereupon^ we judged judged it expedient only to rebuke Thefipius our CoUepie^ ^c. where he renders fatis fuity by expedient only. Whereas they plainly mean, that they judged it to be fufBcient, to rebuke him only for the firft Fault: and noc diat they durlt do no more ; elfe what need of much De- Kberation about it ? What need was there to teach and admonip him^ that he poM not commit the like again : nijirtixijje ne quid tale de aetero faciat j unlefs they refol- ved to cenlure him more feverely for it? Does this loolc like Independency of Bifhops ? I have already given ^ ihort Account of this Cafe, p, p. above. 7. Of this fort alfo is his Tranflation of thefe Word^ of Socrates^ p, 180. 0€8 ix£wou « dvi^pu'Truv eivau tIw 'vj^w^^r, 'uiz. thus he renders them, He was already eleBed by the Sufrage of GOD. Whereas the Words evidently beat no more than that the Election was ofGODy or proceed^ ed from GOD rather than from Men, tho' it was front the one as the Caufej and from the other as the InJirU'^ ments. What ftrange Abfurdity is here, to direct the Bifhops to eleft one pointed out to them by God ? 8. And/). 198. his Millranllation of a PaiTage of So^ crates is very grofs, and a palpable Detortion of it to his own purpofe. The Words are thefe, o< d^TA^ei^ \asr> rk jtovTet WKTKQ-rcdv yji^Tvvvt^ivTuv ojuTLff, The Meaning of which is plainly, as is rendred in the VieWj p. 204. *' Who being hurled away by the Multitude, was pro- *^ moted to the Epifcopate, being chofen and (if you will) *' confecrated by a hundred and fifty Bifliops who were *' prefent then, or at his Eledion." Whereas the Re^* 'viewer has mighty honeftly tranflated them thus, fhis Per'- fon the People fei zed upon, and elcBed him Btpop, (Is not this fine ?) and he was ordained by a hundred a7id fifty Prelates then prefent. There is alfo a Deceit in his ren- dring d>Tctc&B?, feized \ which fi^nifLQS forcibly rapt, haul'dy hurfd^ or draggd away. I'm ., Vm rdally wearied with hunting for^ and noting his wil* Ful and grofs Perverfions of the Meanings of the Fathers ; he has {o many more of them, the Task to mark all would be intolerably tedious^ and, as I hope, from this Sample, needlefs too. Perhaps others may be noticed in Courfe. 9. I fliall at prefent only make fome Remarks upon another Paflage : It is in the AppendiXy in the learned Dijfertation conurning the ^th Canon of the firji Nic. Coancily p. 1 27. Indeed the Dijfertator has not thought fit to give a Tranflation of it^ his Reafon may be plain- ly perceived from the accurate and judicious Remarks he has made upon it, which fufficiently difcover what fort of a Tranilation it vi^ould have been, had he given it. I fliaJl fet down the Paflage (tho* it be long, and only a Latin Tranflation itfelf) and try to givea Verfion of it, tho' the learned Differtator would not adventure upon it. The Paflage is this, taken out of the 1 6th Ad ©f the Council of Chakedon^ near the End: Oportere atitem Archiepifcopum Regime Confiantinopolis fiova: Romas, eifde?n primatihus honoris j S ipfuni digntifn ^5 ^ potejiatem habere ordindre Metropolitas in Aflana, t^ Pontica, y Thracia dioecefibus fecundmn hunc modiim : XJt decreto faBo a Ckricis tiniufc it jtffqm Metropolis ^ ^ pofjef* forihus atqtte clarijjimis viriSy fnpcr hac y a reverendiffimis JEpifcvpis provinci^ bmnihtis aut plurihuSy eligatur is qneni fr^fati Metropolitans Ec'clejice Epifcopi dignum ejfe prohave^ rint. Referattir atitem ah omnibus eligentihiis fanBiffimo Archiepifcopo Regi<£ C P. ut penes earn fit^ fi velit^ hunc qui eleBus efi advenire ^ hk ordinarij an fecundmn ejus pennijjtonem in provincia Epifcopatus [es decreto Epifccpatum cmfe'qui^ mereri decretum, Uniufcujufque tamen civitdtis fanBiffimos Epifcopos ordi-^ ftnri ah omnibus aut pluribus provinci £T/A^^ and yj:i^TQv^:a' And t »9 ] And I heartily entreat that he may not fail to do fo. His Remarks are thefe : 1. Firllheiays, ^be Bijhops^ inferior Clergy^ andpmi'^ cipal Lay-perfons^ are to confer their VoteSy 4"^'6*^*'- Very true, that they are faid -^.^mC^-^cu, or decretum fa'* ccre^ as it is rendred in the Latin Tranllation ; but then it is moft plain that that can mean no more than to no^ minate and recommend fundry Perfons, in order to have one chofen out from among them to be Metropolitan : for the Word is only ufed here with refpeft to his Ele- ction ; altho' this Gentleman, according to his ordinary honeil way of doing, fpeaks of it as if it related to Bi- fhops of both forts, which it does not. This will be yet clearer, if poflible, from his own fecond Remark, and my third Obferve above. For, 2. His fecond Remark is, T'to the Provincial Bilhops of the MetropoUttcal Church (as he has it in the Corrections) are to make a Choice out of the Perfons voted for. Then, I fay, this voting can only mean nominating^ recommend^ ingy defiring or petitioning ; becaufe the Bijbops make the Choice afterwards : «nd to them the Word Wt\iyc^cuy to choofey is appropriated. Confequently they only are the proper Voters and EleSforSj even ot the Metropolitan y for this is only faid in his Cafe, tho' this Remark be a- gain made in general. But his next two Remarks pafs all that ever I have feen, for (I muft fay) fenfelefs blundering j for which a School-boy ought to have been whipt ; and in Ihort, they make flaring Nonfenfe of the whole Paflage. For, 3. His third Remark is, Reference is to he made to the Primate 0/" Conftantinople, in order to obtain from him his jipprobationj and the De/ignation of the J'lme and Place for the Ordination of the Elec!:^ ^^fi(^py ■lvctpifimBbMy^. This he fays of the Bilhops in general. Then what Senfe does he make of what is laid of the Ordinations ^f the Suffragan Bilhops, viz. Etiam nihil ccmmunicantc B 2 m . , . . t =o ] H ilhrmn orclinatmihu^ fanB'tffimo Archiep'tfcopo RtglJe C P. And further, the Aft doies not appoint his Jppohation to be fought ox Obtained x.6 any of them ; he is only impowered to ordain, or direit the Ordination of the Mstropoiitatis alone. But our Author adds, fo that x^e'^'^^''^^^^^ ^^ ^'oft paU paMy au jiB pojftericr tv and dtfennt from \^i\iyi^. 177. near the length of two Pages, and then he fets down a Pafluge of the Vicw^ wherein it is faid, that from this Place of Socrates^ it appears that the People were only Petitioners. And has he obferved any thing in the Tranflation to prove the contrary ? No, not a Syllable, but barely fays, ^his is jl range ! very fir ange truly ! and B 4 A [ 14 1 yS, no doubt it mil appear to every mhyajfed Reader. Now-; who can withlland the Force of this his Reafoning from it? There \sjfrakge^ 'very jhange Strength furely in his bare Exclamations! They are like Medtifas Head upon Perfeus*s Shield, they kill with their very Sound. And p, 1 84. having fet dow n a pretty long Tranfla- tion from ^beodorety which plainly makes for the Vtevjer^' by telling, that they who were found in the Faith deli red' to have a Governor^ Scc, he fays not one Syllable upon it. And p, 1 92 to 1 96. he fets doW-n the Tranflation of one Pailage from Socrates^ and of another from Sczomen^ both together the length of four Pages, without one" Word of Application ofthem to his purpofe, or any thing againft me. All that hie fa|s of them is in thefe W^ords,' What can' he made of thefe tw^ 'Narrations y to favour ths; "Viewer'j Scheme ofThingSy I am utterly at a lofs to pei^ ccivcy and do very zvillingly fubmit the J'udgment of it to the Readers, He might have better omitted them, and faid nothing a^ a.11. ' ' I fhould have examined thefe his long and impertinent Tranflations with fome Care, if he hud made iiny ufe of them againit me;: But lince he has not done fo, though they be faulty, I let them pafe as they are. ' ^■3.1 proceed now to obferve another Thing coacern- ing his'rhanner of writing; and thkt is,' When the Argu- ments of the View prove too haM for him, he either omits them altogether, or pafles them over with a fliift of two or three flighting Words: But When he thinks he has a- ny Ground of Cavil, there he Inf.fts even to NaufeouP nefs, though theSubjeft be but trivial. I ihail notice his Omiffms afterwards, and ^t prefent point out fome of his ^rftsf - "^ ■•''-- r ■ I, One of thefe he has, Revieu\ p, 6^. I adduced in the VieWy p, 2(5. iSfeqq^ foAe plain Paflages from Mr. ^agCy Dr. Scot^ and Dr. Gard^ny proving that thofe who fet up, orjoiny Conventicles in Oppofitiori to orthodox Paftors C =5 1 Paftors and their Congregations, cut themfelves off from the Communion of the Church. In thefe I was aiming, as is evident, at the Pradices at Dundecj and of others who, in Adherence to the Ufage'-party^ feparate trom their^ ordinary Minifters ; and t laid or them, ^^ This is a *' Glafs wherein we may clearly behold the Obliquity " and Danger of fome prefeiit Pradices." All, the Re-- zHswers Anfwer to thele demonftrative Arguments di- redly levelling againft the forefaid Divifions, is, Truly t grafJt it to be fo\ biU then he inuji be very cUar^ftghtedthat can difeover any thing to his pnrpofe^ from the Citations here adduced. What is this but a pitiful fhifting to anfwer 3^ Any body mull fee they are to my purpofe, except fuch who wink as hard as the Reviewer, 1. Another of this Ibrt is, Review^ p,%i, InthtVieWy p. loo. I adduced fome Arguments againll the Party's boldly aflerting in their "terms propoied to the College of Bilhops, '' That there can be no Order nor Unity in. ^^ a National or Provincial Church without a Metropo- ^^ litan/' Which Arguments continue Itill in their full Force, fince all the Re-viewer has faid againil them is this fbrry Shift, As for this Author^s loud Exclamations and rhetorical FlouripeSj where^ of his deep Wifdom and Pene-' tration, he thinks he has afcen Advantage^ as ifthis Se^t^ tment did arraign the Wifdcm of our Saviour and his A- foftleSy tended to introduce Popery^ and even bordered weir nigh upon Blafphemy ^ I poall let them pafs^ as not worthy of any notice. This is an eafy Oft-come indeed. But, with all Submiffion due to this Gentleman's folid Judge- ment, I think the Objedions being of fuch a Nature, deferved a more accurate Conlideration. •^3. Again, Vww^ />. 112. I having urg'd the Praftice of the ApolUes as a Precedent for Biihops governing a National Church in common, in fome Circumftances : The S^eviewer^ />• 83. puts it off with this poor Evafion, ; viz. This Difpdrity^ (betwixt the Apoilles and the fuc-. ceeding [ i(5 3 ceeding BilTiops) Ifayj is fo ohvioiiSj that mth'mg needs, lefaid to render it hr'tghter. But I think that he needed to have proved particularly, that this Di/parity was of fuch a Nature, as to render that unlawful for Bilhops to do, which the Apoftles and their Fellow-labourers did in this Matter ; and that for them to do fo, is a downright overturning of the original InJ}itution of Epifcopacyj and o/* the Dejign of Almighty GOD in that InJiitutiQU^ as the Effayer boldy calls it, EJfayy p. 42. and even Herefy in FaBj ibid. p. 44. Were not the Apoftles, under our Lord, the original Injiituters of Epifcopacy^ who them- felves governed the Church in common ? 4. P. 102. he omits altogether three of the ftrongeft and propereft Inftances of the Word Suffragitim^s not fi- gnifying decifive Voting^ taken from St. Cyprian and Po»- tius his Deacon, View^ p. 142. and has only this poor and falfe Evafion, ' 'viz^ ^he other Inflances produced by this Author^ for the uncertain Signification of the Words now in quefiion^ are foreign to the SuhjeB of Voting. This is what I contend for* And are taken from metaphorical and ah lujive Ufurpations ofthefe Words only. This is falfe. For the three juft now mentioned are exprefly the Suffrages of the People, which is a true and proper ufe of the Word. 5. In that fame /?. 102. he has yet a more fhameful Tergiverfation than even this : For, without fo much as daring to cenfure any one of my Inftances of the mean- ing of 'J-J?^©- and 4n(5(<^o^a/, as not always iignifying ek" j &in)e Voting'^ all he fays is, I fhould be afhamed to wrangle 1 about them. That this is a mere faife Shift, and that he would have done fo, if he could, let the long Diferta^ tion concerning 4"'P<^» fuffragium^ in the Appendix^ be Witnels; which yet is ofno manner of ufe, fo long as 1 my Inftances ftand unlhaken : To which perhaps I Ihall add others afterwards,^ to Ihew him that I am at no great Ms in this, as he would have it believed I am. 6. To [ ^1 3 6. To evade the Senfes, others than decifive Voting, which I have fhewed the former Words, and eligere^ muft be taken in, />. 103. he makes ufe of this general Shift, ^^is a granted Rule among all hiterpreters^ that Words are to he underjlood in their ordinary and proper Senfe^ except in peculiar Phrafes^ or T'erms of Art (^as we call them) which arc always to he learned from contemporary Writers on the fame Suh}e6i^ and in the fame Language, I anfwer, i. Who denies thjs, unlefs himielf ? For why then did he not take '^e>^9To Icy and "votum in their proper and ordinary Senfes ? viz. The firil to iignify eligere^ to choofe^ as it does in all Lexicons,^ in all Heathen ancient Writers, and moil ordinarily among Chrijiian ones, of which I fliall give fundry unqueftionable Inftances in its Place. The other, 'cotmn^ to fignify a Wijh^ Vow or Dejtre^ as it al* ways does, except where it is ufed male ox perperam^ ac- cording to Faher^ as he is cited in the Appendix^ p>6i, 2, Are not eligOy ffffi-agium^ ^y\^^^ Terms of Arty whofe Senfe I endeavoured to fiih out from contemporary Wri- ters on the fame Subjeft, and in the fame Language ? 7. Of this fort alio is what he has, p, 107. I had faid, Vicw^ p. 1 49. " That the Elders ordained by the Apoilles *^ in every Church, of whom we have an Account, .^0s ^' xiv. 23. were moft probably (I might and fliould have *' faid certainly) chofen by the Apoilles themfelves; for we ^' hear of none elfe who did any thing in the Matter/' And I go on proving that it certainly was fo, faying, " That " the early Fathers aflure us, that the Apoilles themfelves, ^' by the fpecial Direftion of the Holy GhoU, chofe all *' thofe univerfaily whom they employ'd in the Minillry/' And to prove this, I adduce the Tellimonies of the two Cle7nentSj viz. of Rome and Alexandria. But ail this he thinks to efcape by this lilly Evalion, viz. So uncertain a Probability needs no Animadverfion. Inhere is no end offucb guefftng. Is not this candidly and jullly faid, after I had brought the Proof up (I may fay) to a Denionllration ? 8. Thus I ^8 3 - 8. Thus to evade my Argument for Epifcopal Ek^'ions brought from St. Peter and St. Po'^il's choofing Linus to be Bifhop ofRomey View^ p, i 53. from an exprei's Teilimony oiEufcbtas^ hefets down, Review^ p. 1 15. two Sentences, ^s Tranflations of fo many of Eufebius ^ whether they b^ jult or unjuft, I will not fpend Time in examining : only •I notice that he fays of them, that the Greek Word ia both Places properly lignifies to obtain by Lot, What is that to the purppfe ? Does, he, can he deny that Linus was chofen by the forefaid Apojftles? If he did, all An-? tiquity would fly in his Face. Or does he fay, that the Palfage I addqced is not juft and fairly rendred? No fuch thing ; he does not fp much as offer to do it. What would he be at ? The Word in the plain and definitive Paflage I adduced is kvix^^^'^^y i« e. ibey d^eUverei into his Hands* 9. A,nd of my producing the Teilimony of EufebkiSy YieWj p. 153. for Linus ^ delivering the Charge of the See oiRome to Anacktus as his Succeilbr, he only crude- ly fays, Ifuppofe this general Exprcjfion cannot be a, proper Foundation for jS, rid/culous Criticifin^ a^s to infer from thence^ T'hat Linus, mthout. any manner of antecedent Ekiiiony appointed Anacletus to be his Succeffor, Is not this an irrefragable Proof that he did not? Or is it any> thing, elfe but a bare flighting Shift? But of this more in its proper Place. 10. Again, p* n6. he has fet down two Paffages, as Tranflations from Eufebius^ concerning Clemens Rom. and J^olycarp ; which, becaufe they fay nothing againfl me, but the latter rather confirms what I faid, by telling that ^olycarp was by the Jpojlles conjiituted Bifhop of Smyrna, I pafs over as infignificant Shifts. 11. But, /). 117. l^e has a mofl palpable Tergiverfa- tion ; where, in order to avoid the Force of the Argu-^. ments in the Vtcw^ p. 152, 153. from the Apoftles and Apoltolick Men their pitching upon, or choofing, or^ darning , . t ip 1 dainiiig and fettling Bifliops by themfelves aloncj h^ imakes a Diftin^lion betwixt the Ordinations performed in the Jge of Extracr^warieSj and thole performed ac-J cording to the ordmary Method fettled in the Church^ Of this I mult remark, I ; That before he had made this Dillinftion, he Ihould have particularly defined what that ordinary Method was, \vhen and by whom it was fettled, and when it was to take place. For, a. If it was not to take place, till thele e^^traor dinar y Gifts Ihould fail, as this Gentleman fays, then I judge he mult fay that thefe estraordinary Ordinations obtained in the Church all the Time frbm our L 6 r d's Afcenfion, till I know not how long after St. Qfrian's Days : Since all that Space was a Time of estraordinary Gifts^ accord- ing to. this Author, p, 1 1 8. now what does that amount to lefs than this, viz. That all that Period, and perhaps all the flrlt 450 Years, the Space I account for in the Fiew is wholly given tip by him as a Time in which nd proper Inltance can be got for Preshyterial or Popular Elections ? 'Tis a great pity that the Protejier was not aware of this : It might have faved him much Pain^, and all of us much fcribbling; and pethaps have been a Means of preventing the Protejfationy and the Undutiful- nefs of it to the Bilhops altogether. 3* I mult remark here. That taking the Word ordain as he takes it, viz. to lignify the bare Solemnity of Con- fecration, he has made a very wrong Ttanflation of the Word KctOhii^i in his Verfion of the two Paffages of the two Clements J p. 117. for that Word exprefly and pro- perly lignifies to conjiitute or appoint ^ which takes in the Aft of Confec ration, and all previous to it, fo as to com- prehend the pitching upon, or eU[iing the Perfon, as well as the confecrating him. The not oblerving this has made him not only mittranflate thele two Pallages, in each of which he has tendred it ordain j but has alfo led him in- to C 30 3 to a Blunder in the foot of the preceeding Page, where he fays, T'hefe Bijhops who were conllituted and ordained (it is no where [aid ele6ted) hy the holy Apojlks in their Lifetime, This I fay is a Blunder, lince the Word to. eonjiitiite^ and the Greek Word anfwering to it, fignify both to eUB and to ordain^ in his fenfe of this Word. 12. P. 125. he has a manifeft Shift. Upon my fay- ing, View^ p> 157. that in the holy Scriptures we lee no Veftige of a Right for the People's meddling in Eledions ^ this Author fays, As for a Right granted to the People hy Chr I s T or his Apollles, and recorded in the holy Scri" ptureSy which the late Author feems to inftji upon here 5 I fuppofe the Cafe of Matthias may he afufficient Document. This he ipeaks, as if the People had had a hand in the Eleftion of Matthias ; and from thence he would infer their Right. But that this is falfe, ihall be ihewn in its proper Place. 13. And p. 189* after a long Tranflation from Sozo^ men J he adds thefe Words, I am perfjuaded I need not de^ fire the Reader to make the proper Remark upon our Au'- thors dealing in this Advancement of the great Athanalius to the See of Alexandria. This is nothing but a ca- lumnious Shift to poflefs his Reader with Prejudice a- gainft me, as if I had dealt unfairly in that Matter : which is utterly falfe. 14. He puts off all I have faid in the View^ p. 145, 146, and 207. concerning the Eleftion of St. Chryfoftomj v/ith this poor Shift, Review j p. 1 96. JVhat can he made of thefe two Narrations^ to favour the Viewer'^ Scheme of Things^ I am utterly at a lofs to perceive j and do very wil^ linglyfuhmit the Judgment of it to the Readers, And I refer him and the Readers to what is faid of ic in the. fore-mentioned Pages of the VieWy which he has not io much as offered to meddle with. 15. And p. Ill, he fliifts the anfwering to what is faid in the VteWy p. 209 and 211. concerning the Ele- <9:ions t 31 ] ftions of Flavian and Cyril^ with thefe Words, JIftet what has been [aid concerning the Ordination of Nedarius, Ifapfofe there wants not much to he noticed in that of Fla- vian to the See o/Antioch, nor in that o/' Cyril to the Ses p/' Jerufalcm* Only to make his Shift go down the bet- ter, he very civilly adds, His Remarks in either Cafe ar& equally frivolous isiith his former ones. This he fays with- out the leafl Indication, wherein any one of them is fri- volous or ridiculous either. 1 6. Upon my lliewing in the View^ p. ill. Trom So^ zomeny that Eujlathius was by the Council of Nice tran- flated from Berroea to Jntiochy and upon my reconciling Sozomen and Thcodoret in this Matter ; which lafl fays, that the Bifiops and Priefls^ and all the Chrijiian Peopky compelled him with one common Confent to be Pallor of that Church. Upon thefe Things I put fome Queflions, fuch as, " What Service will this do to the Protejier ? " Will this ferve to fet up the inferior Clergy and Lai- " ty in Oppolition to the Bilhops ? Does not ^heodorct " place the Bifhops in the very firft Rank?'' This Reafoning the Reviewer ^ p. 21 a, 3,13. puts off with this flighting Shift, l^ruly this is a pretty diverting SqiiahhU. And then he adds fome other diminutive Refledions. This is pithy arguing, no doubt. But then he fays. Might not the JSi of the Council have proceeded upon that of the Clergy and People of An- tioch, /or any thing he knows to the contrary ? Here he negleas the Bifhops altogether, who were chiefly con- cerned. This is fair. And then I fay, yes, no doubt, the Council's A6t proceeded upon the other. They cer- tainly traniplanted him after he was fettled at Antiochy being compelled thither by the Bilhops and PrieHs and Chriilian People. But he fays further. Sure had he (that is, I) taken a* long with him the Share which the Protefter hath always allowed to Bipops^ inferior Clergy and People^ in the Pro^ rnotion [ ^vl hwtm of a Bifhopj he might have faved himfel fa '^reat deal of umeccffary Trouble ^ and hollow RefleBions pmny times i. To this I anfwer, i. Certainly the Protejler allowed the Bifhops a great fhare in this Bufinefs, when he protefted againll them for the fole Right of the inferior Clergy and People; and when both he, and this Gentleman, and the whole Party, have carried on their Ele6lions by the Presbyters yo/(?/j;. fince that Time. I anfwer, 2. That had the Protefier diflinftly allowed the Bifhops any ihare in Eleftions^ (as I have already ihe wed he hath not done, nor this Writer either) I ihould furely have taken it along with me. But as the Matter ilands, this is nothing but mere fliifting, and endeavour- ing to evade my Arguments by the means of Obfcurity and Ambiguity. 17. In the Vtew^ p. 21 J. there are other four Ele- ctions made by Bifhops only, who confecrated and fent the PetfonS they pitcn d upon to the People over whorri they were to preiide. Thefe this judicious Gentleman pafles over entirely with this threed-bare Pretext, vizi p. 223. If I thought in the leafi that there isoas any Force in the other Inflames adduced in the View, or that any one Perfon could he imprefs*d by them^ Ipould be far from dc^ cfming to review them* 1 8. In the View^ ^.218; ^feqq* I examined fome Paf^ fages of Leo the Great, and fhewed that they prove no more than the Dcjires^ Petitions or T'eftimonies of the in- ferior Clergy and People: Some of my Examinations t\\Q Reviaver vcidkoiS a fafhion of reviewing, but proves nothing againfl what I have faid ; others he negledrts en- tirely, with this Shift, p* 227. If there was any thing Jlronger in thefe for his purpofcy than in thofe others^ IJhonld not grudge to review them ; therefore^ not to multiply unnc'- ceffary Labour^ I pafs them over. This is an Anfwer ea- iily made : The Truth of it may perhaps be conlidered afterwards. 19. I t 35 ] 1 9L I ifet down in the T/^', p. i p^. a Paflage* of the Synodical Epiftle of the Council of Nxe^ dircded to the Church of Jksaftdria^ Sec. concerning the Promo- tion of the Mektiaris who returned to the Communion t>f the Church. It is full enough to the purpofe, though the Differtatcry Append, /), 141. Note (^), calls it a Scrape 'of the Ep'tjlk: I do not fet down bare EngUJb Tranlla- tions of whole Epillles or Chapters, or of the greatefl part of them, impertinent to my purpofe ; but only lb much as is neceifary, in the original Words. Thefe of this Paflage may be leen in the Vi£Wy in the Page re-^ ferred to. In Engltjh they run thus, " If any of the Ca- *' tholick Pallors happen to die, then thofe of the Mde^ ^ tians^ who are received into the Church, may afcend ^^ to the Honour of the deceafed, but that only, ii they ^ appear worthy, and the People chufe them, the Ei- *' ihop 6f Aksmdrla confenting to it and fealing it." Upon thefe Words I remarked, i. That this I'rial of ff''brtb could only be made by Biihops. 2. That ti}e Council delegated the People to make the Choice, in this particular Cafe; which would have been fuper- fluous, if the People had had a Right and Tide to do fo, in all Cafes of this Nature : And that therefore this Was a Mark of Dilhonour put upon the Mekttans^ be- caufe they had been Schifrnaticks, and was for a Teit of their future Conftancy. 3. That, after all, the Biihop of Akxandrm was to confirm and feal thefe Elections, elle they were void and null. And 4. That there was not one Word of the inferior Clergy's chufing them. I think thefe Remarks ftill pertinent ; and the more fb, becaufe uU the Anfwer made them in the forecited Place of the Append, is, tT/-'^ Remark he has thereupon is pretty ridiculous. I know not which of the four he means, Eut this is the whole Anfwer to them all. 10. Tn the Vtew^ p. 166. I adduced one PiiHage otthe original Draught to prove. That by the Clergy anci Laity ^ C thuling . t 34 -J chtiilng a Birtiop, is only to be undetftood theit pitthing tipbn a Perfon whom they might propofe and recojmnend to the neighbouring Bilhops, for their Conlent and Ap- probation ; but that the Bifhops could accept or rejufe him, as they thought fit. Had it not been to avoid Te- dioufnefs, I could have there fet down many other Pal- fages of that learned Man^ for appropriating the Right of Ele6iJons to Bilhops only, part of whicli I have cited in the Preface, and perhaps may have occalion to men- tion others alterwards. Now what our Author anfwers to all thefe is this poor Shift, Append, p, \j6^ in the Poji" fiript^ Nor need any he much concerned at what he fays a* Ivtit EkBion in gmerak Thus I have given a full Score of Inftances (and others might be given, if it were worth while) wherein he ihuns to anfwer my Arguments by Shifts of a few Words ut- tered in Contempt of me. And if thefe be Anfwers to them, I muft fay the Urongeft Arguments poflitle may be anfvvered at a very cheap Rate. 4* And yet, by mentioning thefe, he has paid them more Refpeft than he has done to fome others of no lefs Strength, which he hath thought fit to omit altogether* I Ihall now give fome Inllances of this fort. I. 1 told, VteiVy p, 151. that St. Paul himfelf chofe and appointed Timothy and -Titus to ilay at Ephefus and Crete : And for Proof of this T cited the Texts, 1 T^nh I. 3» and T/r. i. 5. But this by the Reviewer is pail over in deep Silence. Rcviewj p, 107. !2» i noticed already, th-^t he takes, no heed of three of the chief Inibances of the 'A^ord Suffragiutns not lignify- ing a Fote^ though it be ipoken of the People, and lb not iii a figurative Senie. I'hefe are taken from St. Cypriati and Pontius his Deacon, View^ p. 142* and neglected by the Reroiewer^ p, io2« 3. Myjnilancesofthe Word Ih^O- not fignifying a Tt?^^^ Vim\p. 143* are wholly pail over in fiknce. RevjeWjpi 102*^ 4* Th€> [ is ] 4. The Election oi Cornelius to the See of Romcj and what is fuid of it in the View, p. 162. ^feq, is omitted. Review y />. 161. ' 5. The EleL*>ion of Baftl to Aicyray fpoken of in the Vtcw^ p» 1 79. though it be a moll remarkable one for the fovereign Power of Bilhops in this Affair, is quite left out in the Review. It fliould have been before that of jitbafiafniSy noticed Review^ p» 187. 6. He omits alfo the Confideration of whatlhavefaid upon fome remarkable Canons, View^ p. 181, ^ feqq, 7. And whatlhavefaid of Metropolitans, Ibid, p. 185. ^feqq. 8. And tho' I think that what I faid againll Preshyterial Ele6lions at Aleyiandria^ was not altogether unworthy of his Confideration, as it is in the View^ p. 185^. ^ feqq. yet it is wholly omitted, Review^ p. 1 9:2. 9. Likewife the Tranflation oi Gregory Nazianzen from Nazianzum to Confiantinoph^ noticed Vtew^ p, 201. is al- together omitted in the Review^ although there be fome- w^hat in it very plain for the fole Power of Billiops in Elections. 10. He omits alfo to take notice of what I faid, Ficw^ f. 228. concerning the celebrated 35th or 37th Ca^u JpoJfoL about fending Bilhops to have the Inlpedion of diftant Sees, and ceniuring the inferior Clergy, if they were not received. What the EJfayer has faid to render the Genuinenefs and Antiquity of this Canon doubtful, fliall be conlidered elfe where. 1 1. He takes no manner of notice of what is faid in the View J p. 229. concerning the Interelt of Emperors and fovereign Princes in the Elections of Bilhops. 1 2. And what I as much complain of is, that he has w^hoUy negleded the Confideration of the two nwjl re- viarkahk and general Cafes in which Bilhops could not be granted to any People or Clergy, though they peti- tioned tor them, and required them, or (in the rrotcjiv's C a and and Re'Okwcrs lenfe) chnfe them with never fo great llnanimity. Thefe are fet down in the r/^'w;, p. 240. Here ate no lei's than a Dozen of total Omijftons of Arguments which I lay great llrefs upon. 5^ But at other times he inlills even to Naufeoufnefsj tipon things of lefler Moment; fo that 'tis evident, that he is guilty of the forefaid Shifts and Omtjjims^ not be- caufe the Subje6ts were below his Notice (as he fome- times pretends) but in reality becaufe they are too hard fot him, and becaufe he fees no Ground of cavilling at therrii 1*11 now give fome Specimens of his naufeous £x- turfions upon Matters of no great Importancei io Thus when iViei^o^ p. 152.) I quote Etijthius^ in ve- ty few Words, expreflyailerting, That the Epifcopate oif J^mfalem was given to James^ our L o r d's Brother, by the Jfoftks, Upon this he infills for more than two Pages, without faying anything of Certainty againil me* Revlewy p. 108, 109. ' !2» Upon the Eledion of Simevn the Son of Cleophas^ briefly accounted for in the VicW^ uMfupra-^ he talks with sas great Uncertainty for five full Pages. Rc^iew^ pi 1 15^ = iti* ^i And upon that of JmtoliuSy delivered T/^ze;, p. 158. he Spends near fix Pages, from p. 125, 13 li to as little purpofe* 4» And upon St. Cypriatis^ accounted for in the View^ p^ 159* and three following, he harps for no fewer than twenty four, from p, 138, 162. without faying any thing certain. 5* And of that of St. Jmbrqfe^ narrated in the T/V^, /V 198, 199. he talks to no more Elfedj for full ten Pages, from p. 1 ';s^ i Si- de The fame way that oi NcBarius^ told in the View^ p^ 204. and the two following, is protracted in the Ee^ view to twelve Pages entire, itom 197, 209* 7* And becaufe he thinks there is fome occafion of cavil** [ 37 }. ling at fome Things in the Eledion o^Ravcnmu^^ th© Story of which is given in the F/t^, ^.217. he employs upon it about lix Pages, from p. 223, 227. Tho* he pallesover the former four^ againft which he had no-^ thing to fay, with a mere Shift, as I have noticed a^-^ ready. 8. And he inMs upon one of the feven Tumults men- tioned in the Vicw^ p. 224. and the three following, for feven Pages, to very little or no purpofe, from p. 228,. " %?>5- From thefe Things it may be eafily collecSed, as I have faid. That his Ihifting or omitting to anfwer other Arguments, is not to be imputed to his want of Inclina*. tion to do it, but to his want ot Ground for it. 6. A Ixxth Qualification which I notice in his manner of writing, is his arguing from Ncgatwcs or Silence. Aa when a Text of Scripture, or Paliage of an Author, fays, nothing againft his Opinion, then he ufes upon fomeOc- cafions to argue fox it pofitivcly frgm fuch a Text or Pai^ fage.. This is for certain not only forcible, but moll ufeful too : For at this rate of Keafoning, any Thing may be deduced from any Thing ; nay, contradictory Conclulions may be drawn from the felt-fame Premifles« I'll give fome Inftances of his Talenta of this fort., I. I had faid, Vicw^ f>. 149. " That it was mofl pro-*. *' bable that the Presbyters, whom the Apoftles ordain- ^^ ed in every Church, Jcf. xiv. 23 ^ were chofen by the '^ Apoftles themfelves \ for we; hear of none elfe who did " any thing in the Matter.'^ And ibid. p. 1 51 . I had faid, " That the Directions or Commands for ordaining Cler- " gymen in Ephcfus and Crete^ are only given to •7//;?o- ^^ thy and ^itus'^ to whom alio the Qualifications requi- " fite in fuch Perfons are defcribed." And I faid, ^^ This fuppofes that they themfelves were to chuie ^' them." To this the Revicwtr anfwers, p. 107. 'T/.s eaually fuppofabh from thcfe DmBions^ th0 thufe Jpoftoltck €3 P^r- [ 38 J rerfons wen to take the fef-'tmony^ Confent^ Jpprohatioff and Suffrage of the Brethren^ before they proceeded to Ordi" nattom Now is not this well concluded from the mere Silence of the Text, as to this Matter? Indeed if he had faid, that they were to take the ^Tejiimony^ Confent^ Ap^ probation and Suffrage of hifidels concerning them, he might have had more Pretext for it, becaufe i T/w. iii. 7. it is faid, that A Bijhop miifi have a good Report of them which are without. But to conclude lb of the Brethren, is to deduce a /)o/fm-'^ Concluiion lrom;^^^ arguing from Negatives ^ yet upon the Account of this Eledion of Dius^ I crave leave to take notice of three Things, by the by, left afterwards they flip out of my Heud. I. The firfl is, that in the former Words this Author- contradid s Mr. Collier^ who in the Preface to his EccL Hifr, p, 14. gives this Promotion of Dius as an Inftance of the fole Power of Bilhops in Elections, faying, " Iii *' the third Century we find Elections governed by the ^' Bifhops Authority. For when Narcifus Bilhop of J'V- *' rufalem had retired to a Dcfert, and was not to be *^ heard of, the neighbouring Bifhops met to provide for *< the See." 1, And from thefe Words, to provide for the See^ I ob* fer\'e that our learned Author exprefly contradicts Mr. Collier again: For in the preceeding Page of the Revic^ji) he would have us believe;^ that all the Bifliops did iu this C 39 "J this Cafe was to confider and- refolv^, whether the People oijeriifahm were to have another Bilhop in their then Circumftances, and then barely to ordam him, l^b^ Judgment of the neighhounng Bipops (fays he) was then^^ fore tiecejfary to determine, whether in thefe Ckcimjianess 'they might have another Bipops But Mr^ Collm fays, They were to provide one. 3.' I obferve that the Diflertation on the 4th Canon of the Comicil of Nice in the Appendix^ is likewife a flat Contradiction to Mr. Collier j by reftrifting that CanoQ to Confecrations only ; whereas that great Man, in the forefaid Pr^/^'f ^, adduces it for confirming the Biftiopa fovereign Power in EleBtons^ faying, " The General <' Council of iV/V^, which kept clofe to ancient Pra^ice, <^ confirms this Privilege to the Bilhops, {viz. of go-% <^ verning Elections by their Authoiity) and takQS. no ao* ^ tice of a,ny other Interefl.** It is obfervable alfo here, that he fays, 7%is ma& ac-^ cording to ancient PraSfice* For further Satisfadion in this Point, I ^ntr^t the Reader carefully to confider that Preface. 3, I proceed now to another Inflance of his arguing from Negatives, In the VieWj p. 158. I quoted Eufibiusy, faying, that ^Theotecnus ordained JnatoliuSj providing him to be his own Succelfor in his Diocefe after hi& Death. To this the Reviewer fays, /). 130. that becaufe he thinks it cannot be denied, that the Concurrence of the Bifhops of the Province was neceifary to it, though Theotmius only be mentioned by Eufcbiiis ; therefore, TVhy thenpould we not as well allowj that the Clergy and People concurred in his EleBion ? Surely Eufebius'5 Silence is no more an Argument againjl the one than the other. In- deed he might as well infer, that the Pope oiRome con^ curred in it, becaufe Eufebius fays nothing expreily a- giiinf^it.. Again, View.) p. 176. I tell from Eufchkis^ " That C-4 ^^ Coweltns [ 40 ■] ^ Cornelius and his Collegues in Council deprived the *' three Biiliops who ordained ISfovatiafjy and confecra^ *' ted Succeiibrs to two of them in their Sees, and fent ^' them to take Poflelfion of them/' To this the Re- viewer {^\Sy p. 165. I'he Clergy and People of thefe Sees might have made Choke of the Perfons fo coiifccrated^ for ought we know to the contrary. Is not this a Demonflra-. tion that they did fb? " ;■• '. 5. The lall Inllance I fhall give, is, Re^Jew^ p* 215. where, in order to prove the People's Right in Eleftions, he cites the 27 Can, of the 4 Come, o£ Carthage^ appoint- ing, That a Bilhop be tranflated from one See to ano- ther, in the Prefence of a Synod, after that an Inftru- ment of Ele6fion for that Effect hath been prefented to the Biihops : And then adds, And whypotdd we thinky that the fame Method- has not been ohferved) at the Time of theCotmcil ^Nice ? Tb he fare there is not a Syllable to the contrary? ■ At this rate of Reafoning he would prove, That the jBiftiops were properly and formally eleded by the in- ferior Clergy and People, becauie the Hiftorians fay nothing againll it : But at the fame rate he may prove, that they were chofen by the Senate oiRorm^ or by the^ Army; by the Emperor, or by the People; or, ir yoa will, by the Jewt/h Sanhedrim^ or by the furkiflo Divan ; by the Cham of Tartary^ or by the Great Mogul. 7. I faid alfo in the Preface, That frequently he makes References to Authors, without repeating their Words, not even in Tranflatiohs ; but then thefe Au- thors, in the Places referred to^ are generally his Ene- mies, at leaft not his Friends. Now Til give fbme Spe-^ cimens of this ; i. The^^r/? I adduce is' St. Cypriany Vv'^hofe £/), 67. {ah 6%,) the i^m^-^r refers to, without fetting down his Words, Review^ p. 105. to prove that the People were concerned in the Deftgnation of Matthias to th'v ApoJlolat€y in the Room o/" Judas« The Words refer- red C 41 } t^dtOy Ifuppofe, are thefe (^), " G o d commands the i^ High-Prielt to .be inftalled before all the Congrega-> ^ tion, that is, he teaches and ihews that facerdotat ^ Ordinations fhould not be performed but with the *' Knowledge of the People flanding by, that the People *^ being prelent, the Crimes of bad Men may be dilco-, " vered, and the Merits of good Men publilhed, and fo.. ^^ the Ordination may be juft and lawful, which is exa- ^5 mined by the Suffrage and Judgment of all Which, " by die Divine Direction, was afterwards, obitived in ^^ the Ads of the Apoilles, when Peter fpeaks to the. ^'.common People concerning an ApoAie, or Biihop, to. ^/ be ordained in the Room of Judas ; Peter role up, ^' fa)'s the Texty in the midll of the Difciples : for the. " Multitude was in one Place." Now, though it be pretty plain from the bare Words themfelves, that this Place is againil the Reviewer ; yet to put it in a little jclearer Light, I make the Ibllowing Oblerves upon it. .riio'o 1. That at the EkSfion of Matthias (for {o %h^ Word Ordinatio mufl be rendred here) the People did no more, than the Congregation of Ifrael did at the Inllalment of Elcazar in the High-Prieflhood ^ but it is certain they, did neither eleft hirh, nor concur in his Election, for he fucceeded to it by Heritage and Birth-right. But thisj; I fay, fuppofing that he was really inftalled and invefled in the Prefence of the People. Yet, 2. This does not appear to, be true from the facred. Text, {a) Coram omni fynagoga jubct Deus conftitui facerdotcm, /. e. m- ftruit & oftendit crdinariones facerciotalcs non nifi fub populi afliften- tis confcicncia fieri oporcere, ut picbe prarfenre vel dctcgantur malonim crimina, vel bonorum merita pra^diccntur, & fit ordinacio jufta & IcgN tirna, (\\\x omniunj fiifFragio be judicio fuenc cxaminata. Quod po- ilc4 fecundum divina magiflcria obfcrvatur in Adis Apoftolorum, quan- do'de ordinando in locum ^«^<£ Epifcopo {aL Apoftolo) Petrus ad plc- tem loquitur i furrexii^ in^nit, Petrt4i in medio dirceiuiura ; fuitaurcia. turba in uao. ' t 4a 3 Text, Ntmk xx. 27. where the Account is recorded ! For it is not faid there, that he was fo much as in- ftalled (not to fay eleded) in the Prefence of the People; but only that tbey (viz. MofeSj Aaron^ and Ekazat) went up ifito Mount Hor, in the ^igbt of all the Congregation. And Moks Jlripped Aaron ofl/is Garment s^ and put them upm Eleazar hts Son, 3. That the Reafon alledged by St. Cyprian^ why the People Ihould be prefent, is, that the Crimes of wicked Men may be deteSied^ and the Merits of good Men publiped. Now it is evident th^t Jfmple Tejiimony is fufficient for all' this, in as far as concerns the People's Share ; therefore he requires this, that the Eleftion and Ordination may be examined by the Suffrage and Judgment of all j that it' may be juft and lawful. In which Words two differenc A6ts feem to be (pecified and diftinguifhed, viz. Suffrage and Judgment:^ or, as it is worded before in the fame Paragraph (^), Tejiimony and publick Judgment. The ^ejiimony^ as I have juil now obferved, is all that ia ' needful from the People, according to St. Cyprian \ there-- fore the Judgment mull be the Bifhops Share, I needl not obferve here, that moft evidently Suffrage and '^efti-^ mony fignify the fame very thing. 4. But I may obferve that, according to St. 0}priatty ;j as this Gentleman would have it, the Ttirba had their Share in the Ele6\ion. Therefore, when the Differtator on the 4th Ntc. Can. Jppend. p. 151. would exclude the 7'urbaj and admit only the Body of the People^ making I know not what Diftindion between them, docs he not fwerve from the Apoltolical Precedent, in his own No^ tion of it, which, from St. Chryfojlom (cited in the ^^- denda^ p. 3.) he would have to. be a Rule to the Church ^1} this Day ? c. And I obferve here alfo, that whatever the People's (thQ ^_^^^_______^.^ (h) Publico ;W/«o ac ujllmomo* Cy^r, Up. 6%. ^4, j. C 43 ] (the Plehs) Share Avas, yet there is nothing attributed to j Presbyters ^ for in St. Cyprian's Opinion, the Bilhops and I Plebs could do all. Now I entreat the candid Reader to coniider and weigh thefe Things, and then fay whether this Tefti-^ mony does not exprefly make againll the Reviewer^ 2. The fame I fay of St. Chryfojtoms^ which is alfo referred to by the Reviewer in the fame Page 105. with- out fetting down his Words, but only naming Hmn^ 3 and 14. on JBs^ and 18. on 2 Corinth* I know not what Words he points to, but I Ihall fet down thefe I judge moll material on this Subject. In his 3d Horn, in jiSia ApojioU cper, Tom. 3. Fdit. Erafmiy concerning this Ele- dion of Matthias^ he has thefe Words (^ ), " We Ihall *^ give two Realons why one was fought to fill up the ^' \^^p(iftolick\ Choir, not fimply (or according to the ^^ v^ulgar manner) but by Revelation.*' Here he does not feeni to look upon this as a Hated Precedent for or-^ dinary Pradice ; nay, he fays there, that Peter alone might have made Choice oi Matthias, His Words are (d\ " Might not Peter have chofen him himfelf ?. Yes cer- ^^ tainly." In his Judgment then there was no need (not to fay of the People, but) even of the other A- poftles, to have. been concerned in the Choice; nay, he fays exprefly, that God made the Election {e\ " Shew ^*' the Perfon who is eleded, whom Thou nafl chofen/* And in his Horn. 1 8. on a Cor. he fays no more than '^ that the Apoflles acquainted the People, both Mea *' and Women, before hand with their Defign to ordain ^ feven feictf tti'cfTAupwVctfTrf, J^vo GUTtctf kf^ixif, Chryf. Horn. 3. in uifta, (d) Ti ivt kKi^cu liv llir^v aurnv in, h'lut; Ka) •tt civvy s. ibid, {e) 'A;'d^ei^Qv 711, iK^gyivia, (fMi¥» h l^ihi^Wt Chryf. Horn ?, in Afia, [44 J ^^ feven Deacons, and when Peter chofe Matthias (/)/' Here note that he fays, Peter chofe Matthias. Now do thefe Tellimonies at all favour (nay are they not contrary to) the Reviewers Scheme ox making the People or Presbyters to have a Share in the Ele6tion of Bilhops, and particularly in the Choice of Matthias?., Nay, this judicious Father had forbad an Imprelhon of' the People's meddling in fuch Matters, that he wondred that they did not fall into Dilcords and Jars, and even ' oppofed the Apoftles at the chooling the feven Deacons/ His Words are (^), " 'Tis a matter of Admiration that;^^ <' the Multitude was not divided in the Choice of the' *'. Men; and that the Apoftles were not rejected by ^' them." Had not the Reviewer good Caufe therefore to refer to thefe two Fathers for Proof, That all who were frefentj Difciples as well as Apoftles, had their Part in appointing the two Candidates, of the Apoflkpip ? as he Ipeaks, />. 105. 3. A 80. of the Review he refers to de Marca^ Arch-, bilhop Ufher^ and Bifhop Beveridge^ without giving their Words, to prove that Metropolitans were of Apoftolical Inftitution. And in .Appendix^ p. 148. Dr. Barrow is fo, referred to, for the Independency of Biihops, the Neoejftty oi Metropolitans^ and for the EleBion of Biihops by the Clergy and People. And Ibid, p, 1 76. in the Pojifcnptj the Author of the original Draught is thus referred to for; the Independency of Biihops; and that he is at much Pains to fhew the Right of Ele6Hon to be lodged in the infe^. riprClergy/y and for the true Y^luc o^x*^^'^^^^) andp^ ' ^ 111. (^f) ''Ax.afTOJ' ynv i'TTi ^ 'ATOroAft*!/, '»«? *AA«t%tt TbV dfXJilXiV)i^ T^ S'y)[X(0 rr^Ti^QV iKOivaJcLVTo' Xj 71 70V MctrBicw o FTtTp©", Tzli 'srap^o'ip I'TcKFi t6t«, )^(IvS'^, for the Origine and Rights o^ Metropolitans. Bat the Teflimonies of thefe Authors I Ihall let down in their Own Words, when I come to fpeak of the feveral Heads to which they refer^ and fhew that they are either a- gainft, or at leaft not for this Writer. 8. Before I pafs this Place, I mufl alfo obferve, that this Gentleman itruggles very hard for introducing of the Ufages into the publick Worfhip of this Church. I'll give fome Inftances of this. i. I faid in the Vtc-jj^ p, Si. " That no Period of '^^ Time can be fixed upon for the Introdu6tion of £p//l " copacy into the Church after the Days of the Apollles; " and that that in all Reafon ought to pafs for ail evi- " dent Demonftration, that there was no Change made *^ in the Government of the Church for feveral Ages at- " ter the ApolUes Time." The Ufe this Author makes of this is, p. 74. iti thefe Words, Let him and his Friends be pleafcd to apply this to fome other Things, which perhaps might he named^ inhere it will hold with c qual CertamTji But why did he not name thole Jbme 0^ ther T'hings where this Reafoning will hold ? Is he a- ftam'd or afraid to Hand up openly for the Defence of tiecejfary Truth or Pradice ? Is this the way we treat Epifcopacy ? Is he a faithfiil Pallor, if he fo do ? That he means the Ufages^ is certain from what he fays in the next Page 75. viz. The Worjhip of the Church is certainly as obvious to all ChriJlianSy and as little fuhje3 to Inno^ vations as its Government can he pretended to he. This fhews what he means by thofey^?«^ other 'things which he keeps /)r;i;^?f^ But is it fo, that the Worlhip of the Church \^ as oh^ iHOHs to all Chrijlians as its Government ? Why then do not the Party make it, and keep it fo ? Why do chey endeavour, as it were, to Heal their Hearers into Sal^ Vation by private Mixtures ? And is it as Uttkfubje^ to Innovation i Why then has every t 46 ] every Country, nay almofl every Province, had its o wa peculiar Forms of Worfhip, even Unce the Beginning ? Does not this Writer, by talking at this rate, arraign the Church of England of Fallhood, vv hen fhe, in the 34th of the XXXIX Articles, delivers it as her exprels I)o6i:rine. " That it is not neceffary that Traditions '' and Ceremonies be in all Places one,' or utterly like; *^ for at all Times they have been divers, and may *^ be changed according to the Diverfity of Countries, /^ Times, and Mens Manners, fo that nothing be or- .*^ dained againft Go d's Word? " And particularly as to the Mtxtttre^ for v^^hich they llrain fo hard, does not their own Mr. Collier fay, that there was a Change in the publick Worfliip of the Church in refped of it ? ^ Does he not exprefly fay in his Dicimiary^ under the Name Alexander^ that Jlesander I. Pope of Rome intro- duced it into the publick Worlliip about the Year 130? 2, But to leave this fhort Digreflion, and proceed, he has other Pulls for hauling in the Ufages^ and thefe not without very undecent Jnmiendds^ not only concern- ing the Church of England and this Chuixli, but even concerning the holy Scriptures themfelves. Of the firil fort is his fetting down a Quellion of Dr, Hammond's Practical Catechifm^ p, 73. wherein this Gentleman infi- tiuates that the Cafe of the Church of England^ and our own, is the very fame with what Dr. Hammond fuppofes in that Queftion, viz. fhat they have fallen from their own Stedfajinefsj and by Authority or Law fet up thaty whichj if it he not contrary to plain Words of Script ure^ is yet con^ trary to the DoBrine or PraBice of the univcrfal Church of the firfi and ptireji 'Times. Does not this favour of Meek- nefs, Modelly and Reverence ? 3. But further, his Reverence to the holy Scriptures is not much greater. Where (fays he, />. 72.) is the Standard of Catholick Purity to he found? The Scriptures alone furely cannot direB us in the Forms of publick Wor^^ t 47 ] fhlp ; they dorit defiend to tbefe things. Is not this very reverently faid? But his Aim requires this : It is another Strain for the Ufages. *Tt5 a pity (fays he, Ibid,) he (the Viewer) Jbould leave us no wifer than what he found us. What would he think of the radicated Customs cfthe Catholick Church ? I beg leave to halt a Kttle here alfo, to give a fliort Anfwer to this* I. Firil then, notwithftanding this his Reproach thrown upon the holy Scripture, as to its Sufficiency ; I anfwer, with the Church of England^ our own, and all reformed orthodox Churches and Divines, That the trily Standard of Catholick Purity is to be found in the Scriptures. Thus the Church of England teaches me, Art, 6* faying, *^ Holy Scripture containeth all Things ^' neceifary to Salvation ; fo that whatfoever is not read *' therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be re- *' quired of any Man, that it fliould be believed as an ^^ Article of the Faith, or be thought requilite orneceC* *' fary to Salvation." And Art. 34. forecited, " Tra- *' ditions and Ceremonies may be changed according *' to the Diverlity of Countries, Times, and Mens Man- ^' ners, fo that nothing be ordained againft God's ^' Word.'' In thefe Articles the Sufficiency of the holy Scri- ptures is exprefly declared, as to all Things necejfary to Salvation, whether in Faith or Worjhip ; and they are referred to as the only Standard of Catholick Purity^, And when any Perfon ihall ihew, that the Ufages^ fo much contended for at prefent, are read in holy Scri- pture, or may be proved thereby, then I fiiall acknow- ledge that they have Rcafon for this their Contention* Here I delire not to be, miftaken; for I freely own, that if any Ufage can be ihewri to have been practis'd trom. the Beginning of Chrillianity, a:id that univerfally, wherever the Chriflian Faith ^vas ellablilltd, though it be I 48 1 ve not exprefly read in Scripture, nor may be proved thereby, yet that it may be ufed without Sin, as an />/* different l^radition or Ceremony^ provided it be not dif- charged by the Authority of a particular Church : But I inuil be excufed from thinking it ejjential or necejfdry^ or a fuiBcient Ground for Separation, if not pra<5:tis'd, till this EJfejTtiality oxNeceJJity be proved from the Scriptures j in one of the ways aibrefaid; 2. I anfwer, That it is very bluntly faid, and untru- ly too, That the Scriptures alone cannot dtreB us in the Forms ofpuhlick Worjhipj and t?jat they don't defcend to thefe Things, For, i . Is there no other way of direSfing^ but by laying down a Pattern word for word ? Is it not a fufficient Dire6tion for the Church's Prudence, that the Matter and Subltance is deliver d in it ? a. If the Scri- ptures have not delivered us particular Forms ; thi^ Ihews us that fuch Forms are not neceiTary. And this has been always the Sentiments of the Church, which, as I have faid, has varied its Forms, its Traditions, its Ceremonies, according to different Countries, Times, and Manners : So that it is in vain to feek for any other Standard of Catholick Purity than the Scriptures alone; all others have altered, and may be altered. 3. It iS not ablblutely true, that the Scriptures don't defcend to particular Forms: Have they not given us the parti- cular Form of our L o r d's Prayer^ which I believe is the only one ufed uniformly and univerially by the Church ? And as the Scriptures have left it to its pru- dential Liberty in all others, it has ufed this Liberty ac- cordingly. ■ *3. As to the radicated Cifjlofns of the Church, they are but Cujioms iVill ; and though it be not in the Power of every particular Bipop to alter them at his Pleafure, yet the whole Convocation, or Synod of Church Governors, may do it, as they may do all other humane Traditions or Ceremonies, This is the exprefs Doctrine of the Church t 4P ] Church of England J in the fore-cited Article 34. in the End. Its VV^ords are, " Every particular national " Church hath Authority to ordain, change and aboliih " Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by *' Marts Authority, fo that all Things be done to edify- '' ing/' I mud remark here, that not only does this Gentle- man flruggle llitiy for the Ufages^ but alio the other late Writers of the Party, whofe Performances I have had the occalion to fee. Thus the Writer of the Let- ter to the R. R. Mr. John Gillan^ urges the Mixture un- der the Chara6ter oitht moji ancient aid ApfioUcal Pra'^ ^icc of diluting the Sacramental Wine with a little Watery /). 1 1. And the pretended Female, in the Letter to the R. R. Mr. David Ranken^ p. 4* fays, People of fo finall Learning as lam^ are ready enough to think that the Chri-* Jiian Worpip is defective j if not agreeable to the PraSlicc of that Jge^ viz* the fecond Century, as to the mixed Cup» By thefe Things we may judge of the Sincerity of their Speech, vi^hen they, in the mofl awful Place and Manner declare their Intention to make no Innovations in the puhlick Worjhipj as the Reviewer^ />* 71. fays fome of them did. 5^ 4' I proceed now to another Subjeft of DiiP- coutfe, and that is, to conlider the Meaning of fome *rerms ufed in this Difpute* The occalion of this is, that wherever the Words fuffragtttm^ Xw:?©- votum^ ekBio^ or their Derivatives^ occur in the TelVimonies of Fathers, or Canons of the Church, or Church-Hiflorirns ; the Protefer and Writers of the Dijfcrtatwns in the Appendix^ and the Reviewcty will have them always to iignify formal eleclive Voting^ and upon this Suppolition they chiefly found their Argu- ments for the People's, or inferior Clergy's Right and ^ower in the proper Elections of their Bilhops. But on the contrary, wherever they find the Words x^e^'^vrfj' [ 50 1 Of xe^fi9'Tr>viA ufed, there they will have them to fignify only Ordination or Confecratwn ^ by which they mean the bare Solemnity and Ceremony of Inipofition of Hands for Orders. This they do on purpofe to feclude Bilhops from having thefovercign Power, or perhaps my Power at all, in Eledions. Yet the Dijfertator plays at crofs'ptirpofcs^ when he would have fufragium^ n|.w9(^- and eleSiio to fignify proper wtingj becaule they ordina- rily fignified fo with the ancient Greek and Latin Au- thors; but will not have wtiim to fignify a ^'//^, otDe" ftre''^ WOT yjr^esi'^veiV'i nor x^^^i^fU, to lignify jE/^^/t/;/, be- caufe they did fo among thefe ancient Authors. Well ! I. But let us confider the Meanings of thofe Words a little : And firfl: oiSitffragiiim^ This Term occurs in many Paflages of St. Cyprian^ Leo^ and others of the Fa- thers. Thefe Paflages the Presbyterians adduce, to prove the Right of their Preshyterial and Popular Ele- <5i:ions of Pailors ; whom Mr. Sage anfwers in his learn- ed Vindication^ &c* Chap, 7. And the Independents ufe the fame Paflages for fupporting their Congregational Eledions of their Teachers ; who are anfwered by the Author of the original Draught, Both thefe Sefts, in maintenance of their feveral Schemes, take the Word Suffragium in thefe Paflages to figniiy formal eleBivc Vo^ ting ; and the Pmtejierj Reviewer and Dtjfertator chime in with them in the fame Cant ! In the Vtew^ p* 141* £^ feqq. I (as Mr. Sage and the Author of the original Draught have done) produced fundry Paflages of thefe Fathers, in which it could not be fo underflood ; and faid, that therefore it was a Word of dubious Signifi- cation, from whence no certain Argument could be de- duced in this Affair. The Reviewer^ p. 100. nibbles at a fingle one of thefe Paffages, wherein he fancied he had ibme Ground of Cavil. The others he skips over with this poor Shift, p. 102. ^hey are foreign to the Sub'* jc^ of Votingy and ara taken from metaphorical and alluftve i [ St 1 V/urpations offhefe Words only. But, f * U this to deny what I faid of the Duhioufnefs of this Word ? Or does ic prove the contrary? Does it not father confirm it? a. If what he fays were true, how can it be fhewn that thefe Fathers did not ufe this Word in thele Paflages metaphorically? Indeed that it did and does fignifyyor-* mal Votings when applied to the People of old Rome^ aflembled in their Comitia^ and by the Roman Law ha* vbg a Right to chufe Magiftrates there, no body can doubt. But if this be the proper Signification of it, then of Neceflity it mufl be ufed metaphorically when applied to Chtiflian People in the primitive Times, tho* met at the chufing of Bifhops : For by no Law Divine^ nor Ecclefiallick extant in the Word of G o d, or Canons of the Church made then, had they any Right to vote in thefe Elections; or if they had, how are they now neglefted by the Party? 3. Befides, as I Ihewed above, p. 28* there are fome of thofe Inftances which have nO fign of a metaphorical Meaning. The Paffage he nibbles at is this- It is in fertuttiaf/3 ApoL Ct 11* in thefe Words, ** Th^ Jews conftrained *^ Pilate to deliver jefus to be crucified, by the Vwlcncd " of their Suffrages J' Of this the Reviewer , p» 100. id pleafed to fay, In my Opinion^ Suffrage is here tied dowft precifely to its proper genuine Signification^ viz* formal de^ cifive Voting* His Reafon is, ^* loi* For the Romait Governor we are fur e was wont to rekafe to the People a Prifoner whomfiever they would* l^hat Perfon they willed B^.mhb^s Jhould be : T'herefore their Suffrage was decifive* Thus he. But I fay, What format Voting could be expefted from a M?^.^ ewtnthe whole Multitude j Luke i^^iiu i* who cried out all at once^ ver. 18. And a tumult Wai made J Matth* xxvii. 24. This certainly was a very proper Aifembly for voting formaU^\ But the real Truth is, all that he has faid here, and in the long Note in the D % Addefula Addenda too, is utterly foreign to the Subjeft; which he has miltaken widely. For the two Fathers, liertuh Itan and St. Cypna^j were not fpeaking of rehafing any body, but of the Crucifixion of our Saviour. Now, tho' it might be laid, That the Jews had Privilege to give Snjfragc for releaftng o^ d. Perlbn whom they would, yet had they none in putting any to Death, Job. xviii. 3 1 » Thereiore, as thefe Fathers lay, they only conjlrawed Pilate to deliver Jefus to be crucified by Violence and 7)/- mnlt. Wherefore I faid, View-^ p. 141. That ^is plaia that thefe Suifrages were nothing but the tumultuary Cries cf the People, And this fame is what Mr. Sage fays, Vindic, Chap, 7. § 35. and fo does the Author of the original Draught, p. 143. whofe Words I fliall tranfcribe here, to ihew whether he be for or againft the Re^j:ewer in this. They are thele, " In his (St.. Cyprians) Trea- '^ tife, de vanitate idol or urn, fpeaking of the Jews ear-- ^^ nellly urging Pilate to crucify our blefledLoRDy '' Magiftri eorum, lays he, Pontic Pilato tradiderunt^ *' crucem ejus S mortem faffragiis violentis ^ pertinacibus ^' fagirantes, i. e. They delivered him to Pontius Pi" ^^ late, requeuing of him by Force and importunate Suf-^ ^' frages, that he Ihould be crucified. And what meant ^' thele importunate Suffrages more than to Ihew their *' wicked Inclination, Defire and highell Approbation ^' of the thing, if Pilate llioukl pafs fuch a bloody Sen- " tence upon him ? For they declared themfelves they *' had no Power in the Ad of putting any Man to ^' Death, Job. xviii. 31. yet this the accurate holyFa- " ther again, in his Language, calls the Sufrage of the ^^ Jewsl Now to the Initances given in the Vieix', w^herein Suffrage cannot lignify formal Voting, I will add Ibme ftw others out of Authors EccleiialHck and Heathen, wherein it can only lignify good Tefimony or Approla-' tion [ 53 ] . thn*^ and then TU give the Opinions of fome modern learned Men concerning it. I obferved above, p. 43. that St. Cyprian^ in Ep. 68. in the fame § 4. cxprelles this Deed of the People in theie two Ways, viz. omnium fuffragio ^ judtciOj ly the Suffrage and Judgment of all. And publ/co ju-- dicio S tejitmofiioy by the publick Judgment and ^cjiimony. Wherefore here feflmony and Suffrage are the lame. And in § 6 of the fime Ep. he teaches us who thofe are to whom the Suffrage or J^eJfimony\ and to whom the Judgment do appertain, faying {h\ JBj' r^^ Suffrage 0/ the whole Fraternity^ and by the Judgment of the Bjhops met there. This one would think a pretty plain Inllance* Upon this the original Draughty p. 142. fpeaks thus, " Were there no other Inftancc in all the venerable " Monuments we have of hb excellent Works, to prove ^' th;it Suffrage (in his ordinary Ufe of the Word) im- ^^ plied no Right or Power at all in them that gave it, ^' or conveyed any Tttk^ or Part of T/r/^f, to the Perfon ^' they gave their Suffrages for; this lingle Paifage be- *' fore us would go a great w^ay to perfwade an unpre-* *' judic'd Man that it was fo, For to find it diltin- ^' guiihed (as it is here) from the" judicial Part ot the ^^ whole Proceedings, and the dccjfive A3 (which Judg- ^' ment exprefly is) attributed afterwards unto others, *' who were fewer in Number too, does naturally enough *' imply that there was no adual Power, but purely *' either precedent J^eftimony^ or a fubfequent Approbatiori' ^' in the Suffrages ot the People ; elfe their very Num- ^' ber would have made them Judge Sj rather than the " Bilhops themfelves : And it makes not a little to the *^ fame purpofe, that thofe very Words were careiul y ^^ diltinguilhed alfo, in the Account of ii7^/i?;2^/s public K D 3 " Con- -C^) De univcrfx fraternitatis y/^/rd;^/(>, 5c de Epifcoporurn, 414. 'v\ pt^fentia convencram— j«^»w, Epiico^acu> ei detcitcmr. C'ji'r,h^^ #8 §^. t 54 1 ^* Confecfation, juft before, where we are fure thef ^< jnuft be taken fo." Here's another from Optatus Milev. fpeaking of Ma^ jorinusj who was ordained to the See oi Carthage by the Donattfts^ m oppofition to C^cilianus : It is this (/), << Majomusy a Domeftick of Lucillay was ordained Bi- ^ ftop by the Tradjtors, upon her giving her Suffrage ^^ to him/' Did this Woman ejeft him ? Can it lignify here any more than recommending or tejiifying ? Here are other two from Horace^ lib. 2. Ep» 1. v. lojt AfultaferOy ut placem genus irritabile vatunty ^mm fcrihoy Q fupplex popuJi fuffragia capto, tJpon this Defprezy in ufum Delpbiniy fays in his Para*' phrafe, ^uando quidpiam componoy (3 vulgi approbationem eniicisprecibusfiagito. And th^ not^ variortmy Suffragia^ popuU laudes. It is only Approbation or popular Praifes^^ And (q fays the vetus commentator apud Cruquiumy Sufi fragiaj laudes^ Again, Non ego mentope plebis fuffragia n:enor^ I Ep. 19. 37o Upon this Defprez in the Paraphrafe, Ego kvis pie** hful^ approbatipnem non qu^ro. Vet, comm. ap. Crtiq. fufr fragiayfavorenu And accordingly Faber in his Thefaii'^^ nis publifhed and enlarged by G^^r, Leipfic, 1726, fays, SuffragoTy ad homines tranjlatumjignificaty favore ^ cal^ cm fuo aliquem juvare, Cic. de leg. I. lo Mibi videris. fratrem laudmdo fufragari tibio Item, Sufragari alicur. p^ laudibus. From this fenfe of t:he Word it is, thac iTertulIian \n his Jpologetick i^^Sy Pr^ejident probati quiqu^ feniores honorm ijium non pretio fed tejiimonio adepti^ Here follow rfie Opinions of fome learned Modems, beiides the Commentators on Horaccy Eaber and Gefner^ concerning ^he Meaning of this Word. Comber fays of ^^ tpy^^^^ptipned Words of St, Cypriany Ep, 680 $ 4. ^ ^ ■ ■ . i ^1^^ f[) Majoripus «— domefticus Lucillsr, ipsa fuffragante, EpiTcopus ©rdinatys eft a xndhoxib\^s> 0P$, MiU d9 fihif, P&na^, lib. |. >. 1 9,, t S5 3 Vi& Utfacefdos, pkhe pro'/ente, deligaUif, &c. « Here « they (the People) are only Witneffes, and they have « the teftifying Part, but the Biftiops the Power of « judging and approving. Comber'^ Compamo^ to the ftmple, Fol. 2. p. 20^. Land. 1702, fol. The Author of the original Draught, after he has given «. 14a, fundry Inftances from St- Cyp-ian, wherein Sa}~ fragl c^tinotr^S^ifY formal Votmg, adds what follows, ^'« Onelnftance more I Ihallname, becaufe it contains « in it his own (viz. St. Cypriat/s) Explication ot the « Word, and plainly Ihews, that hj Suffrage he meant « the fame thing as he did by pfMicMmony, and no- « thing more. In his 68 Ep. he fays o^Cornelms s Ord^ « nation, That it was de cleri fS pkMs fufragw^x. e. by « the Sufrage of the Clergy and People: And ot the lame « Ordination in another Place he fays, 'Twas de ckn- « coram pene omnium tefmonio, 8 de plebts, quftunc aj- « fmt,Mragio. Ep. 35- Oxon. i. e. by the Tejimony ot <^ilmoJlill the Clergy, and by the Sufrage of the People « that were there. Now if the Teftimony of the Cler- « gy in the latter Claufe be not the fame with their «' Suffrage in the former, then 'twas fomethmg lefs than « fo; and confequently the Clergy's perfonal Ad and «' Intereft in Eleftions falls Ihort ot the common « People's, to whom a Sufrage is imputed in the lame « Claufe, (which I prefume is not intended neither J « But if the Terms be allowed to be equivalent, the « Cafe is plain, the holy Father appears confiftent with « himfelf i and in no other Senfe I apprehend it can be And he goes on in Words which evidently ftiew the Agreement of the Protejer, Efayer, Rmr^^r and iJ//- fertator with the Independents in this Point, laying, ^ « Thefe few Inftances, I think, may fliew, that to « t^e the Word Suffrage in the fenfe of lolemn l^n^ [ 5<5 ] ^< ntoHyy Good-hking^ Jpprobationj or the like, in the ^' Works of St. Cjprim?^ is an authentick and warrant^ '^ able Interpretation of it, as being diredly fuitable to ** his own manifelt and familiar Notion of the Word ; , *^ and therefore I leave the Reader to judge, whether ^' the Enqiitrers (fir this I might put tn the Protefler'j'j^ ^ 6?<^.)_P^^"^^^^^^^^ joining of it with th^ Word \yudg-' ^^ tn mj in the C^otatiOn now before us (as if they were ^' lynonymous 1 erin&) and lay ng the whole Strels of ^' the Quotation upon it, when the holy Father himfelf *^ had cautiouily dillinguiihed them in both Places, ^' where Occafion was ortered him to do 16, does not ^^ ieem, at leaft, a miltaken Apprehenfion of that great ^^ Author's Senle, and by that means llrains the whole ^^ Quotation to prove ^popular Ele5twny v«/heh, by what *' has been olier'd, we may clearly fee there is no fych *^ Evidence to be found in either Part ot it/' Whole Friend is he here ? The laft I produce here is Mr. Sage^ who fays, Vindic. Chap. 7. ^ J 4. "I do not remember that this Word ^^ [pKffi'^^^^ itands lb in all the Cypriamck Monuments, ^^ as that it mufl necellarily iigniiy an ekdJive Vote • but ^^ I have obleived it divers 1 imes uled where it cannot " fignify it," And there he gives iundry Inllances. I am liire thefe (efpecially lince they apply the Mean- ing ot the Word to the very Teilimonies cited in the Protefiattoji) are of too much Force to overballance all that is faid ot this Word by the Ecviewcr^ who has no- thing but fome cavilling Exceptions againfl my Inftances in the Vwjo ; or that is faid by the DTftrtator^ who from ionie Repetitions out of Dictionaries, tells what no body is ignorant of, ij-z, That in fome Places, eipecially in the Roman Law, it fignihts firmal Voting ^ but has not the Eiirdinels to apply this Senle to any Quotation ot the Brotefatton^ nor any 1 have adduced either in the Vtc-w (yr here to the coutraryo ' ' .2, What t S7 3 2. What I have faid of Sufraghm and Suffragor holds ds truly in 4»?©- and \Y^i>'iCo>^aj; which two GV^^^y^ Words aniwer to the tbriner two Latin ones exadly. And in the Fiew-, p- 143. () 6. I have given fundry Inftances of their iigniiying only to praife^ co7mnend^ or give a good T'eftwiony of a Perion. Therefore the Reviewery p, 102. gives them up, faying only, I jhould be afhamed to wrangle about tbcm. And all that the Diprtator has faid upon thele Words, in what he calls his Dijfertatiort^ coneerning 4^^^- Suffragtiim^ xho it be nothing butfome Scrapes out of CoUe Aors of Greek and Roman Antiqui- ties, and Diftionaries, proves no more than what is vul- garly known, and what I have exprefly faid, Vtew^ p» 146. viz. " If thefe Words be ufed with refped to the " Electors, at the very Time of elefting, they may ii- " gniry votmg for^ or chiiftng aPerlbn." Wherefore tho* I could at prefent give fundry other Iiiilances of their fignilying Commendation or good 'tejfimony^ yet this being needlets, I Ihall not trouble either my Reader or my felf with it. 3. But I fliall be at fome more Pains concerning Xf^e.'^'^'V^: . becaule both the Reviewer and Dijfertator have laid fo much Strefs upon it, even, I may fay, the whole Ilfiie of the Difpute, faying, p. 1 2C. Of this however (viz, of /eic^7^v.^y& being by the Gr^^y^Eccleliaflick Wri- ters always reftrided tor to iignify ordain or confecrate) the late learned Author takes ?io manner of Notice ; and up^ on this Omijfion^ and the confequent wrong Tranjlation of thisJVord^ ts reared all the Force of his Author itieSy for the PraBice of EleBions by Bifhops. And Append, p, S6. In the Matters of that (viz, the Ecclefialtick) Forum, they ever refcrve it (viz, y^^e^ror^v ^ for to ftgnify ordain. And again, fays the Reviewer^ p, 178. in the Note, T'he Truth cjk the Matter ts^ thefe Hijlorians have meant only Confe- cration, when they made ufc of yt^t^-nv^v. Well, 'tis a good Si:ep towards the Cure, to know the Caule of the. Malady. 1 58 1 Malad-f. I fiiall endeavour therefore to remove this Caufe as effeftually as I am able. To make his Reader believe that this is myfufjda^ mental Errors my t^.utdu ^^5u/©', that I always tranflate j^ae^TO'v^, EleSfj^ vi^hereas it ought never to be fo tran- flated (which, if true, is indeed a moll grofs and unpar- donable Error) the Reviewer is pleafed to fay, p. 1 1 p, ^ne^nc^, which the Viewer doth here^ and every wher$ elfcy tranjlate Eled. And this he again repeats, p. 173* Ikying, x^^'^''^^- which properly with them (viz. the an^ detit Greek Chrijiian Writers) Jignifieth to ordain or conle* crate, hut which the late Author^ as hath been already fmf^ivnedy thinks fit always to tranjlate Eleft. And the jyiffertatory p^ 80. ecchoes back the Reviewers Words, ikying, yei^roii^o. every where elfe Jignifieth Choofe, ac-* ^rdmg to Mm, Now who can doubt that I have really done fo, when it is thus attefted by two fuch famou$ Evidences? Nay, to rivet this Belief the more, there is a ^uan put at the End of the Errata^ p. 1 9. the fecond of the two, in thefe Terms, Why did not the Author of the View take the 'Trouble to defiant upon the Verb x*^e^rovieoy as well as upon -UoiOi^-^ ; and JheWj by many Examples j that- the true Ecclefiafiick Sigmfication of the former of thefe twoy is to Eled, not Ordain ? Now iince they thus feem to mskethe Signification of this Word the whole Hinge efthe Controverjj'j Til try to make it as firm and clever as peeds he. And firil Til anfwer this ^uery in few Words, thus, I did not take the Trouble to' defcant upon the Verb y^tt^Tvvic; to Ihew that its true Ecclefiafiick Signification was only to £/e^, not Ordain'^ becaufe, i. It never l^ntred into my Head fo much as to think fo ^ nay, fo far was I from having any Plot upon it, to corrupt its Evi-' dence, or make it depofe for me, that till thefe Gentle-* men ilarted the Doubt, I did not fo much as dream than it was a Word whofc Signification wa^ of any moment; t 59 1 Jn the Controverfy. For, a. I did not defcant upon fe^ becaufe I could not prefage that any who pretended to be an Author about primitive Church- Affairs, could be fb little acquainted with the Greek Language, or with the life of it among Ecclefiaftick Writers, as to fay with the Reviewer in his Note, p, 178. the "truth of the Mat'- ter isy Thefe Hiftorians have meant only Confecration, when I hey made ufe of yHa^v'. ai i. in the Cafe of Flavian's Ele-? dion, x^cj-^"^' (fays he) which the YicY/ev thinks advife-^ able now for thefirji T'tmey as Irememhry to Tranflate Or- dain. Here he makes one Exception himfelf to his Af- fertion thai; he would have pafs for univerfaL But truly his Memory is not very faithful, elfe he might have re-^ inembred of feveral other Places before that, where I rranflated it fo ; as View-, p 186. Un. 3. in the pth Can^ pf the Council of Antioch^ where I rendred -*^6?7Bf«K 'zrp53^uT^pK< x^ J^/rtKoj'y?, to ordain Presbyters and Deacons^ And again, View^ p. ao8, Un, 5, in the Election of St, Chryfojiom^ \xtnAxtAl'x*ie9^'(^rm^\ua,vvhji he ordained John^ And p. 158, Un. 3. in theEleftion oiFabian^ I rendred KihovQvrt ^ne.'j-r^vtii'* Commanded to confecrate hm ; though ^hefe fame Words, p. aoo. Urn i. be turned, command-^ fd his EleBion. This Ih^ws that I had no Plot upoa X^epT^v^v, but that I thought it might very truly be ren- dred either way. And View^ p* 135. Un. 9. the Words of Cornelius's Epiftle to FaUus of Jntiochj viz, ^fiAS^o^ii^ X^arouiKTAviuy I xcnixtd confecrated SucceJ/ors 'y and/>.i49» hn, 9. 1 have x^e^'^^vYiffeLvra Tpso-^uT^psj? kept in the ordinary Words,a;i;2. ordaining Elders^ JB, xiv. 23. Of this even the Piffertator himfelf, Append, p. 80. Un, 10, is pleafed to acknowledge, that even th^ Author of the View himfelf^ p^ !?45» U pkafed to allow x^^^^vhtfAm^ 'tt^ktCvj^^^^ ^o^gni-^ '"' ' ' ^ [ 6o J fy ordamiHg Elders. And in this Eleftlon of Flavian^ VkWy p» 20^, not only is sp^Hf^rof 'j^^aF ^\ACi'j.vou rendred (as the Reviewer is pleafed to remark) did choofe and or- dain:, but alfo x^^^^°^'^ is rendvQd Ek^wn and Ordma' tion: it is alfo rendred Confecrate^ View^ p. 144. Here are no lefs than eight Authorities wherein I have rendred x^e^^^veiv to Ordain^ in the Vieiv^ and I am perfwaded there are not fo many again there where thefe Words occur. Therefore when the Reviewer and Dif- fertatar pofitively fay I always tranflate it EkBy let the candid Reader judge how inclinable they are to miiVe- prefent and calumniate me. And indeed if they had been but willing to do me fo much Juitice as to have ta- ken Notice of thefe Things, and remembred them as they ought, not only might thefe their ialfe Afferciofis have been fpared, but alio the whole tedious DiJJertaiwfi concerning ynpoTO'.'HVy as it is called, collected for no other End but to fliew that that Word fi gnified to ordain or con-' fecrate^ in the Ecckjiaftick Writers ; which is a thing that I believe no body that knows any Greek ever doubted of: Though it is tar from doing always fo, but very of- ten fignifies to eUB and ordain jointly, and fometimes to eleB only, as I hope to make appear by and by. But if that Dijfertation had been left out, much of their Learn- ing had been fmother'd : The more had been the Pity. Now to prove what I here fay, viz. That y^-r-r-c -ovl» a- mong Ecdcfmfiick Writers moll frequently fignifies to cleB and or^^i;^ jointly (taking Ordination here to fi gnify the bare /y.es^iCF'xA, the Ad: o^ laying on of Hands in Or- dination or Confecration, which it does not very ire- quently do among Ecclefiaftick Writers \ but this Ihall be the Subject of another Enquiry) and fometimes to ehB limply, I Ihall follow this Method, viz.^ I. I Ihail confider what the Meaning of it is in the NcTdo Tefiament. 2» What it is among fome ancient EccUftaJlick Writers. 3. What [ 6r ] 3. What the Sentiments of fome of the karnedefl Jldo^ derns are concerning it. 4. And lallly. What is the Senfe afcribed to it by Lexicographers. L To begin then with the A^rtiJ -Z?/?/^/;?^//?. The Word occurs thrice in it, twice fimply^ and once in Compojition, The Texts where it is limply are, 0. Cor, viii* i^, and Jfr. xiv. 23. And in Compofition, ji3. x. 41. The Words in 2 Con viii. 19. are, ynfcrovn^^ v^b -^ sy„x\M£r/^/ (rt/A'ivTiwC^- H/z«i/, (7i;a] TM y^cteiTi, Which in our Verfion is rendred, Who was alfo chofen of the Churches^ to travel with us J with this Grace^ or Gift* This is one Place, Vm fure, where our Tranfiators agree with me, that it figni- fieth limply to choofe or ekci. And in Jcf, x. 41. where it is in Compofition, the Words are, MciprtMn roh 'T^ey^.^y&iejpTovnuivo/^ C^^ .th 02^^ rendred in our Verfion, unto Wtineps chofen before of GOD, Here alfo I have the fame Tranilators for my Vouchers for the fame Signification. But in J£i. xiv. 23. where the Words are, y&iepTovmAv. ftf, ) /J 'T -Tp;oCuT^p^v' vLa.i Fx-vAnc-zai/ It includes both, ^olz* as well EkBion as laying on ofHands^ or Ordination^ ftri(5l- ly taken : And therefore our Tranilators render it, When they had ordained them Elders in every Church • taking the Word Ordain in its large Senie, comprehend- ing both EleBion and laying on of Hands, In this large Senfe of the Word Ordain^ it is the fame with the Word to Confiitiite^ or Appoint. Which Words, according to their common Ufe in our Language, include the whole Procedure of a Promotion or Settkt7ient^ as eve- ry body knows. And in this Senfe Hefychius renders X^ e<^ /ofj/c^, as well as .L-;=):^r;i i. e. to cohflttutey as well as to eleB, And Dr. Hammond upon this Text tells us, that x*^^^'^'"'"^'' •^P^'^'^i^'^i is here all one di- rectly as KcJL-Teis\)(T'.a '7rfifT^uTip^<, to confituts Eldersy in Tit. i. 5. Indeed he very juftly excludes the Surixages or tf V^tes of any others, but of the Apofiles^ who wera the Ordainers, faying, Paul and Barnabas did it by joint Confent ; and there is no other pojflhle way for two to vote any things And there he alfo gives fundry plain In- ftances wherein yei^oTof^- mult fignify thus to conjfitute. If the DiJJertator had duly confidered this, or candid- ly acknowledged it, he might have fpared his Raillery againft me. Append. p6 80. In the VteWy p. 149. I in- deed faid, " We read, Jc% xiv. 23* of the Apoilles or- ^ darning Elders in every Church ; but it is not faid, by ** whom they wefe chofen: It is moil probable that it ^ was by the Apoilles themfelves/' There I took the Word Ordaining in its JiriB Senfe, as thefe Gentlemen always do ; but in this I own I was wrong. Upon this our civil Author rallies me at this rate, / may tell this Gentemanj fays he, that had he pot been apamed to eontradiSi the 'tranjlators of our Bihk^ he would have been in no Difficulty to find out who chofe thenij Jince x^^e^ToAea, every where elfe^Jignificth to choofe, according to hinti He fhould tell his Reader s^ that all that the Jpoftles dtd here was to choofe Elders* And may be they were a fort cf modern Elders^ that wanted no Ordination* This is 3 Sally of groundlefs Banter: Fof, !♦ I was in no Diffi- culty to find out who chofe them. I not only faid there, it was moil probable that the Apoilles themfelves did it^ but I even demonilrated that it was fo. 2. If there I had rendred yt^.e^roAco by EleSf and Ordain^ as I fre- quently did elfewhere, taking Ordination in its ilricl Senfe, I had no wife contradifted the Tranflators of our Bible, whofe Word Ordain imports as much. 3. There Was no Neceflity for my faying, that the Apoilles only thofe them, iince I always underilood ^>nP9iov^v to iigni- fy both EMion and Impofition of Hands^ or either of them, as occaiion required* Before I leave this Place, Til, by putting the Words cf the accurate Bijhop Bilfon (as he k called in the Adden^^- C . ild^ D^^i »o?Fronto Ductus /« )Er/J A^?a upon 6'^. Chryfoftom ohferiJe^ that the Verb yja^QioAcd is never ufed by the Greek Ecckjiajfick Wri" ' ters toftgnijy eledft, hut is dlways rejlri5ied for toftgnify or-- dain or conlecrate ? Do not both de Marea and Btpop Be- Veridge oisJn thts ? To this I anfwer^' !• It is very true that De Marca de concord, facer d. i3 imper. lib. 6. cap. 1. § a^ lays, Jpud auSfores tamen Ec" clejiajlicos "vox illa^ x'^e.'>'^^vU femper ftgntficat ordinatio-* nem, quemadmodum a Frontohe DucaBo, adnotdtum efi in notis ^i/ o/)^r/j? Chryfoftomi. And the very fame is Owned by Beveridge in his Synodic. Vol. i. in his Annot^ Can, I* Mpojf. But, i. both fpeak only of the Noun Xei^s'^ovitt, and not of the Verb x«^^*Toi'isfyi flan, 81. of the faid Code ; his Words are, ut Epifcopus- iii eligatur o In th^ Greek it is, § TiV;co'sr©- Tijoi^ x^^^*' In the Anions of the Council of Cbakednn alfo, the Word p(^«£.9r9f^f frequently comprehends the whole' Procedure of the Promotion,, and confequently the Ele^- ^iony ^ 'ss' wdi ^s the Cm fecration. For it is there made- cquiv^l^nf; tppther Words that include thp whole, fcch- a^ Te>f AYjQf^cwj to. he promoted *y -TFe^^y^.ei^hxitu,' to be advan'^J^ if 4 1 mTAi-lMcu, to be cofifiituted. Thus in the -Safffag;^ X 7' I O^PismpeiOHUSj JSi. xiv. (In this JSiion the Biftiopa ate advifing that another Bifliop Ihould be fettled at Ephefus inftead of the two Competitors Bajpanus and Stephanus,) In the Suffrage of PompeiamiSy I fay, the Word ufed is KcLTAcbJ^ou, to be eonjiituted ; and fo it is in the Suffrage of Jofeph^ and in that of Joannes^ and feveral otherSp In the Suffrage 6i Jamhlichus^ it is exprefled by ^kkov ^ey^-.- ^^e.ov J'Zvcu, that another Bipop Jhould he given. In that of DajniamSy and of Phofphorusj it is -uepx^e^^^cL^^u, to bfe advanced* In thofe of Benetiusy and Paulusy and Epi-^ fhaniusy and others, it is 'ar^^CAnQt/ju^, to be protnoted^ This very Word is by phe Reviewer j p. ip8, rendrecl eleSied, Now what they exprefs by thefe Words, is by Valerius and others ther^ fignified by x^^'^'^^^^^ whoiq? Sllffirage is, o the Vtewj p. 155, \vherein x^^^'^*'''* includes EkSiion* And he fays, IHd. § 7<» Diximus^ 6? ^ naufiam jam iifyite inciikavmusy ea voce yf^pj-r^v'idi Jignificari turn ele^ ftionem Epifcoporum^ turn ordinationenit And he goesf on, faying, Non recedit autem a vertftmilij numerum illumy quern defiderant canones^ Epifcoporum^ prints bis quidem JleculiSj ad eleSionem />o?i^/^ quam ordinarionern expeti-* tuntfuijfey cum velmasifnepiulto^rohabiliusjtt ordinatipni ipfi unumfatis ejfe Epifeopum^ qui confecrator dicitur^ c^e^ teres afleflbres diet C^ effs^ Where he has much more to this purpofe. Now this learned Perfon (as I obferved before) the late Authors cite for one of their chief Ad- vocates tor their Popular or Preshyterial Eledions ! And in cap. 4. $ 6. he fays, Una eodemque tempore eleBi fiatim ordinahantur Epifcopi\ ^ qui ordinatores erant^ * iidem fuerujit^ primarii ele6tores. Let the candid Rear " ^er judge whofe Side this learned Man is on. Again the very learned Mr. Selden is another, whom thek ingenuous Gentlemen adduce as a Voucher againii Elections being made by Bilhops, or even by Apoftles j . but they are fo wife as only to refer to him, without fetung down his Words. Thus they fpeak of him, Jp^ fendisy p^ yjo 'That yti^rweiv ^pzoCvrkpiii is not to chooft Elders hy common Suffrage (This I own with all my Heart) or hy lifting up of the Hands of the Apofiles (I3 there no other way for them to eleft them but by Itftmw • up their Hands ? Who fees not that this is pure quibbling r'j^ H'Wly pr(md by Dr. Hammond and Mr^ Selden, Thu^ • t 76 1 %e. And agaJn Jlddenduj p. il. The very learned Afft Selden'^ Dtjfertation concerning xtne^rom'. is to hefeen in Jbis Book de Synedn lib, i, cap. 14. hut is too prolix ta he inferted here. This is plainly infinuating that he is exprefly for him. But we Ihall lee whether it be fo juft now; for TU take the Pains to tranfcribe the following Paflages from that Diflejrtation, as prolix as it is. But good Men, they are very tender of Prolixity ! The Title of this Book is, de Synsdriis S P r^f cruris jaridicis vsUrum Ebneortm^ Amji. 1679, 4^^* Itismoft evident that his Defign in Uk I. cap, i^ P^ 3^3' ^fi^^* is to prove, not that x^e^'^°v^v does not lignify to eleif : very far from it ; but that it does not always imply Ekcfhn by Protenfion or E^tenjion of Hands, or the Concurrence of others in the Eleftion be?t fides the Ordainers. Bui! his own Words ftiall be the Prooi^ which I here fubjoin, ^oquo mtem modo eos rito crearey^^ conftituere tunc Jignific^bat yn^Q-nv^v illud in no^ vp Tejiamento ufurpatum Non per fuffragia eligere, ut wlmre viri magni aliquot y />. 313. Here and in thefol-^ lowing Page he adduces the Words of fome Authors, who would have the fenfe of yfe?. xiv. 123. to b^, as if the •Apollles had made ufe of the Suftrages of others, ligni- fi'ed by Ei^^v inters pretatur tarn per x-aBi^avy id efiy fimpliciter coiiftituere, quam per ^v\p\(^eiv, fuffragio decernere (fuffragioy2-/;s. tail- tum decementis) ^ -xeiepTovietv per kKhoybj), eletdL(}i^oivcfj, Ap^ pendis^ p* 91* is peculiarly his own. It is thisj \B^ KctBi^d^ou is meant (fays he) the conJlHuting of a Perjhn m af/zcred Office^ hy certain Rites and Prayers^ which go un^ der the Name of x^'^oTovict. This is a groundlefs Fancy^ which I believe never any body had but himfelf ; as id pretty evident by what has been -already faid^ and fhall be more fo by and by. I proceed now with other learned Authors. The next I adduce is De Marca de concordia facerdotii y imperii ; I fet down his Words above, p. 69. where he tells plainly, That both the Actions of £/^i^i»^ and Confecrating are not only in the 4th Can. of ifl Nic» Coufu but ordinarily [pafftm'\ fignified by the Word yjie^TovU ot ordinatio. I hope this is not rellri6ting XetepToyia. to the conJUtuting a Perfon in a facred Office^ by certain Rites and Prayer Sy as the Dijfertator would have it. And the fame is Bifliop Beveridge* skn^t of it; for not only does he render x^es^°^^^ frequently by eUgerCy as I have fliewn p. jo^fupra^ but alio (and I defire it may be noticed) he fays of the forefaid 4th Canon of r Nic* Counc. and of the y^eie^iovict therein direfted, Primo intuitu patetj canonem hunc^ non de ordinationis tantum ant conlecrationis aBu^ fed S de ipfa etiam eleftione in^ telligendum effe : nimirum tres minimum adeffs debenty ut otdim2XiQVi^m celebrent 'y fed omnes reliqtios vel adcffe vel in fcriptis ftiffragari oportet : at nihil caufae ejl^ cur fiiffra'^ gia requirantury pr^eterqiiam ad ele^tionem rite perficien'^ dam. ^lapropter certum efi ac induhitatumfyo& ele6tionisf Efifcopis hoc canone attrihutum effe^ idqtie non de novo j fed €ii antiqtiay de qua ant$ vmuiy confuetudmey qua hie cecu'* 1^1 ^€Hk^ Sy nodi autorit ate confirmatar* Bever. Syiiodki^ Tom. a. Annot. p; 48. col. I. Wherefore when in his Annotation on Can, Apo(l. i^ he fays, V^rum inter xh^toh'^;/ £^ -\>y\ov fempcr dtjiingnen" dum efi^ ut 6^ inter yue^Toviav £J ;)^e^,^99€c^t^t^, gU(0 a non** mllis male confunduntur. yei^TtvU enim yei^^'-^'^'^v f^^ fi comprehendit^ ^ totam pra^terea hHmoy'iAv Jrve riMn^i^ylftv in Epifcopi>, Presbyteri ^ Dia€oni ordinatione cekhrdrifoU^ tarn. He means, as I obferved before, that the -'^■^9 -fa. or ordmatio includes the whole Procedure, even the *li^'t)1^ too, where there is an Eleftion, as in the Cafe of Bifhops : For it is certain from St. Cyprian^ that the whole Promotion Was performed at once, even the whole Ordinatio^ as he calls it, pr^fente pkhe ♦ that is, the EkBion and Confecration too. This therefore is what Bifhop Beveridge means by histota Keirv^yi^.'Jjve i^^hicr' p^i*. in ordinatione celebfarifoUta^ and not barely the con ft it u-^ ting a Perfon in afacredOffice by certain Rites and Prayers : which is but a Part of that tota T^.Ki(n\i^yict, Next I adduce the Author of the original Draught for his fenfe of the Word in AB. xiv. 23. it is p, 121. to which the Pbjlfeript Writer does refer, Append, p. 1 76. but does not think fit to tranfcribe his Words; where- fore rU do it for him. They are thefe, ^' It (yiz. xin<>9' ** rov^v) is with great Aflurance infifled upon by the Ad- *^ vocates for popula-r EleBwny as including in it the *' Votes or Suffrages of the People, [It is fomething odd that our Gentlemen do not follow the Crowd, j *^ becaufe it fignifies the firetch'mg out or holding up of ^^ the Hand\ which Ceremony was commonly ufed by ^f the ancient GreekSy to exprefs their Voice or Suffrage " either in Courts of Judicature, or at the Choice of *^ Magiftrates amongft them. This is the main Strefs of " all the GlofTes I meet with, to evade the clear Evi- ^^ dence of this Text for the Apoliles ordaining thofe ^^ Elders by their own free Choice and Authority alone- C 8' 1 ^ The clear Evidence of the Text I call it ; for if thef6 " be any regular and Grammatical Conftru6lion of the " holy Penman s Words to be allowed at all, it mull *^ necellarily be this, That the fame Perfons who held* *^ forth their Hands for the ASi of Ordination here, did, *' in the Words immediately following, commend the *' People then prefent to the Lo r d, in whom they be- ^' lieved/' That is, that the Apoillesdid both; or that the Word -^^^^^ro! ^ in that Text fignifies that the Apoftlea ekS^edj as well as laid on their Hands in Ordination. Is he my Friend here, or no ? ril Ihut up thefe Teilimonies with Mr. BlondeTs. He fairly fuppofes that x^^epronc:. may either lignify the very j46i of Confecration^ or the whole Step of the Promotion^ His Words are, Sive x.^^pto;-! .< vox de ultimo confecra- tionis a6tu, y yj-iej^i^^iA per Epifiopum admi?itJiranfoUta*j ' J^'Ve de tota ordinandi promotione interpret ari pla-* ceat.- Apolog. pro fent. cap. de ordmatiomhus^ § 3. Thus Tm lure it is clear as Noon-day, that all thefe learned Men declare, that -/j-^ep-^zv^v and veiesT^nA do li- gnify Eh'5lion as well as Impofition of Hands j or the O/- jicc of Ordination ; and moll ordinarily both together, e- Ipecially the Ekciion made by the Bijbops Ordainers, IV. I proceed in the laft place to give the Meaning of thefe Words from fome of the belt Lesicographers. But at my Entry I muft not omit to pay my Compliment of Thanks to the Difcrt at or upon x.6ieyToi'^v, for produ- cing the Tellimonies^ of Bud^iiSj Stepbanus and Suicer^ Append, p, 6^. which are full and pat for this Significa- tion. I Ihall here tranfcribe fome Sentences from theiu which are fo. ;)^H^97Bi HI' efi magijiratmi create. Bud. Hoc atitem (juiz. protenfio & elevatio manuum) quia fiehat in fuffragiis fcrendis^ bine faftmn cf}^ ut ponatur pro fcilco, decerno, creo, Stepbanus* x'^^'^^^'^'*- $^P^^^^^ P'^ ftiffra^orim lattone. Id. C 80 ^^^^7Qvtej, manum protendo y attollo* Item^ fciicd, de-* ccfno, creo : quoniam in fuffragiis fcrendis manus porrigi folchant. Scapula. y^^poroU> ftiffragiorum lath. Id. 7D x^ej-^^'^-^' ^^otat eligere per fuitragia ad Epifcopatum, niminm ex ufii Ecckfiofiico. Atque in hacfignifica^ Hone verhum yei^rovico, ^ nomen x^e.^'^^f'^^ diu in Ecckjid iifurpata fuemntj it a iit non fumerentur pro ordinationey^/^ confecratione folenni Epifcopi* Htnc apud Suidani, X^e^tovi\iTdLvti4. s)tA?^5taevo/, qui elcgerunt* Suicer. Xfr'.isT^veiv Jignificat imptopm ordinarey^^ coiifecrare, ac proinde ad ordinauonem, initiationem in facris, t^ inau- gurationem refcrtUTy Can. i JpoftoL Id. Xeies-rm-' fimiturpro eleftione,y^^ fufFragii forma quam in eiigendis Epifcopis ac Presbyteris vetus obiervavit Ec- clefia. Id. I Not at etiam ordinationem, initiatianem iri facris, & in-' lugurationem. Id. -Xj^ienovko), eligOy deligOy conJiittiOj fuffragits creo. Tufan. Xef^Toi/i^t, eUBiOy fuffragium. Id. X'^ejf'Tovico eligOy deligOy conjiituo^ f^ff^^g^^^ creOy magi'* Jiratum creo^ dejtgno. Quia manum porrigendo, >9 ^n -vei- pM' Ai'ATAaei olim'j In Eccle/ra vera t» i':iriBi(re. Jiebant fuffi-a-^ gia. Conftantinus. ye^^cToviA, fuffragatio J^^a ^ X^f^^ divet7ATtVy H iTiSiO-iV in Eccleiia, eki^ioy fuffragium. Id. I'm fure thefe are fufficient to fliew the Senfe and Harmony of thefe Writers. And now from this whole Difcourfe upon x^e^'^^'^'f and X:- ^«-^o' '*' thefe Things following are moil evident, 1. That in the View I did not always render theie Words by EleBion j no, nor fo often as by Confecration or Ordination. 2. That if I had always rendred them by EJeBion^ or at leal! by EleBion and Confecration jointly, I was fuffi- ciently authorifcd by the New ^ejlament^ by ancient Ec^ cleftajiick C 83 1 €kfiaftick Wrrtsrs^ by learned modern Authors^ and by thfi bell Lesicvgrapbers^ to have done fo. 3. That my Tranflations of the Paflages in the VieWy wherein thefe Words are found, are good, in as far aa concerns tbem^ 4. That therefore my Arguments drawn from thefe Paflages for the fovereign uncontrollable Power of Biihop$ in tbefe EleBions^ are firm and valid. 5. That the Anfwers given in the Review and Differ-' tatwn upon ye.poromv to my forefaid Arguments, are naught and of no manner of Force, being ibunded upon two grofs Miilakes, viz* i. That I had always rendred '/eiCPTov^^ and xt^e^T^sU by EleSlion, If this was not a grofs Miflake, I am fure they had nothing elfe to an- Iwer ; and therefore, that they might have fomething to fay, were neceifitated to pretend this. 2. Their other Miliike, upon which their Anfwers are founded, and which indeed runs throughout all their long Perfor- mance, and corrupts its very Vitals, is, That they al- ways render the two forefaid Words by Ordination^ and in the mean time reflrid that Word to fignify barely the Impojition of Hands ^ or the JB cf Confccration^ or at molt the Conjecration-office, Tho' in one Place, viz* Jppend. p, 167* the Dijfertator upon the 4th Nic. Can* is pleafed to own (how conliftently with himfelf and the Reviewer in other Places, let the Reader judge) that pj^^f^Ton^c, in the Emperor Conjiantincs Letter to the Synod of Jtt'^ tiochj may very appojitely intend the whole of the Affair^ fromfirji to lafi^ as no doubt it frequently doth. And in- deed the Protcjler himfelf, in the body of the Prctejla'^ tion^ Append, p. 4, Im. ult, exprelly tranilates X'^^orocirf, Ele^ion. The Words which he tranilates out of Eufeb* H. E* lib. 6. cap. 29. are thefe, iZv y6 iHK^ixLv i-n-Avruv x^" ^TOvioLi h'iKiV Tiff 'Tb (J.iKKOVrQ' S'ttJ'i^iSrcU Tta) iTKTKOTrlw Wf m iKKhnffU^ /o and ordinatio being ofthe . fame Import and Extent with yt^^^To-t^. and y^eie.<^joviAi and I having already fhew'd to Demonflration, that thefe Words comprehend not only Conftcration^ but Ek" Bion ; the fame mull neceiiarily be true alfo of their E- quivalents ordtno and ordinatw. But to put this beyond all Difpute, I ihali briefly confider them in the fame Me- thod as i did the two former^ vrz^ I. By a^ t 8i 3> 1. By fhewing what they fignify in the New. T^- ment^ in the Latin or Englijh Tranflations of it» 2. What they lignify in ancient Authors^ 3. What the lenfe of modern ones is concerning them. And 4. Their Signification in feme good DiBionarUs. I. For their Meaning in the ISIcw ^ejlament. I have fliewed before, that in the Text 4^. xiv. 23. viz. when they had ordained them Elders in .every Churchy &c. the Word :^«'^;'T3i/H p* 5. cites thefe very PaiTages for Popular Ek^i" en. Therefore her^ Ordinatio muft comprehend the whole Procedure, l^he fame I fay of what is faid in the Beginning of the very next J', viz, ^J^icd po^ea fccmdum diwdmdgijferm ohJervatUY [ «7 1 jtibfervaiuf in Aftis Apollolorum, qtiando de ordinando in locum Judae Epifiopo (al. Jpqfiolo) Petrus adpkhem loquitur. Here by Ordinando che Ekffion is moll properly nieant ; for there was in this Cafe no Confecration by laying on of Hands. And then immediately follows. Nee hoc inEpifcoporum tantum ^ facer dot um^ fed ^ in Diaconorum ordinationibu3 ohfervafe Jpojiohs animadvert imus. Where Ordinatio ^- gain exprefles the whole Promotion^ And the fame is true of what they fay in the End of that ^. viz. Ordinari enim nonnunquam indignos non fe-" cundum Dei mluntatem^ fedfecundum humanam pr^Jlmptio'^ nenij ^ h^c Deo difplicere qu^ non veniant ex legitima ^ jufta ordinatione. In the End of t:he former §. they fay^ thai: thcjujia ^ legitima ordinatio is, qu^ omnium fiiffr a-* glo ^judicio eji esaminata. It is the £.le0iony I think, that is thus exarnined. And this is moft palpably plain in what is faid next §, mz. ^lod ^ apud vos fa^um vidcmus in Sabini Cclkg^c tiojiri ordinatione, ut de universe fr at ernitatis fuffragioy iS de Epifioporum^ qui in prafentia convener ant ^ j//-» dicio^ Efifcopatus ei deferretur. This Ordinatio is niade by Suffrage and Judgment'^ which is plainly the Ele^ion : of which they fay immediately before, S Epifiopus de* ligatur plcbe pr^fente. This is as palpably the Meaning oiOrdinato in £^.67. § 2. viz, in thefe Words, ^tti Epifcopo Cornelio in Ca'"> tholica E^clefta de Dei ju dido ^ ckri ac pkhis fuffragio pr-' dinato. That is plainly de^o or promoto. And alfo in Ep, 55. $ 6. in thefe Words, Exijlimat a-^ liquisfumma ^ magna^ aut nonfiientey aut non per mitten'* te Dsoy in Ecclejia Dei fieri y ^ facer dot eSy id ejty difpenfa^^ tores cjusy non d? ejus fententia ordinari, TJiat is moft evidently eligi or promoveri^ A great many more Teftimonies for this might be q?ll^^ed gm of Stt C}prian^,Woxks^ if one would he at F 4 Pain« t S8 3 Tains to do it ; but T am fore thele are enough at preient 1 proceed now to others. I obferved above, that the Title oiCkap, 4. £ook 8. oi xhQ- JpoJioUck Conjiitutions is cr^et >^«-y£^ ../Jj/i and yet all that is treated of in that Chap, is the manner oiEk" 0ion : Wherefore I faid that -ye^f.-m'cf there fignified, or at leaft comprehended Election, Now I fay, that in the old Verlion of thefe Cc;^//'//^w/j in Cotelerms's Edition of them, this Title is de ordinatmiihuSj therefore Ordi" fiatio here either fignifies, or at leaft comprehends £/^- The Dijferiator on the 4th Nic. Can. Append, p. i/\6. commends the Language oiLiheratus Archdeacon of the Church of Cart h age ^ for good^ plain ^ clajfic^ old (not mo^ dern) Latin. Wherefore 111 give fome Teftimonies from him, in which it is impofTible that Ordino can ligni* fy any other thing than to Ek^, Here is one. In his cap. 7. fpeaking of the People of ConJiantinopJe their feeking a Biihop after the Expulfion of Nejlonusy he fays. Alii vew Proclum Preshytenim qunerebant^ queni ad Cyzicum Sifinnius Epifcopmn ordinaverat. (This in«* deed includes all ; but notice what follows) J^tii pritif* qtiam Cyzicum proficifceretUTj precedent es cives ejufdem ci^ n)itatis Dalmatium Monachum fibimet ordinaverunt Epifr copimh Did the Citizens confecrate him ? Can it figniiy any more here than to ele^? Here is another. In his cap. 1 7. fpeaking of the Pro- motion of one Joannes I'alaia^ht fays, Ordinatur aiitcm a communicatorihus ejus Epifcopis y Clericis ^ Monacbisy qui €']iis noverant Jidem ^ guhernationcmy Joannes ex axonomo^ eogncmento Talaia. Did the Clergy and Monks confecrate him? ^ - Nay, that both Ele^ion and Confecration are compre-* hended in Or dm at io and Ordinare by Dionysus EsiguuS' (notwithftanding all the Clutter the Dijfertator upon f|th Can, Nic. has made about his Tranllations) is moit ' 1^; ■- evident* t 89 1 evident. That Gentleman is very exaft in fetting down the Titles of Canons wherein Ordtnatio is mentioned. But V. hy did he not let down the Title which Dtonyjius 'E>.iguus gives that Nicene Canon ? I'he Reafon plainly is, becaule it would have IpoiVd all. Theie Tranflationa of D:onyfnis are to be found in the Codey^ Canonum vetus EcckftJ Romana a Francilco Y\t\iC£0 ad veicres manufcri^ ft OS codices rejf.tiitus^ ^notistUuJiratus^ Parif 168/5 ^I- His Title of that Can. is, De his qui ad Epifcopat/m in Prcroi'ficiis provdmntur. Whence it is evident, that he underftaads the Canon to regulate the whole Promotion^ thereiore his ordinari and ordinatio^ ufed by him in the Tranllation of it, muft comprehend that. The fame is evident from the other three old Verfions there, which, inftead of proveboj make ufe of ordino. The fame is alio plain from the Titles of the four Ver- fions of the 5)th Can. there. The firft is Dtonyjius' s^ in theie Words, De his qui ad honor em Preshytcrit Jine e^or^ mine provehuntur. The next is, De his qui ad facer do^ tium Jine eocamine promoti funt. The third, De his qui nee examinati ordinantur. The fourth, De Preshyteris Jine e>iaminatione confbitutis. Where pron)ehiy promoveri^ ordinarij conffitui^ are the very fame thing. And the Titles of the icth are, firfl Dionyftus's^ Ds his qui in perfecutionibus negaverunt^ ^ pojimodum in ckro promoti funt. The fecond is the fame. And the third, De Japjis ordinatis. This is yet more evident from his Verfion of the 1 2th Can. ofLaodiceay which exprefly afcribes the whole Pro-* motion to Bilhops. The Canon, in his Words, is this,' Epi/copiy judicio MetropolitanoYUjn^ £^ eorum Epifiopormn qui circumcirca funtj provehantur ad Ecckftafticam pote^ flat em. Yet his Title is, De Fpifcopalihus ordinationibus^ TK\^ Ordtnatio therefore plainly includes all. And the 1 3th Can. of that Synod, according to him, luns thusj ^od non fit per mitt mdum turbis eledipnes [ 90 1 icmmfac&re^ qui ftmt adfacerdotiamptomovendu Whefe the nrb^ are plainly excluded from Ek^tons:^ yet his Title is, Judicio multitudinis ordinationesT^^ri ?wn deb ere. What can be plainer than that his Ordinatio here in- cludes (I may lay, fignifies) Ek^ion ? And It is very oblervable for this purpofe, that Crip* conitis in his Breviarium Canonum has no Head which he entitles, de ekSimie Epifcopi ^ but his firft is, de ordinatio^ ne Epifcopi. From which we may furely gather, that he comprehends both under one : And this is the more manifeft, becaufe there he refers to the Canons that di- re6l the EkBion^ as well as the Confecration of Bilhops. I think there needs no more be (aid upon this Branch, *viz^ What the fenfe of ancient Ecclefiajiick Winters is of Ordinare and Ordinatio : Til proceed next to give the. Sentiments of fome learned Moderns, III. I quoted the Words of the learned De Marca^ p„ 6S.fiipraj which are very exprefs, that under the Word Ordinatio the Afts both of Ele3ing and Confecrating are commonly comprehended in the ancient Ecclcjlafiick Wri". ters: They are butihort, and therefore I Ihall tranfcribe them here again, 'viz. Nos vero certum exifimamus hiC (nempe in 4 Can, Nic.) agi de utr^que c^ciione cUgendi y confccrandij qii^ xeie^rwioa five, ordin^tionis nomine hk f^ "pajftni fignificattir : qui duo aBus olim inter [e cohaerehant, \ quoted alfo th^ Word^ oiTlpomaJftn^ p. 7S*ftipraj aC- ferting the fame thing with Dc Marca^ viz,^ Ohfervat e-^ nimvero Eufebius, coaBos turn Romae fuijje ^pifiopos ad ordtnandum^ hoc ejl^ ad eligendum ^ axdinandtm Epifeof pum, Utrumquc enim conjunBimfiehat. And the Words of M^ Selden^ which I alfo fet down p.yy,fupra^ concerning the fenfe of JSi. xiy, 23. are, Vertendum autem eft fmipliciter^ am ordinaffent^ conftituifn fent^ feu ekgijfcnt (nam quifquis ordinat aiit conftitutty c;^f mimi fententta erdmatum ^tjam cligm mmo duhitat) 0^ t^nshyteros. C p» ] , And from the few Words I cited from Dr. Hammond^ p. y%.fupraj it appears that in the Ordinations performed by the Apoflles, he underllands their Choice alfo to be implied. IV. It is needlefs to be tedious in a Thing made fo plain from ancjent Authors themlelves. I fhall therefore now only add the Teilimonies of a Lexicographer or two, and proceed to other Things. Thus Cahin in his Lc:>iic, Jurid. fays, OrdinarCj eft a* jiquem ad honorem ^ magifiratum promovere ^ hoc eji^ (ut Cicero loquitur) ornarcy hononbufquc augcre. And for this he alfo cites Biid^us in A?inot. ad I, honores^ ff, de dccur. And Calepijij Ordinare^ ad honorem y magifiratum pro^ wovere. Suet on. in Cdcfar. c, 76. Or din are magifiratum dixit ^ pro conftituere^ qui ordine fuccedant. Et in Vefpaf. c, 23. Difpenfatorem or dinar c» With thefe therefore Ordinare includes all the Steps neceflary to the Promotion, as ATowi/^^^/o^, Ek6liony Com^ mijpon^ ^c. I repeat here the Subflance of two of the Confequen-* ces which, j>. 83, 84. fupra^ I drew from the former Difcourfe concerning x^-es'^^^'^v ^ '^^^« 5«! That their An- fwers to the View are of no manner of Force. And 6. That their two whole Diflertations upon x^es-riv^v. and the 4th Can, of i Nic, Counc, are one continued Error, becaufe they are founded upon two grofs Miftakes, viz. I. That x^^&'^^v'ca and y^e^T^nA muft always be tranfla- ted Ordino and Ordinatio. And 2. That this Ordin^ and Ordinatio mufl always precifely fignify Impcfttion of Ha{ids in Confecration, or at moil the Conftcratiowoffice. Both which I have now demonftrated to be falfe. y. I fhall next conlider a little the true Meaning of the Word Votum in the Teilimonies adduced from Leo the Great, in the r/. 221. the.w- U civium is in^m^diately paraphrafed^ tejtinwnia fopulo^ rmi^ C 93 1 fum ; and a little after, by atteftatione fidellum ; and a* gain, by ftndia 07Jinmm. And in that p. 222. hj pofiid/p^ rcy by teftimonimn honoratorum^ and by confcnftis ordinis (^pleks. And inthat p. 12^. by ^plebtbus espet it L All thele fliew that the Part of the inferior Clergy and People was to petitio?t and tejiify ^ and that therefore Vota is no more than their Wtjh^s or Defires, 'Tis true that what was called deftderia cJcriy p. 216. and confenfus and wlufi-^ fas ckricorumj ^.218, 219. is called eleifio ckriconim^ p. 221. And it is recommended, p. 222. that the Perfon to be promoted, ah omnibus cUgatury fhould be chofefi by all. And />. 223. rhofe are not to be promoted, qui iiec flint a dericis ekBi^ nee a pkbibus espetiti -^ who are not chofe/t by the Clergy, nor defircd by the People. Where their petitioning for, and tejiifying well of any Perfon is plainly called their choofing him : And indeed moll juHly, for furely People's praijing, defiring^ peti--- tioning for a Perfon or Thing, is as great and evident an Indication of the Inclination of their Will to have fnch a Perfon or Thing, that is, of their Choice ; as if they, formally, in an Alfembly, had voted for it. Ipjipetendi ^ offer endi aBus pr^ecedaneam qiiandam petentis ^ cffc" rent IS eleBionem neceffario comple^untur^ Blondeh Jp'olog. p. 471. The very Aft oi petitioning implies of Neceffity a precedent EleBion, But this fort of Election has no- thing of the Nature o^ a formal and co?npleat one. It was look'd upon to be no more than a tefiifying of the ///r/i- nations of the People, Neque vcro refcrty priced at eieftio crdinationem, anfequaUtr. Nam cum pr^ecedtty conditio^, nata adhiiCy non plena ej}- ele61io : qiiam pcjleriorum tempc-^ mm canones poflr'atio^iem dtxerCy Grotius deimperiofiim-' ^marnm pcttft6!t..mcirca facra. Edit. 2. Par. 1648, 12 mo, p. 273. And accordingly fays De Marca, Itaque defide-^ ria ^ wta cler, atque pcpuli n^cejfaria qmdem erant ut in pace jjtrci ordmatWy fed "uis ^^ f'prcmum arbitrimn ekflionis fenes Epifcopos ^at unitifcujufque Provinci^* De concord, facerd* i 94 1 facer d. 6^ imptr. lik 8. cap. 2. IJ i. And again, Ihia. 9 a. Cceterumji nsgotium iftud refcratur ad pr main originentj morumque vetu/i^^ Ecclejia^ ^ antiquorum canonw7i ratio ha^ heatur^ confians eft ilia fsntentta qiif^^^;;^^, have tr inflated Vota by Votes in the early Writers, as ia Leo^ Ordo Roraanus^ &:c. they have but perverted Anu-« ^uity with their wrong Interpretations mdfalfe Glojes. Th? t 9S 1 The fame I fay of their Notes upon Baltmus^s Col- Ie6lions. But the particular Conlideration of this will more properly fall under the next Head, which Ihall be, VI. I. Concerning Eligere^ the Ele^ion of Biihops, the Decree of Ele^ion^ the 4 Canon of i Nic» Council, the 12 and 13 Canons o^ Laodicea^ and the 13 of the African Code, and the 37 Apo/ioUc. I obferved in the View^ p* 157* " That when the " People unanimouily concurred in their T'eftimmy and ^^ Requejisy it was reckoned a Signification of the D^- ^^ ftgnation of God, to have fuch a Perfon, as they \o *' concurred in, to be eleded ; and the Biiliops who " elefted ordinarily proceeded accordingly/' The fame Thing I obferved again, View^ p. 200. Upon this Account e^ecially it is, that St. Cypnan^ Epift. 68. has this famous Sentence, "viz. ^^ando ipfa (plebs) masbm hah eat potejiatem "uel eligendi digms fac er dotes ^ vel m^ dignos recufandi. And that Leo^ Epiji. 89. fays, ^li pr^futurus efi omnibus j ah omnibus eligatur. But this Eledion they fpeak of, and attribute to the People, cannot at all be meant of a proper y compkat E^ k^io^y fuch as gave any Right to the Perfon thus eieft- ed, upon which he could claim a fitle to the See; pro" teji for it, if it was refufed him by the Biihops; ox found an A^ion upon it before any Judicature Civil or Eccle- iiaflick. His Right anciently was never compleat, till he- was chofen and confecrate by the proper Biftops, /. c. thofe of the Province, or the Plurality of them. All that was done before this was but preparatory to the proper Ele^ion, It was no more than the teilifying the Inclinations of the Clergy and People^ the ihewing whom they pitch'd upon to be promoted to the See, and whom they dejired to be fo. This was their Choice^ and all the Choice they could make: Tho', as I have faid, it was far from being compkat ^vidabfolute* C 97 ^ This I have demonftrated with relpeft to St. Cyprtan'^ Sentence, in what I have difcourfed under two of the foregoing Heads, viz. Suffragiu7n and Ordhiatio : And with refpe^t to Leos^ in what I have faid concerning Votiim. Hear the learned l^homajjin upon this Head, Dixit qmdcm alibi Cyprianus primariam poteflatcm eligendt digfios y reptidiandi indignos Epifcopatu^ penes popuhm effe : fed bis verbis mn ftgnificatur mft confcientia y tellimoniuni populi, cui potijjnnum explorata funty vel virtiitum inftgniay n)el vitia corum qui candidati fiint facrarum dignitatum. Malta fallunt Eptfcopos^ qu^e plebem nonfallunt^ Jive in vi" tiofive in laude pofita^ privatorum gefta. Hac ergo liberta^^ tCj immo y hac necejfttate denudandi^ quicqiiid qui/que r^- fqlJet de moribus ^ faBis eorum^ qui ad Epifcopatum invi-^ tabanttfTj videbatiir eleSio in plebis poteitate efle* ^lianquam reapfe non indubia femper ejfent populorum te- flinionia, quin immo non raro incerta^ fluBuantia^ fiUf^-i ^^ dicam quandoqiie corrupt a^ emptitiaque : Epilcoporum fum- ma femper erat poteftas, ilia examinandi, dijudicandi, proband!, improbaQdique, £^ alia ex aliis revincendi^ ^uo judicio Epifcopali ele6lio tafidem certa y conftans dtpromebatun ThomaiC vet. ^ nov. EccL JDifcipL Part* 2. lib. 2. cap. I. $ 3. I faid in the F^eWj p. 86. a Thing that is certainly true, viz. " For any inferior Clergy-inan to have dar a '^ to have protejlcd againft the Decilions of Biiliops, ei- ^' ther in General or Provincial Councils, was a Thing " altogether unheard of To this the Reviewer fays, p. 76. In order to have made my general Obfcrvation Jirike home where I intended^ I ought to have addedy as he humbly conceives J in placing a Etjbop over them without their Con^^ fent. And he thinks he has gain d a notable Viftory, by imagining that at lall he had found one Inftance oi a Proteitation made, not by an inferior ClergymaUj no fucjhi thing, but by a People againft Bifhops, tor their Right |n chooiing theix own Biihop : And to prove this, he fets • u dowa down a long Englip Tranlktion (in which there ate at leall three or four material Errors) out of the Greek Hiflory ofPbtlofiorpus. This Pbtloftorgiu^ was a violent jiriafi^ or Eunomian* His Character is to be feen in , Cavers Htjlcria Literariai But to fet thefe Things aiide, let us hear the Story of this which he calls a Protcfiat'tofu It was jull this^ That the People of Cyztcum^ who ad- hered llriclly to the Nicenc Faith, in the Vacancy of that See, when they fought another Bilhop, made a Rc^ minciation oi xht Jrian Herefy, and dnathematizdixxch. as profefsM it, and refufed to fubmit to any fuch as their Bilhop^ and required that one of the orthodox Faith inight be fet over them ^ which they obtained. This is the Subftance of the Story in iliort, and that Renuncia^ tiofij of Jhnundation^ was what our judicious and can- did Author calls their ProteJIation againfl the Poijoer of BifJjops in ElcBions, But here are the very Words of his own Tranilation, " When Dcmophilus (Bilhop of Coii" ^' Jiantinoplc^ a great Favourer of the Artans) had come ^' thither [to Qzicufrij with Dorotheas Bilhop of Hera-- ^' cleay and other Bilhops, for to ordain a Bifhop in that ^' Church, he was not able to effe<^l:uate his Intention, *^ becaufe the People of Cyziciim did molt conflantly ^^ profels, TOK^fl^.TWi^v o/y.')/o', according to the Dodrine *^ and Inllitution of Eleuftus^ who had confirmed them *' in that Opinion. But when DemophiJus^ and they *^ who were with him, had admitted the Protejfation of ^' "^^ the CyzicemanSy and had anathematized jEtius and *' Eunomius (for that was the Subjed-matter of the Pro^ *^ tejiation^ ISI.B.) and had likewife anathematized ^^ their Faith, and all thofe who embraced their Do^ ^^ dtrine ; the Cyzicenians did at laft admit the Ordina- ^^ tion to proceed, wftjiing ne^oerthelefs^ that no Perfbn *^ ought to be promoted to the Epifcopate, but fuch a one as they Ihould prefer by their Suffrages. Finally, he who was confecrated, did publickly preach the ^ C 99 1 ^ S o N to be confnhjiantial with the Father." Now what has this to do with the Power of Bipops^ or the Rights of People in Eleftions ? But to fet this Affair in a clearer Light^ I will make fome Remarks upon this Ac- count of it. I. Firft then I remark that this which our Author calls a Protefiation^ is in the Greek '7rpU\»tA»i^/< this Abmnciation^ Remmciation^ or Provocation^ was nothing but an Anathefnatizatton of Eu^ mmianifm^ and Etinomians, 3. If there be any thing in this Tranflation that looks like a Proof of the Cyzicenimis claiming a Right in Ek" BionSy it is in thefe Words, Inftfimg mverthtUfs^ that no Per fan ought to he promoted to the Epifcopate^ but fuch a cnc as they poM prefer by their own Suffrages^ But to this I fay, ijfj This was no Pare of their PrC" tejfatim^ which, as I have already remarked, was only an Anathematization, And Q.diyy Thefe Words are ill tranflated* The Greek 'T.^ja-ira./jov. The plain Meaning of the firft Part of which is, ^he Cyzicenians wvald not lufFer a?iy Perfon to come to he ordained. That is, they were refolved to hinder them by Force, if they ihould offer to do fo : not that they protefied^ or canonically ifj/ifted^ againft the Power of or- thodox Bilhops in thetr own Province, The laft Part, as I conceive, ihould be rendred thus, But whom their owf» Recommendations pointed out, 4, I remark, that Socrates^ fi, E, lib, 6. cap, 1 8. tells us. That the Cyzicenians difown'd the Bilhop of Conjtan^ Pinopk'% having any fpwer or Privilege to eleft or or- G % ^ \ [ *0^ ] (daiii a Bifliiop to them, as not being tlie Mefropotitdn of. their Province ) lor they were ^j^TOKKpa^oi that is, fubje<5l to nd Metropolitan, but their own Bilhop, as the fame Hiilorkn tells us, kb^ 7. cap, 18* And therefore if they had really p-otejied againit the Right of DemopbiluSj it had been according to Canon ; and would have been a good Ground of a Plea before a Council. But what has this to do with a Presbyter's protelling againll his own Kiihops ? 5. I remark, that little or no Credit is to be given to this Story, for the forefaid Gothofredus in his Note upon this Chap. 13. o^ Book 9. of Phflo/hrgius's Hifcory, tells OS, that this Affair is not recorded by any other Hifto- rian, but this ylrian. From thefe Things it appears, that this is a moil ah" furd Inflance of a Proteftation made either by People or inferior Clergy-men againil their own orthodox Bilhops, in the Bufinefs of Eledions : And that our Party-rneft are put to hard Shifts, when they are forced to fly to fuch a Precedent for Shelter. Now to return to our Difquifition concerning the Meaning of Eltgere^ That it does not lignify to ekB formally and ccmpkatly^ even.tho' the Perfon thus eUBed were otherwiie well enough fitted with perfonal Qpali- fications, is more than manifell from this Confideration, *^iz^ That tho* great Regard was had to the harmonious Deiires and Requefls of the People, yet if there wxre any finiftrous Pradices fufpe6led in procuring that Con- fent^ the Perfon, by the Canons, was ordered to be re- Jefted, even tho' all the People and Clergy too fliould chufe him. There were two Cafes in which luch Abufes might, and very probably, ordinarily did fall out, which gave occalion for making the Canons againft them. In both which Cales the forefaid Remedy was provided. The firft was, when a Bifliop being by fome Chance, as by Incur* Ipcurfions of Enemies, put out of his proper S^e, dI4> by the fole Call of the People, poflefs himfelf of anq?- ther vacant Diocefe, without the Appointment of a Sy* nod of Bilhops; then he was not allowed to enjoy tha? Church, tho' all the People Ihould unanimoufly require it, by their Cboke, This is the plain and expreis Deter* mination of the Council oiAntiocb^ whofe j(5 Can, is this, amppi-^j.ii v(pctpTci(oi tlv Q^pi'ov ^'lyj^ H Tar A«o<, OV If^'ffZcfiyiV, ihOlTO dJJTOV. The other Cafe in which the fam^j is provided, wap that of an Interventor or Vifitors being chofen by the People to a See of which he was the hitcnmitor. Con- cerning which Cafe here is the J J Can, of the African Cpde^^ 5r«e/ 7^ ^>) c^eJ^e*;/ <^V;cotoj' irmini'-Mv (i.e. intcrventorein) iLct^k^i^cu cr S" ;tcte4crpA ^$2f'«T^/. This is the Titie^ The C^non is, 'Oi^oiu^ uei^)), lUi y.\iJ\m \1^vgu aitriiv} (i. e, mterventori} xcfZv ff^aJ^Mi i) S'tyoTctAdLc, He was not to poflefs th^ Chair, whatever Endeavours^ or even Uproars^ th^ People made for him. From thefe it moft evidently appears, that the mof! ftnammous EkBion of the People gave no canonjcat Right to a See, without the Determination of a Synod, Wherefore the Obfervation of Dr, StiiUngfleet in hia Origines Entanniciocef?, and by lyhomfoevcr they were nomin ucd or piu up (as fonictimes no doubt they were by the Bifhops, fornetim.es by the Clergy and People) the Confent of the Clergy and People of that Dio- cefe was ncccflary in order to the Eleftion. 5. The Concurrence, nay, if yog "will, the final Sentence and Judg- ment of the Metropolitan and Com- provincial BiHiops, was a!fo ncceffa- ry, in as much as it belonged to ifjem. alone to ordain the Perfon c- leded, and therefore when the Deed or Inffrumcnt of Election came to be prefentcd to the Metropolitan and Com provincial Biflnops, who did of ten convcen at the Time and Place of EIe. being duly cjualificd for fh^t facfcd Office. EN^UIRT. 1. When a t'arijh or BifiiopA i-ick was vacant through ih^ D'?.th of the Incumbent ali the Members of that P^r-.J]}, both Clergy and Laity, met together in the Chtjrch ccmtaonly, tp chiife a fit ixTlon for his SuC' ccffor, to whom they might commit the Care a ;d Govern- ment of the Church, p. 46. 1. When the People had thux elcded a bilbop, they prefcnt- ed him to the neighbouring hilliops f)r their Approbation and Confent, bccayfe withouc their concurrent Aflent, there could be no Bifhpp legally in- ftituted or confirmed, p. 47* [This is a Step further than the Ellayer has ventured to go.'] 5. A Bifliop being thus cled- el and confirfned, the next Thing that followed was his Ordination or Inftalment, which was done in his own Church by the neighbouring Bifliop. /. 4^,» [ I03 ] Do they not jump near alike, except that the Efayer is a Foot behind ? Here the Efayer^ as I can underftand him, would have the ElecVion wholly to be made by the inferior Clergy and People ; becaufe, as he fays, the Bilhops Share was to ordam the Perfon d0ed : Or, as he fays EJfay^ p. 45. The Right of eWing this Monarch (b;p the Principles of all derive Governments ) ranji belong to that Body or Society in^hich he is to govern , and more efpccially^ to the fubordinate Goveniors thereof. But belides that in the Vie-w^ I fhewed by many In- ftances, that ail that was allowed the inferior Clergy or People, was to petition and tejlijy^ (which Inllances, as I judge, I have already vindicated in general from theEx- ceptions thefe Gentlemen have made aguinil them ^) I adduced alfo fome aricient Canons to prove the fame, and that the proper^ formal^ full and compleat EltSion belong-^ ed only to Bijhops. I adduced moreover the plain Te* ftimonies of foroe ^earned modern Writers x,Q confirm thefc Things. And now I purpofe, 1. To vindicafe the Canons I adduc'd in the View ^^ little more fully from thefe Gentlemen's Excepti-^ ons againft them. 2. To add fome more Canons to the fame purpofe, And 3. To adjoin the Teflimonies of fome more learnecj Moderns. I. Then the firH Canon I adduced was the 4th of I Nic, Council. The Original of it is fet down in the View^ p,^ l8i. Their Exceptions to this, as I obferved before, ftand entirely upon thefe two Props, viz. That -X^t-.PQT'vict in that Canon fignifies only Ordination^ by which they mean only the JB or Office of Confccration. This the Differtator upon that Canon purfues from Jpp, p, 117 to, p. 131. The next is, That by ancient Tran- fla;:oi;s the Word is rendred Ordmatio^ and therefore ipuft fignify ^s before. This the Di([^rtator purlucs ' G 4 , ^ from [ 104 1 from p. 131 top. 147. an4 then refers to one fingle Modern, viz. the learned Dr. Barrow^ without fening down his Words, p. 147. Now tho' I have aniWered all this in general already, under the Heads ^tr^e^roBt and OrdmatiOy yet Ilhall now add ibme more particular ones. The firft is taken from the Words of the Canon itfelf^ viz. avi^L-^iK^e^^v ytvo(j^lvu>v x^ Gentlemen by ^w^^ always underftand EkBion ; but here the very Abfents are called (Tvfj.'^ri'pot and awjibifj^ot, i. c. in their own fenfe, FclloW'^EleBors and Confenters. Therefore I fay, this Canon regulates the EUBion to be made by Bifhops, as well as the Consecration^ and that even in their own fenfe of the Words; and confequent- ly yj^^iQvU in this Canon, mult of NecefTity lignify bothi To confirm this the more, I add here the Words of the vety learned Bifliop Bcvevidge exprefs for this fenfe, part of which I quoted before. They are in his Syncdl^ cony ^om. 2. /). 48. col. i and 2. and are thefe, (rvu-in(;>cov ius verbis primo intuitu patet^ . canonem hunc^ non de ordi-* iiationis tantum aut confecrationis aBti^ fed y de ipfa ^r tiai?i ele6lione intelligcndum ejje : nimirum tres mimmum adejfe detent^ ut ordinattonem cekhrent ; fed omnes rcJiquos vel adejfe^ vel in fcriptis fiiffragari oportet : at nihil caiifa cfty curfuffragia rcquirantur^ prCdi\Keiv Ivq^ata^ ^^ to put up the Names of the Perfons to he chofen^ or to " hold up their Hands. So that what Right of *' Choice was in the People, it was only in the found *^ and untainted Party, and after all, it was no more ^^ but a Nomination by the People \ for the true Right f' of Eleciion was ftill in the Biiliops. For 3. All this " fignified nothing without the Co?ifent of the Bifhop of ^' jile>;andria^ which immediately follows the other. *^ And is it a fair Thing to mention that Claufe only " (viz, of the People's chuling) in the middle, and to *^ leave out the other two? — It is one Thing for *^ the People to v'opofe or 7wminate Perfons to be chofen, ^^ and another for them to have the Right Q.i EkBion: ^' And it is one Thing for a Perion chofeu to have the *^ Confent oi the Fecpic, and another for them xo have *' the Power to rejecJ him, becauie he dotl^ no; pleafe " them. And again, it is one Thing for the People %o be alloived to enjoy Tome Privileges till the Inconve- niencies of them hi^ve made them be taken away by jull Laws, and another for them to challenge fuch a " Right as inherent in themfelves. If thele Things. were better underftood, k would allay fomQ Men^ <' Heats- [ 107 1 <^ Heats about thefe Matters : For granting that in the *^ Time of the Council oi Ntcc^ the People had the Li- ^< berty of propofing Names, or obje From whence I ** infer, i. That the Choice of the People at that Time ^^ was not allowed, but the main Force of the Election *^ lay in the Provincial Synod. And fo Maviimus Bi- *^ fliop of Antkch^ Juliantis Coenjis^ Diogenes Cyzkenjisj ^^ declared that it belonged to the Bifliops of the Pro- **^ vince to appoint a new Biihop, a^ being molt compe- ^ tent Judges ; and this was the way to prevent Difor- ^* der in the City/' Thus StilUn^eet very fully. Nay even Blondel himfelf does not deny, but affirms that this Canon concerns the Election ot Biihops, and that it attributes the fovereign Power of that Matter to Biihops, tho ■ he would fain hook in the People for fome Share, to make it, at leaft, not contradict his Popular Scheme. His Words are thefe. Cum enlm ^principio im'H^ ufcujufque Eccleji^ clerus S populus communijibi confilw d& Pn^fule prov'idere foltti ejfenty novopofica in Epifcoporum gra^. tiam condito jiire^ Nicena Synodus Can. 4. Antioch, Can^ I^. Laodic. Can. 1 2. Epifcoporum ProvinciaUum Synodum ante omnia cogiy vel ejus duUa viduat^e Ecclejia clerum £^ plehem in fuffragta ire^ v^l ad earn referr^^ nihil fine ea ag-. gredi Jiatuerunt^ CoUegio igitur Epifcoporum promotionem trihuit Canon^ non quaji penes Epifcopos fobs eleBionum jus ejfe deheat^fic cnim ^ populus ^ clerks excludendus fuijjet ; fed quia primas inter eleSfores omnes tenenty totiufque (quan-^. tus quant us ejl) convent us duces ejfc dchent EpJfcopi : hoc a Concilii Nicaeni temporihus extra controverjpam femper fuit.^ Blondel JpoL />. 491. He did not live to fee our Party men^ nor their Protejlation^ ^ff^y-i ^cview-^ and Dijferta-^ tions: The greater is the Pityj he mifs'd the Sight of Friends. The next I adduce is Dr. Hammondy who in his Note upon Jil. xiv, 23. fays of this Canon^ ^^ That Canon ^ of ^ of Nice being of Eleftions, apgotnts them to be by <* three at leail ; whereas this of yeicoToy'iet [meaning " the firft Apollolical] contents itfelf with two or three. And a little after he fays, " That Election evidently *^ belongs to Bilhops in the 4th Nicene Canon/' To thefe I add the Tellimony of Mr. Kingham^ Antlq. Book 4. Chap. 2. n. 10. faying, " In Canon 4th of that " Nkeffe Council^ it is faid, That the Preience, or at *' leaft the Confent of all the Provincial Bilhops, and the *' Confirmation or Ratification of the Metropolitan fhall " be neceflary to the Eledion and Ordination of a Bi- " fhop." Then, according to him, this Canon treats as well of the Eleftion as the Confecration of a Bifhop. Now rU join to thefe four others of an older Date. The firfl three are the three great Greek ScboliaJ^Sy as Bifhop Beveridge calls them, Balfamon^ ZonaraSy and AriJlenuSj whofe Tellimonies exprefs for this are fet down in the VieWy p. 181, 182. 'Tis tsrue the Dijfcrta'' tor J Append, p. 1 20. thinks it convenient to reject their Teilimonies, by faying, They wanted not only in this^ hut in other Injiances^ fo to explain the ancient Canons^ as to make them appear favour able to the PraBices oj thetr own ^imes. But before he had thus lightly rejeded them, I think it was incumbent upon bim to have anfwered the Reafons they advance for this their Opinion. They are thefe two, viz. " i. If the two Canons, to w/tj the *' 4th of Nice^ and the 1 3th of Carthage^ only concern *' Impofitioncf Hands in Ordinmony and yet require three ^' Bilhops at leaft to do this, then they contradidV the " lit Apollolical Canon, which requires only two. The ^' 2. is. That fince both theie Canons require the Pro- *' vincial Bifhops to give their Confent by Subfcription, *' they mull neceiTariiy concern EleSlion ; for fuch Sub- " fcription is neediefs to bare hnpcfition of Hands y which ^ can be done by two or three without it/' The [ "o ] The ancient Scholiafi upon Harmenopultis^s Epitome Canonum Ihall clofe the Rear, who in Scholium i Ttt, i. upon the lit Can, Apofiolick^ and the 4th oiNicCj obferves thiSy 'O /J^ ^AwcToKuv KAvm cree/ KcL^iifioCit,)^ )c^ yji^Qiffioa q-Ikt: • }L±\^. That is, Ihefirfi Canon Apojiolical fpcaks of Con^ fecration afid Impolition of Hands : but that ofthefirli Council of E\t€(ion'^ for it calls this KATi<;-aLaU and x'^c^t-qvU. Jus Grieco'Rofnanum, The Tellimonies of thefe four old Writers are pofi- tive and explicite , yet that of Diofiyfius Exiguus is no lefs certain, who, as I have made plainly appear p, 89, j)0. fupray under the Head of Ordination^ underftands this Canon to dired the whole PromotidmndSettlc?nent *y ind that, according as the Words ordino and ordmatto are ufed by him and other ancient Eccleliaftick Latin Wri- ters, they comprehend the Ek5iion as well as the Confer cration. And Martinus Bracarenfis in his ColleSlio Canonum a^ pud Voellumy has two Verlions of this Nicene Canon. The beginning of the firft is, Epifcopum oportet ah omnibus lEpifcopis^ Ji fieri pot eft J quifunt in ejus 'Provincial ordi-* n iri. The beginning ot the other is, Epifcopum oportet^ maxime quidem ah omni Concilio conflitiii. Which fliew th'it by ordinatlo he underftands the whole Conftituticn or Promotion^ as Dionyfius does. Theie are in Voellus^s Jppendix^ />• I3« '^'0^* i- And in Crifconius's Colle^io Canonum in the faid Ap^ pendix of VoelluSy the Title of this Nic. Canon is, De his qui ad Epifcopatum in Prcvinciis provehuntur : Juft as Dionyfius has it ; and therefore he underftands the Ca- non to concern the whole Projnotion alfo. Nay to let fee how little this Crifconius allows the People in this Matter, he to his Cap. 164. has this Title, ^lod docen-^ dus fit populusj non fcquendus ; and under it. Ex decretis fapa Coeleftini; T'lt. 22. Docendas ejl populusy nonfe'- quefidus^ C "I 1 qtiendtis ; nofquCj ji mfciunt^ eos quid ticvaty quidve non //-» ccat commonerc^ mn his confenfum priehere debemtis. I obferved alio before that this Crifconiiis has no Head whofe Title is, De cMione Epifiopi'^ tho' his firfl is, De igrdinatione EpifcopL Where he alfo refers to the Canons which unqueftionably dired the Election. Which plain- ly fhe ws, as I obferved before, that with him ordinatio includes ele^io. And lallly, as for Dr. BarroiVj the only modern Wri- ter the Dijftrtator mentions (belides Bifliop Bcveridge and Mr. Bingham^ whofe expreis Teilimonies in direct Op- polition to him we have already feen) and he only makes a Reference to him, without quoting his Words : I fay, as for this learned Peribn, he is of the fame Mind in this Matter with Dr. Stillwgfleet^ whofe Tefli- mony I quoted fully above : That "is, that the inferior Clergy and People could tiominate or propofe Petibns to be chofen, but iiad not themfelves the Right oifull and final Ele6fion, And that the 4th Ntc» Canon concerned this final Settlement or Cojiftitution^ which, according to him, was to be made by the Bilhops, the People's No" mination and Remnmendation having been previoufly thereto conlidered and examined. Here are his own Words, from VoL i. of his Works, Lond. 1683, fol. p. 0.22* in his Treatife of the Pope*s Supremacy. " In Procefs oiTim^^ fays he^ when (the Gaps of Di- ^' Itance being filled up, and Chrillendom becoming one ^' continued Body) Ecclefiaftical Difcipline was impro- *' ved into a more compleat Shape ; for Conftituticn of a *' Bifhop all the Bifliops of the Province did conveen, *' (or fuch as could with Convenience^ the others ligni- ^' lying their Mind by Writing) and having approved *' him who was recommended by the Clergy, and al- *' lowed by the People, they did ordain him^^ the Me- *' tropolitan of the Province ratifying whe Epifcopalihus ordinationihus. But for the firft, If Zonaras fancied that anciently Bifhops were elefted by the People 5 1 . He did not think that the People had any Right they could plead for do- ing fb, nor any Ctijlom either, that reached farther than their petitioning^ recommending^ ^^ft^fy^^^h which was, as I have oftimes obferved, all that was meant by their £/^- ^lon. Nor a. did he think that Cuftom of theirs unal--^ terable; for he really thought it actually difcharged both by this Canon and by the 4th of Nice* And for the fecond, mz. of quoting this Canon in the Indexes tinder Ordinationj or entituling it of Ordinationy I have anfwered it fully under the Head of Ordination^ and need not repeat it. Only I will obferve again to him here, That Dionyftus Exiguus'^ Title to the 1 3th Canon ^i Laodicea is^ Judicio multitudinis ordinationes fieri non dehere ; yet his Canon is,, ^wd non f,t permittcndum tm-^ his ele^iones eormn facer e qui fiint ad facer dot imn promO'* vendi : So that in thefe Canons ordmatio and eleSlio with him are equivalent. Of this Canon Df. Stillingfleet faysy " That the Bi-' : ** ihops appointing was not mere ordaining or confecra^^ ^ ^ tingj ^ fame fay j for this Canon oiAntwch {'viz. the ^ i6tb) I t "5 ] '^^ 1 6th) fpeaks of a Biihop already confecrated : And *^ ib likewile the 1 2th Canon ofLaodicca is to be under^ *' flood ; the fame Cafe being fuppoled which is men- *^ tioned in the Canon oi Anttoch. And if he were un- *^ consecrated before, the Laodicean Canon refers the *^ whole Matter, as far as T can difcern, as to the Capa- *^ city and Fitnefs of the Perfon, to the Provincial Sj^ *^ md." Grig. BriU Cbap^ 3' P- 99' And Dion^tus E^igmSy tho' he has the title of tliis Canon, de Epifcopalibiis ordinationibuSj yet it is plain from the Canon itfelf, that by this Word he under- ftands the whole Promotion and final SettletnenU The Canon in his Words is, Epifcopi judicio Metropolitanorum^ ^ eornm qui circmncircaftint^ provehantur ^r/ Ecckjiajlicam potcjiatem. their whole Promotion to the Poteftas^ as well as the Ordo^ is from the Bifliops of the Province* But before I leave this Canon, 1 will ask thefe few Queftions, viz. If the Party all along acknowledge! what this Canon enacVs, to wit, fhat Eifloops ought to he conjiitnted in their Ecclejiajiical Government hy the Judg'^ mtnt of the Metropolitans ^ and the nelghhounng Bijhops^ then, I ; Why do their Party^wriiers fo fiercely oppofe the Viewj which chiefly fets up to maintain this ? a. What Room is left for the decifive Vut^s of the in*^ ferior Clergy and Peopk P 3; Why w^as the Protefiation made againft the Collegei of Bilhops, even their Primus not excluded, (w horn the Party at that time and fi nee called their Metropolitan^ when they were doing wHat they ought to do, viz,. judging of the Proinotion of a Eillaop to his Ecclefiaftical Government ? 4i Why have they made fach a Breach in the Go-^ vernment of this Church, as to ek^^ and ordain Bifhopa in Oppoiition to the Plurality of them ? 5* Why do they afcribe the Right of a Biihop to hia H 3^ ^-hargei I U6 3 Chatge, to the fole Eleftion of the Pfesbytets of theDi- j(lric>, and pra(n'ire fo j or at moft adjoin to it what they call a C^fifirmatiofi by one of their Party^Su^ragans ? Their ordinary Refuge, of their being C/f o/>i^// Bifliops^ and Biiliops at large ^ is directly contrary to this Canon ; for each of the Bilhops of the College, except one, now of their own Party, had been then conftituted in their Eccleikftical Government, by xhe Judgment of him whom they called the Metropolitarfj and the neighbouring Bipop^ and therefore were canonically fettled^ I proceed now to fee what they fay to the next Ca* non, i'i;s. the 13th of the fame Council* It is in th^ Dijertato/s Words, Append, p. 151. ^hat the Multitude le not permitted to choofe them ivho are to be fettled in the Friefihocd, This Canon feems to be pretty plain, even in their own Words ^ yet the lubtile Dijfertator has fal-^ len upon a Shijiy to evade it by a nice t>iJlinSion, It is this, That ^ox>-©-^ is a projnifawus Rabble^ and xaoi, the JPeopIe. Upon which he fays, l^his Canon does indeed pro'^ hibite -m^ oyxot;. a promifcuous Rabble, to ekBy hut not Tw Aocw, the People. Now to this i anfwer, i. That truly I find no fuch JDiltinftion in my Didionaries j and how could I re^ mark it ? But this Gentleman fays, 7'hc Yiewet pould remark the Difference betwi>:t oy^\ ^^ and Kcto^y the Mob or Rabble, and the Body of the People, i. e. the Magiftfates and Gentry, and often alfo the Clergy included. To this I fay. Truly this is the firft time that I ever heard of the Magijf rates and Gentry and Clergy being called the Body of the People^ I d; te fay this is entirely his own : He ihall have the He nour of it for me. Is this the Plebs (the common People) fo often memioned in this Affair, in the Writings of St. Cyprian <" But to be a Ittle more feriotrs : Do the Scriptures mak^ any fuch D.filndion ? Do they prefer the Rtch be- C "7 3 fore the Poor in Matters of Religion? I doubt this will not be found either in our Saviours or St. James ^ Cha- rafters of rich Men. Bqt to come clofer to the Canon : " If the Canon *' 13th of Laodicea [concerning the 1>yK@- ] be un- ^^ derflood of Bifliops (fays Dr. Stillmgjjeet) the Con- *^ fequence will be that the People will be wholly *' excluded from their Eledion, till it can be made ^' appear, that at that Time the Generality of the '' People were fliut out, and the Eledion retrained to ^^ the common Council ; which is contrary to the Ex-^ *^ amples brought for Popular Ele^ions^ which mention " tht whole Multitude J as in yltbana/^us^sOdih^ tht whole '' People^ the pJchis vulgiquc judicium in Jerom^ the vota ^' civium in Leo^ as much fpokpn of as the bonoratorum ^' arhitrium. And by the fame Reafon, any of the " People may be excluded, the reft may ^ qr at leaft in " Ihews, that the People have no inherent and unalter-* ^' able Right, without which all other Pretences llgni-* ^' fy nothing, where Law and Cuftoms have determined ^' the contrary.'* Qrig. Brit, Chap. 3, p, pp, V>oqs the Dodor here ? Do the Examples he mentions make any fuch Diftjndion between "ox^-Q- and kao^, as our learne4 Dijfertator does ? Do they allow the Right of electing to the one, and exclude the other from it ? I think nor. Here follows Dr, Combers Teftimony of both, ^' ^Tis ^' well known the Generality of the People are fo bacj ^' Judges, that if they had fach a Right (viz. to elecft ^' their Billiops) the moft Votes would commonly fall ^' on the worft Men, An empty, cunning and plaufible ^' Hypocrite would ealily get more Sv^ffrages arpong th^ ^' Mob of a City, than the moft knowing, humble an4 ^' holy M^n, who leaft feek ;he Honour they moft de-» " ferve. And if the Ele(^^ion were to be made in ^n Afc ^^ fembiy of the better fort of Citizens, the Matter ^S y{Ow\^ not be much mended, for \n fu^h Bodies of H ^ " Men ^ Men the Opinions are numbred, not weighed.*^ Cofupafiion to the J'emple^ Lond. 1 702. fol. VoL 2. />. 2 1 b^ 2. And tho' our Author fays. That the beft Latin Trahflators have always rendred this Canon thus, Non e^ permtttendmn turhi's^ Szc. yet Diori]\/ius Esiguus makes no piftindiqn betwixt Midtitudo and Turha. He has^ as I noticed before, Midtitudo in its Title, and ^urke \i\ the Body of it. Nay Martinus Bracarenjts in his Col^^ kSfio Cmohum has it rendred thus, Non licet pepuk ele-- iliomn} facere mum cut ad facerdotium prornoventur. And in another Yerlion of it the|-e (for he has two of cheni) lie has it, Non Itcet popuUs^ See. Therefore the old Trani]ators did not own this Dillinftion between oy^^Q- ^nd ActJf. ^ Nor dp learned nioderp Authors either. For ^bo^ majjin of this Canon fpeaks thus, Itaciue hoc canone non fdo fuff)'agii qualifcunque^ aut tejiirnonti jure excujfa efi flehst ~- - fed illud dcfimtum cjl^ mn cs "voluntate pkVis^ cut facile illudit vel impentia^ vel cupiditatum fafcmati'A^ fed ex judicib y arbitrjo Epifcoporufn t'ermina?idas effe elc" f hone's, ' Thomait P^rf. 2/ lib. 2. cap. 2. ^1^2= Here he does not ufe ^'urb^e^ but the Piebs^ as; St. Cy-^ ffian always doe^. '" ' And Grotius fays expreily, Imo Laodicenfls Synodus^ fujus 'canone's funt acwmenico concilio approbati^ pppulares' elecHpnes rejicit : vct:cit enirn Sy nodus ./< oyho <; i^tro'-.-T^^.v^ ^Ce ut in canone, <3rot. dc imper.fnnm. pot. p. 287. The Dfjertator indeed refers us x.o p. 20 arid 21. of his Append, to fee that by ^iirb'a: muit be lueant the liabble, " I grant it is fometimes fo, though not always; pfirticularly not in this Canon, as is evideni: from the Tranflations and' Notes upon it, which I hav^e given from ancient Tranllators and learned Authors, who do xiot fo'underfland tx^^^^ in the Canon.^ And all that can be drawn juHly from the Capitulary oi Charles tho Oreat, ^pp/ p»2Q. compared with Diony/'ks Esiguu/$ • Tran- Tranflation of this Canon, repeated in thefe Capitularies collected by Baluzius^ and cited Jpp^ jp. 2 1 . is, That in Puifuance of that Laodicean Canon, the very; Liberty of petitioning and teftifying had been taken from the Clergy and People, a long Space before the Reign of Charles the Great, which he was pleafed, by a free Con- ceffion of his own, to reitore to them. For it is certain, as perhaps I fhall prove afterwards, that after this Deed of that Emperor, the People and inferior Clergy enjoy* ed no greater Privilege than this. And that in Purfuance of this Canon, even this Liber-^ ty had been taken from the Clergy and People (for they had nothing of it in the Time of Balfamon and Zonaras) we plainly fee from l^bomajfnh endeavouring to vindicate this very Canon from that Interpretation, faying, Itaque hoc canone non fue fuffragii qitalifcunqtie^ aut tejlimonii (JSf, jB. by Suffi-agium he means only 7efli??ionmn) jure excnjja ejl plehs. Thomaff Fart, 2, lib, 2. cap, !• J i* To this purpofe he fpeaks of the ancient manner of El^-^ ftion, Jbid, cap, 5. $' 2. faying, ^lanqiiam ergo rogaren-^ tiir cleri fuffragia ^ tejlimorna pkbis^ certo tamen conftat ipfani Epifcopi elediionem aiithori y principi MepopolitanOy Synodoqne Epifcoporum provinciae vendicandam ejje. Where-* tore he leaves nothing to the Clerus and Plcbs but their H^'ejlimonia or Suffragiay which with hini are all one, and mufl be fo. So that what he thought Balfamon and Zonaras impo-» fed upon in, by the Cullom of their own Time, was jul^ this and no more. That they fancied that by this Z^o- dicean Canon the People were deprived of the Liberty of giving even their Nomination and ^ejiimony in Ele6lions of Bilhops ; and this was it that Charles the Great rello- red to them, and no more. So that by thefe Capittila-f riesy the Tlurb^ or People^ not the Canalia (as this Gentleman is pleafed to render it) were altogether de-^ privedj as they had ever been, gf the Right of proper H 4 0n4 I no ] ^^^ formal EleSf ion *^ but nop of the Liberty of declaring thp Choke J they had made in their own Mind, by their J^omi nation^ Recommendntion^ Petitions and T'ejiimotiy* And thus thefe two Capitidmcs are fairly reconciled, without corrupting the ordinary Ufe of Words. Nay, this is the only way to reconcile the Privilege fcheie Capitularies give in this Matter to the CkriiSy Ordo and i^/tf/'j, Jpp, p. 3a, with the Laodicean Canon, Here again the Appendix-writer is put to a hard Pinch, evea fQ make a Dillindion between Plehes and Turh^^ which Vny confident is his own. He's very nimble at a Strait: But i woi^ld ask him, Where were ever the Canaily the lC>rcgs of the People, the Moh^ permitted to eled, that they needed to be reitrained frpm it by the Laodiceatt^ Canon ? This is lliocking even to common Senfco I faid fuch a Diftindion between ly>(?r and xtU is nor to be found in my Dictionaries ; and npw I fay the very dir^d contrary is there. Stephanus in his T'hcfaU'? rus iays, Item dicitur pliiraii mir^ero^ t oyj.oi pro oxhQ-^ vzultitudoy hoc efi populus^ vuJgus, Where he gives fun-* 41ry Inftances of this out of good AuthorSo '^FKwa-i,' -n -yrhMQ- 'fk A.aiJ. That is, ''o^A©- IS the Body of the People. Becaufe of thefe many and grpfs Abfiirdicies xo which diis InterpTCtation is obnoxious, the judicious Gentler nian feems to be difpleafed at it himieUi and therefore gives qs another: It is this, Or the Canon might he underjhod (fays he) to prohibitt the oyjiQ-' alone^o ekdfj but to wait for the \-f!^'7r^cTenoi^ the ^pft)'T3.' and the KXnpoc, I ask again. Were ever Ele- tilion^ prad^lifed vc\ fqch an impplfible Manner, that fuch l^^adices needed to be retrained by a Canon? Thus to bend this Canon, this infiexibie Canon, and jnake it ply to the Party s Scheme, he is forced to run into the groiieft Abfurdities, or to feign Cafes utterly im- [ III 1 impoflible, to create E^Z/Vj Ratknis^ Chimeras^ Centaurs:^ This is the ufual Fate of thofe who wander from th^ ftrajght Road. But the Truth of the Matter is this: He was necefli* ^atcd to forge fuch abfurd, fuch impoffible Interpreta- pons, on purpofe to get fome Colour for the clandefilm 'Subfcriptions feparately gathered by the Prf?r^/^r and his Party of late. But after all, what do they figuify to the Jui]:ification oftheir PraSices of elefting by Presbyters only^ They are as much contrary to theie as the forqier Canon is. Indeed fuch pitiful Artifices are utterly needlefs, con- fidering that that former Canon fo exprefly appoints, ^' That Bifhops ought to be cpnffcituted in their E;pcle^ f fiaftical Government by tht^ Judgment of the Metro-? f^ poll tans and neighbouring Bifhops." From all this it is moil evident that th^fe two Canons alone batter down and demolifh their whole Armament, and totally overthrow, Unk and ruin their Caufe, There \s no other way left, fo;- them to take with them, but to declare them fpurious^ as the Effayer^ £//%'> jp* 49*? finds it neceflary to do by the 37th Canon Apjiolicah ^ut thjs fhall be examined afterwards. In the mean time I proceed to confider what he lays. of the next Canon adduced in the Vicw^ p. 1 84. "viz, the i 3th oitht Greek Council oi CartbagCy or of the Ajrkan Code. The lall Part of it, which was mofl pertinent to my purpofe, I tranflated thus, " Many Bilhops there-^ *' fore being met together, fhall chufe a Bilhop, But if ^' Neceffity require, three Bilhops met in any Place,, ^^ ihall, by the Conimand of the firll BilKop, make the ^^ Eledion.'' This Verfion I took from Bifhop Eevc^^ ridges Latin Verfion of it in his SynodicoHy cpmpared with the GreeL That Latin Verfion, as to this lalt Part of the Canpn is this, Multi ergo ccngrcgati Epifcopi Eptfcopum eligent ( in the Greek x^CPTonrnffty ) Sin mtm meceffttas incumbaty tres Epifcopij in quocmque loco fuerht^ Primatis jujfti ellgcnt (xete^Tovixraaiv) Epifcopum. 1 think t)oth, that I was following a good enough Author, and that it is fairjy rendred ; yet the Dijfcrtator is pleafed to make a Pother about it. I fliall now confirm this Verfion by the Teffimonies of other three Men of undoubted Learning. The firft is de Marca^ who lays down this Rule, jyehere EplfcO'^. fos provincia illius in qim ordinafidus cfi E^pifcopus^ ejus eJe^ionem approhare^ eique confoifus fitos adbihere • ^jiva fell voce^ fi pr^fentes fmrint ^ aut per literasj fi eos ahcjjl contingat, De concord, facer d, y imper, lib. 6. cap. a, §' 1 1^ And for this he cites this very Canon. Tlfe next is Dr. Barrow^ v/ho fays, '' For Conftitu- ^^ tion of a Bifliop all the Bifliops of a Province did con-» ^' vene (or fuch as could with Convenience, the others ^^ fignifying their Mind by Writing) and having appro* ^* ved him who was recommended by the Clergy, and ^^ allowed by the People, they did ordain him, the Me« ^^ tropolitan of the Province ratifying what was done.'^ Pop/s Supremacy. Works^ Vol. i. p. ■ill. And for Proof 01 this he alfo cites this Canon^ The third is Grotius^ who fays. At earn (fciz. ehBtoncm Epifcoporwri) qua per compromnc'iaks Epifcopos fit^ p'ohat Nicagnae Synodi magna Can. 4. Ubi in Graco codice nulla plane populi mentio^ ut nee in Theodoreto, qui ejus cano" nis fententiam duobus locis rccitat^ nee in Carthaginenli tonciliq primo cujus Can. 13* manifejfd ISlicaenum ilium rcf- pcit. De imper.fumm, potefi. p. 299. After thefe Teftimonies, one would wonder, Ifliould think, what Doubt the Dijfertator^ or any other, could have about the Meaning of it. Yet than Wonder may cea^e, when they fee that all that he fays againll it, is expreily founded upon Crifconius's reteriing to this Ca- non^ in his Breviarimn^ under the He id of Ordinatio y and upon Dwnyftus Exiguus's rendring yj:i^T9v%« by O/-? dinoc. f: ^^3 ] iino* Which Scruples (for they can at befl: amount to no more) I am fure, I have fuificiently difcufled alrea- dy. And therefore I Ihail now only make fome Re-^ rnarks upon a few particular Paflages of the Differta" tors. 1. He fays, !>. 152. //>/. 14* T'be Reader will ohferve^ f'%at the original Word yeic'^'^ouno-atriy is tranjlated by this Author choofe, a}id make the Eleftion. To this I anfwer. That I exactly followed the Schor Hums o^ Balfamonj Zonaras^ and Jrijlenus^ together (as I have faid) with Bifhop Bcver'tdgeh Latin Verlion, both in his Tranllation of ?/?/>, and of the three preceeding Canons, withvout having any Deiign upon -/Hesrovieo to make it declare for me. But againll all thefe, and the tiiree famous Writers I "cited a little above, this inge- nuous Gentleman has no other thing to lay in the Bal- lance but his own miilaken fenfe of the Word Ordino in Crifconins and Dionyfius. If this be oi fufficient Weight to cajl the Scale againft what I have laid in againit them, let the judicious Reader determine. 2. In Purfuance of this his groundlefs Fancy concern- ing Onj/f/^?, he fays, ^. 155. ^l:)at it appears^ that the Greek y^,ejTo-Aco mxifi he aWord corrcfpondtng to the original Wordj which it is fit to denote^ and oj Confequencej can on-^ ly ftgn'tfy Ordinare, not Eligere. To this the Anfwer is eafy, o/;z. Ordinary compre- hends Eligere-^ and fo his Obferve is falfe, 3. He fays, p, 156. lin, 2. "therefore certainly the ^/^, p-jops in the Council of Nice meant Ordination, ipy their i\th Canon. To this I anfwer, as I did before, That ^tis certain, as I have demonllrated above, that that Canon direds both ItikSion and Confecration ; and fo the Word fio-nifies in Dtonyfiiis. ° " 4. P. 156. ////. 27. Becaufe it is faid in the 12th Can, «)f id Counc, ^iC^tkage^ J^ dejidmtm populi Epifcopum ordh [ 124 ] ^rdharcy heobfefves, />. 157. l^bat the People were in ufc at that I'tme to eled. I anfwer, This is very well obferved indeed, becaufe it is, Ad defiderium populi^ i. e» At the Dcjire of the People^ This is formal Ektlion certainly. 5. P. 157. he aifo obferves, 'that fo fnaJl a Number as three Bifhops are empowered to ordam^ by a Precept from the Metropolitan^ To this I anfwer, That were it not for the EkSliou they were to make, and that the reft were obliged to give their Confent by Letters, fewer than three^ that is, two might have done the Bufinefs, according to Can^ Jpoji, I, And that the reft of the Bilhops, if abfent, were obliged to give their Confent by Letters, at leaft the Plurality of them, is evident from the laft Words of the Canon itfelf, as Dionyfms has it, 'uiz. Et ft qiiis contra fiiam profejfmiem vel fubfcriptionem venerit in aJiquOy ipfc fi honore privabit, 6. He fays, p. 157? ^e ift Canon Ukewife of the 4th Council of Carthage, Ann, 430. will aford new Light fa this Matter^ I anfwer, That Ordinare there evidently fignifies the whole Progrefs ; and that by the Protcfiers own Ac-v kLowledgment, who fays in the Protejiationj as we have it in the Appendix^ P- '^7* ^ P^^^ therefore conclude them with the ift Canon of the ^h Council o/' Carthage, which €c;npripth ihe whole Pra^ice of the Church in relation to. this Matter. And the only Latin Word for all there is Ordino. And now becaufe this Gen^lem^n is pleafed to fay ve-? ry civilly, p, 160. Vm pretty fur e he had few others (viz, CcinOiis) if any at ally to produce. This was becaule I had liad in the View^ p. 184. " That I fhall not trouble " either my Reader or my felf with more Canons to this *^ purpofe at this prefent Tim^, becaufe I think thefe f^ (viz. the four Cancp^s I have now: vindicated^ f^ffi^ [ t^S 1 ^ cient to evidence the fenfe ot the Chufch in this Af- ^< fair/' rU anfwer the Dijfertatcrs Jfnrafice now, I fay^ I. He would iiiin teprefent me as a Dijjemblery to fay- no worie of it* 2* But what if I had had no othets to prbdtice ; yet I produced j'o/zr times fo many as the Protejier did in his Protejfation^ who, among all his Flouriih of Teftimonies^ did not ptoduce one Greek Canon at all ^ nor a Latit^ ()ne neither, but the lalt named one, viz, the ill Can, of 4th Council o^Carthage, And that only fpeaks of the Confcnt of the Clergy and Laity, which, as no Body can doubt, may as well be given by Recovtmendations^ Pcti'^ tions^ and good T'efilmomes^ as by Votes. And therefore that Canon does not fpeak up to his purpofe. 3. But to let the Reader and this Gentleman lee how* much his Jjfiirance fails him, I fliall jull now produce as many again and more, all of undoubted Antiquity^ till the hffayer^ to ferve his prefent Turn, was pleafed to call one of them in QuelHon. By which Attempt, by the by, we may judge of the Truth of his Scheme^ which cannot be maintained, unlefs the Canons of the Church, of whofe Genuinenefs none ever made Qpefliofi before himfelf, be removed to make way for k. They and it cannot Hand both together : One or other of them' muft fall. II. And ici \ come. to perfofrri what I promifed to da in the Second Brunch ot tliis Head of Elefiio?iy viz. ^ add fome more Canons to the fame purpofe, I fhall give theie Canons in the Words of Mr. Jvhifons Verlion, as they ftand in his Vade 7necum^ to cut off all Ocealion of quarrelling with my Tranilation. The hrit I produce is the celebrated 36. ah yj, Apo-^ fioUck one, or 29. in Mr. Johnfotis Order. It is cited in the original Greck^ View^ p, 288, upon another Occa- fion J which if the Vijjktator had duly noticed, he mighc [ 126 J tnight perhaps have abated a little of his Aflurance^ The Canon is this, If any one being ordained (yH^cTor»^.^^J Btpopj gOy and he not accepted by Reafon of the Per-^ verfcnefs of the People^ and not of kis own Wtlfflnefs^ let him remain Bijbop • but let the Clergy of that City be fuf-~ pended froin Communion^ becaiife tPjcy have not been Corre." 6iors of fitch a refra{lory Peopkc Mr. fohnfons Nose upon this Canon is, " This Ca-^ ^^ non Ihppofes, that it was in the Breall of the Bilhops^ *' and not of the People, to iupply a vacant See, by *' electing a new Eilhop." And I remark by the by, that the Word y^^orsmOrtV here iignifies both Ele^ion and Ordinationy or Confecrati-^ OHj and both thefe done by the Bilhops ^ for the Clergy and People are fuppofed not to be coiicetned in it,- And accordingly Mr. Johnfon in the Body of the Canon ren- ders it ordained ; but in his Note, eleciingi This is another Canon then for the Bipop^s fove^'eign power in Ele^ions^ The EJfaycr was fufficiently fenlible of this, and therefore, to avoid the Force of it, calls in Qiaedioii the Antiquity and Geniii?ienefs of it, Efjay^ p, 49. faying,- Here I cannot hut ohferve by the hy^ that the ']jth pre-^ tended Jpofolical Canon (which fome People of late have made fo much Noifs zmthj could not then {viz* in Athana-i y^///sTime about the Year 340*) have been known inthefi great Churches o/"R.ome and Alexandria ^ elfe thefe twd famous Bipops (^viz. Julius of Rome and Athanafius) would never have asked^ what Eccleftaflical Canon permit^ ted a Bifmp to be ordained without the Defire of the Clcr^ gy and People^ This is his only Objection againft it* And from this I Ihall evidently clear it, by thefe Steps ^ I, By giving a brief D^dudion of the Manner ho \v' Gregory (of whom Julius and Athanafius make this Complaint) was fent to AU^andria. ■wm i. By confidering their Words^ and Ihewing the Im- port of them. 3. By adducing the Tedimdnies of fome learned Men, concerning the Antiquity of this Canons 4. By producing two other Canons^ of two other Sy- nods, one betbre and another in the Time oiAtho' nafiiis^ Avhich have the fame Import* 5. fey an Argument oA hominem. I. Firji then, the Account of the Affair is thiSj as^SW crates tells us, H, E, lib, a. cap. 7* And as Julius Bi- fliop of Rome himfelf does in his Epiflle in Anfwer to thofe Arian Bilhops who fent Gregory from Antioch to Akmndriiiy as we have it in Athanafuis's Second Apology^ It is this, Eufcbius o?Nicomedid^ a violent AriaUy and feveral 0- ther Arian Bifliops, to the Number of 36* met in a Sy- nod of their own at A/ttwcb^ in order to fubvert the A//- ce'/ie Faith, and eltablifli that of the Ariansn In which Synod neither Athanaftus^ nor any of the Bifliops of his Province (N, B.) were prefent, being at that Time ba- niflied from their Sees, by the Influence of the Arians^ becaufe they adhered to the Nicene Faith, as they them- felves tell us in their Synodical Epiille recorded alfo ia that fame 2d Aplog, of Athanafms, It was that Arlak Synod tliat fent Gregory an Arian^ and an utter Stranger at Aksa^idria to take PofiefTion oi Athanafius^s Chair, and that with a military Force too, to prevent the Oppofiti- on which they were fure the People would make againft him. Now to fet afide thefe two weighty Circumitances, viz, I. That ^/^^«^^5, the rightful Biiliop of that See^ was ftiJl alive. And 2. That Gregory^ who was fent in his Room, was a rank Arian. I only remark this, That this Election and Miifion was made without the PrefencCy not to fay the Cotifent of any of the Biihops of the Pro- vince:. Bar [ j=^s ] But before that Time the Council o^Nke had by 'flieit 4th Canon, and that made according to anaent Cuftom, fenaded. That all Ekaions of Bifhops, and their Ordi- nS? (hould be petformed by the B.(hops of the Pto^^ Vince. 'Therefore the 37th Apoftohcal Canon fuppofes that th6 Ordination and Miffion of the Bifliop itfpeak* ofis performed in that manner. Therefore that Ordination and Miffiori of Gregbry was diredly contrary to both thefe Canons; and confequent- iv both theie Canons might well be extant, and known too even to -fulm and Jtbma/ms, w^eii they made Ihei'r Comolaiut againft that, uiicanonieal Procedure. A nrl trnlv the very Words ot their Queftion feem to re- feftrtSt ve^ylpoftolical Canon, as I Ihall juft riow *" n' tCi come to confider their Words, and the import of them. I fliall take them juft as *ey y tran- Ji ^ J •„ .-K/. VIViv t AC. " What Ecclefiaftical Canon SliV«/Ll^ what Vftollcal Tradition admits of « SS !£_ That Grw ftiouldbe fent, a Stranger M « the City, neither baptized there, nor known to the « mod of them, being neither demanded > «ir.,eivT«. ua *' 7sked,Mht)\j the Presbyters, by the B.lhops, not « bAhe People? For although Jthanajii^sh^i « blen found guilty after the Syaod, none ought to « have been ordained after this unlawful manner, con^ « trarv to the Ecclefiaftical Canon. ... Nollince Gregory was not fo much as f^ght by the BiflSofSe Province of ^to Wn^, and tar lels or- Sned and eleded by them, as he ought to have been, Sding to the Nilem Canon, and accordmg to the So& one too, which fuppofes fuch Ordination rX the Nkenc Canon appointed nothmg new in this katter^ had not Julius great Reafot, to ask this Que- S fuppofing thi he kLw both thefe Canons, which fc^ere really tranfgreffed by that Fad. ^,_^^ [ 1^9 ]_ ^ Nay, as I faid before, he feems indeed to refer to tliat Apoflollck Canon. For by making the Alternative, viz. JSfeitbcr by the Prcshyters^ nor by the BiJhopSj »or by the People^ he fuppofes that if he had been lought by any of thefe Ranks^ he might have been lent, and far more, if lie had been chofen and oirdained by the JBifliops of th^ Provihrb. , Indeed Athanqftus fays, " All Things ought to have ^ been canonically done and examined, the People and *' Clergy being prefent;| and demanding him." (daT«^«i/, i. e. askings fecking) No doubt this would have been ta-* nonically done. Biit does he fay, that it would have been umanonkal^ if the Bifhops of the Province had cho- len, ordained and fent him? No fuch thing. Therefore he might have faid all this, and yet have known the Apoilolick Canon. But here I miiit remark, i. That all that the Clergy and Laity are laid to do, is to reqiurCj ask^ fuck or de-^ hnand^ as the EJJajer renders the Word ^V>.«. And here I cannot forbear to take notice of De Manas feiife of thefe Words of Atbanafius in the PafTage fet: down id the EJJay^ viz. ylccordwg to the EccUftaJltcal Camns^ and i he Words ofSt.VcwAj the People being gathered togtthery and the Spirit of the Ordain ers ^ he explains thefe Word a thus, Fr^terea clerics ^ populus con'gregari dcbent elm E^ pifcopis qui dc face efft one tra^i'ant^ y eontmfpiritui ejfe con-* jun£fi^ id ejl^ ab eoriun judi'cio pendere^ lUifqUc dccernetiti" bus obfequi, De concord, facerd. & imper* lib. 8. cap. 4- § 2. Is lie of the Mind that the People were the Ele-^ ^fVorg, which to prove the Protejier quotes this from A^ i'!oanafyUs in the Protejiationy arid in that p* 49. of the I remark, 2. That Athdndjiiis indeed fays, it woiild be canonical, if the Clergy and Laity ihould be prefent at ihaking their Requeil. But if this be indifpenfably necef- ury, or, at lealt, If the Canon be cranigielled without it^ I thea tli^n what becomes ot the Canonicalnels of feme lat« pretended EledioDs and Confecrations among us, where neither were the Clergy nor Laity ailembkd, nor any Requell made to the Bifhops, unlels it was to one old Ivlan at the Point of Death? and that only by a Perfon 6t two* And now I proceed to the I'hird Thing I prcH tnifed here, which was, III. To adduce the Tefti monies of fome leajned Men tbncerning the Antiquity of this Canon. The firjr I adduce is Biihop Beveridge^ who tells us, I'hat Dicn)fws Exigims about the Year 500, prefixed x.6 the Code of the Eajfsrn Church his own Latm Verfioa of the firil 50 of the Apoltolick Canons (of which this 37 is one) and that from that Time thefe 50 Canons nave been received, without Exception againft any of them, by almoil all the Wejicm Church, elpecially that of Ro?ne, Non citius autem (fays he) edit a eft hac TAo^ liyfiana canomim interpret at ioj quam ah Ecck/ta Rom ana recepta Et ah eo ufqiie tempore per tot am propemodmrt cccidentem hi ^o canoncs^ iiqtte foli^ K^o^oloxMmtitido di^ gnatifunt, ^ inter reliquos conciliormn canones a Dionyfio veyfos ohfervati. Bever. Jmiot. in Can, />. 1 . ^ 4. in 2 Tom^ Again he tells us, that thefe Canons, from the 34 to the 50 are fo fram d, that even Dallce himfelf could find no Fault in any of them. His Words are, Canones Apo(loUci a tricefimo quarto ad quinquageftmum (the 37 is here included) it a conditi fiint^ iit ipfe DaBaeus nihil its initio vertere^ ncc injiciari pojfet cos S. Apoftolorum temper^, y doBrinam fapere, Bever. Cod, Can, Ecclef prim^ vindic* Lend. 1678, 4to, cap. 6» lib. 2, § 1. Our EJfayer is f©nie quicker lighted than Dallee. The ne:>it I addoce is the Author of the original Draught ^ who /). 136. fpeaks thus of this Canon, ^^ What Senfe " Cf^y^ ^^J can we make of that very primitive Cafton ^' of the Church, which taxes the People of a Dioeefe *^ with greats Iniquity, who would not receive a Biihop t t3t 1 ^ ordained for them, and fent to prefide over thiem ? ^ Nay, fufpended the Clergy of that City, for not in- ** ftruding fuch an infolent People any better \ which ** are the exprefs Words of the 36 Apoftolical Canon? *^ What fenfe, I fay, can we make of fo ancient a Ca- ** non as this, if it were not familiarly in ufe iu thofe *^ primitive Times, to ordain a Bifhop for a vacant Sce^ *^ without the People having any Concern in it ? And they ^^ who can believe that Canon to be of later Date than *' the third Century^ at the nioft, after all the Evidence ^ which learned Antiquaries have given to the contrary, ^* will hardly be brought to Reafon Fm afraid/' I wim this be not fulfilled of fome among us, whoquellion the Antiquity of this Canon* I hope the original Draught is tny Friend here» The lafi I adduce is Mr. Johnfon^ whofe Notes upon this Canon I fet down here, to Ihew that he thought it of ancient Date. He fays firlt, " This Canon fuppofes, that it was in " the Breafts of the Bijhops^ and not of the People^ to *^ fupply a vacant See, by ele6iing a new Biihop," Then he gives his Reafons why the Clergy were to be cenfu- red when the People were refradory. And thefe Ihew that he thought it Very ancient. The I. is, " Becaufe the People were;, in the primitive^ *' Times, very much at the Diredion and Devotion of •^ the Clergy^ and therefore if they did not accept their ^^ Bifhop, 'twas prefumed that the Clergy were the Oc- " cafion of it." Is this our Cafe ? Was it fo in Bilhop Nories Time? 2. " To fufpend the Clergy from Communion, Was in *' EfFe6l to fulpend the People too : for they could not ^ communicate without Priefts ^, but it was againll the *^ ancient Ride of the Church to excommunicate the Mul- ^ titude." The Canon itfel^ and thcfe Reafoas Ihew ^o^ That I 2 ibc ttle Protejier himfelf, for protefting againft his BiiKopi for fending one of their Number to a vacant Dillri(!:t, and thofe of the Clergy who fubfcribe'd his Commiffioii for doing fo, ought all to have been fufpended from the Communion of the Church. iV. And that it was no tmiifual Thing m the primH live Church, for the Biihops of the Province to chufe, otdain, and fend a Bifhop to a vacant See ; nay, that ic Wa-s fdiniUarly in tife then to do fo, as we fee the judi- cious Author of the original Draught faying of it above : And that therefore it could not have been unknown to Julius and Athanafius^ no, nor the Apoflolick Canon neither^ is molt evident from fome other Canons parallel to, of the fame Import with, nay, and conceived almofi in the fame W'^crds with the Apoltolick Canon, plainly fuppofing that it was done without the Concurrence ox th^ teople* I Ihall adduce two exprefs for this, and an- other from whence the fame thing may not unreafon- ably be- collected \ and therefore alfo thefe two firft are fo many other Canons I produce to proVe the fbvereigit Power of Biihops in thefe Eleftions. The firft of thefe Canons was made more than twenty Years, according to Antiquaries, before the Time when Julius and Atha-* naftus wrote thefe Letters, about the Year 315^ where- as their Letters were mofl probably wrote about, or noti long "before the Year 340. It is the 1 8 Canon of the Council of Ancyra^ the Be* ginning of which is in thefe Words, Ei r/rg? 'ETtV;to^o/ ka- fLA^nat&'.'y 8cc. That is. If there he any Bijhops appointed^ and not received hy the Dioccfe^ for which they were deftgnd, tn\ fure this plainly fuppofes, that they were thus ap-» pointed without the Co?icurrcnce of the People^ elfe they would not have oppofed their Reception. The ^^x? is the i8 Canon df the Synod oi Anticchy beid aifo ia the Tims of Athanajhisy and to whofe Te-* [ ^33 1 irrees he could not be a Stranger : The firi! Part of it b very like that of the 37 Apoftojick Qnon; it is in thej^ ^07t)j/»9>( 'ExiVxOT©-, a vithout the Concur^ fence of the People. And Balfafuons Note upon thi^ Canon is, " The e^^cellent Zonaras interpreting this Ca-» ^^ non, takes X'^c?'^^'^^ here to jignify both yc-i^gHiffiay an(i ^' 'I'iiiov'* i, e. Impojttion of Hands an(3 ElcBion, Lajlly^ The Canon from which I faid that the fame fhing rriight be reafonably collefted, is one I vindicated before, viz. the 13 of the ^r/V^;/ Code, The Words in it which J point to are thefe, ^^ But if Neceffity re-^ ^^ quire, three Bifhops met in any Placcj fhall, by tho ^^ Command of the iirft Bifliop, make the Eledion/' If they might do it in any jpiaccy that Place might happen to be far from the Diocefe, and cpniequently the People not be prefent and askings as Jthanafius requires. Thus I have ihe wn, That Julius and Athana/ius coulcj not be ignorant of that Praftice of the Church, viz. of the Bifhops of the Proviqce chufing^ ordaining ^ni. fending a Biihop to a vacant See, without the Concurrence of the People : Nor could they be ignorant of thefe Ca- nons countenancing this Praclice, fome of which were made before, and ibme Ok them in their own Time. V. And now fuppofmg that what I have proved tq bo falfe, were really true, as the Effayer would have it^ 1-iz, That Julius and Jthanafius were ignorant of this Apoflolick Canon, yet by a plain Argument ad homi^. pe7?iy I ftiall prove that his Conclulion 'will no^ follow, ^iz. That therefore that Canon is not gcmiiney Iput fpu-s. t 3 rm^ C 154 X nous and pretended. And at the lame time fliall, by tha i nproving that Argument ah ahfurdo^ Ihew, that the EJJayers way of Realbning is falfe. I do it thus, The Reviewer^ p. 136. quotes a PafTage from St. Ju-* gufiinc^ in which are thefe Words, B^^t I knew ?Jot^ neither did he know (that is Valerius^ the former old Bifhop of Hippo)- that fuch a I'hing was prohihttcd hy the Council of Nice, liz. in its Sth Canon. Now if the EJjayers way of Reafoning were good {viz. that becaufe Julius and Athan^frus did not know of the ApolloUck Canon, therefore it was not then ex- tant, but forged fince that Time) then becaufe thefe two famous Biihops, old Valerias and the great St. Au^ guftine^ did not know of the Sth Canon of the i ft CQun-». cAoiNtce^ that very famous Canon ^ neither was it extant at that Time, hxxt forged fince, 2x\^fpiinous, I think this parallel Keaioning runs upon all four. Now I improve this Argument thus, to fnew the Faliity of the EJfayers way of Reaioning, by a Suhfumption froin the forrner. But it is utterly abfurd and faife, to fay that that M- cene Canon \s forged and fpurious ^ and therefore the £/^ fijers way of Rcafoning^ from whence it follows, is al- io falfe and abfurd. And now I leave it with the candid and judicious Reader to judge, whether I have not fufficiently vin- dtcated that 37 Apoftolical Canpn from the EJfajers Exception againit it; and whether it does not ftare him, and his Fellozv-Cte?jy broad in the Face, and jQiew i;heni v/hat Doom rhey deferve for their Reluftancy to the Appoint! nent of their Biiliops, I j^o on now to add ibme more Canons yet, to confirm th^ fovereign Power of Eifliops in thofe Elections. Th^msit I produce is the 19 oi Ariticch^ viz* 'v-TricrK'^' TOP [y.r! ;j^e<(f..?7cr^rj-cu J'iyjt (TiwjS'h )Cj Tdfaa'Kii nn ZV Tii fx»T^-!rQhei ojjjuy i ^35 'i tpK7)^ivv Ivjl^ um^-r'oKti ffvynaXeiv^ )U ei /W^^ el-ra.VTvkv ol Tr^vn^^ CiKTiQV' ti ''^ A'^if-f nm «M, T»f yi TAtiiJ'ct; i^dTTAvrQ- "^^PHvaw /iH, » ./'i/* yfj/.uuci:uv 'ouo'^(mi yr/i^cfj, ^9 rfr«? f^iTA m Tu>y *7rXeiQVtt->v Td^^citx.^ « 4»(?» yiViSrau iVjj Kd.7clca.(nV' "Ei u'.>^e>i e^cf. Tdi e^'eKT'AoA yivoin, /,/.« J^^ 1' i^u'f/i' iLf) ^f^/^cTotUf. Jn £;/*» ^/^ thus, " A Biihop ought not be ordained without 4 ^' Synod and the Prefence of the Biihop of die Metros ^^ polis of the Province. But he being prefent, it is bcft " of all, fhat all his Fellow-Bill:iops in the Province be " prefent w^ith him, and it behoves him to convocate them " by a Letter ; and if they all come, well : But if tha; ^* be difficult, the Plurality ought certainly to be prefent, ^* or be Fellow-'Dotcrs by their Letters, and fo the Con-^ ^* ilitutfon be made by the Prefence of the Plurality ^ or " by their Vote. But if it be done otherwife than here ^* is determined, the Ordination Ihall be "V'Oid'* This is not Mr. Jobrifons Verfion, bu;: the reft are. Here not only the prefent Bjfhops are appointed to be the Ordaincrsj but alfo tjiey and the abftnt ones too to be Fclhw'veters ; at leail the Plurality muft be fo, ejfe the Ordination and Promotion is decerned to be null and "cotd^ Vm fure this is as plain as Word^ can well ma^e it : Particularly I would have our Party^msn confider and re-> mark here, that: the Ektiion and Ordination is decerned to be void and ;/////, without the Concurrence of the Plu-^ rality of the Provincial BiJbopSy notwithftanding the Pr^-* fence of the Metropolitan, Is this giving him a Negative over them ? And how does this llait with the EleSiions and Confecratiofis of our Partymen ? The ne^it { add is the 23d of that fame Synod o( Jn^ tiocbj in thele ^N^o.rds, » J^ierly belonged to the Bi/bops. 4. That it was fqueez^d out of the Hands of the Bi-^ pofSy and put in the Hands of the Chapters by the Force of a Rebellion raifed by the Pope. A Matter of fuch Dit^ iiculty it was to alter the Conftitution of the Church in this Affair. 5. That had it continued where it ought to have been, tr/^. in the Hands of the Bifhops, Popery had not fuch footing in England. For the Dodor goes "on thus *^ When Princes began to inveft whom they pleafed ^^ (the Eleffion) was by Degrees wholly left to tht Chap^ ^ ter. And the Provincial Bijhops gave their j^" ** fent to the Ele5iion^ when they aflembled to confe- *^ crate the Ele6i:* But all thisy as it referred to £/^- ^^ ffiony being only matter of Forniy they by Degrees ne- " gle6led to aflemble all of them together, only Three ^ or Four were commanded by the Prince to confecrate ** whom he had invefled or nominated, and caufcd to be *' eleded by the Chapter, which they did as in Obe- *^ dience to him, and concerned themfelves no further* ^^ In England the Bifhops feem to have preserved ^' their Right in Concurrence with the Chapter^ till the *^ above mentioned Decifion of the Pope, who deprived *' them of their Right ^ hecaufc they were not fo ohfequious " to him as the Monkifh Chapters'* N. B. Ibid. />. 419, 420. It ought therefore to revolve upon the BiJhopSy not bn the inferior Clergy, 5. Th«r ;en, . goc I lus, I , ip 1 5. Xht riixi I adduce is Dr. Hammon^^ who in his Kote upon A^s xiv. 23. not far trom the End, fays, ** Ekdion of Bifbdps evidently belongs to PMops in the ^ 4zh Nice^e Canon^ in the Prefence of the People^ from ^^ them to receive Tcjf'mony of the Lives of thofc who ^ were tb be choien/' 6- Hers again I fet down another Paffage from Mr* Jobrifony " Whatever Opinion (fays be) fome may have " 01 popular Eh-5itons^ yet all wife and good Men have. ^ Reafon to wifti that our Chutch may never be the *^ Scene of fo much Violence and Sedition a$ this *^ would certainly bccafion." Vadc mecuiTt^ Part 2. p, 63. Jtdit. 2» in the Preface, And agam, " I am aflured that Materials would not ** be wanting for fuch a Hiftory, whereby it might be ** made appear, that it is more for the Intereft of Lawyers '^^ and Chirurgeons that Popular EkBions fliould prevail, ^^ than for the Service of Religion/' Ibid. 7. The next I produce is Mr. Le/Jy^ who (ays, J^ Thefe ought to have the Adminillration of any Of- ** fice, who are accountable for the Difcharge of it. *' And the Bijhop^ being anfwerable to Christ the " chief Shepherd, for the Difcharge of their Under- *^ ftewardiliips, ought therefore to have the Adminiftra- ^^ tion in their cimi Hands/' Cafe of the Regale^ p, 41. Again, after he has quoted a great many Canons of Councils, he fays, " In which (among other Things) " the Method of their (viz* BtfiopSy Presbyters and Dea^ ^f cons) Eledion is fet down, "jiz, of Presbyters and " Deacons by the Bifhop ; and of the Bilhop by the ^' comprovincial Bifhops. Ibid. p. 102. Again yet, " Among Chriilians the Donatijfs were ^^ the firll who appealed to the fecular Power in an Ec- ** cleliailick Caule, which was to decide the Diipute " they had raifed concerning the Eledion of Caciliamts ^ into the See of Carthage. But Conjlantine refufed to *^ accept [ 144 ] ^ . • ^ accept their Appeal, as not belonging to him ^ an^ ^^ own'd, that the Power oi Ek5iions of Bijbops^ and thfe ^^ jt^dgmg of them was only in the 6ipops. That he him-^ ^^ felf was to be fubjeft to their Jua^menU That it was ^^ a Work of the Devil, and an outragious daring Fury ^^ in thefe Donatijisy whom he therefore calls Proditors^ *' to refufe the Judpnent, of the Bi[hopSy which he c-alls ^ the heavenly Judgment!* Ibid, p, 172. Obferve here, i. That this Expreflion, the heavenly ^dgmenty is exaftly parallel to St. Cyprian^ s Judicium Veiy or Judicium Divimmiy 'viz. The judgment of the jBipopSj as GO Us Reprefentatives, 2. Obferve, That this Teftimony is not fo much that of a modern jluther^ as oiCon/iantine the Great, and con- fequently of ^^^ C/w^i^ at tnat Time. 8. The next is Mr« Sage^ who upon thefe Words of St. CypriaUy £p. 68. Propter quod diligent er de traditions divinay &c. fays, " Here, I fay, we have a plain Ac- *^ count of Epifiopal Promotions in the Days of St. Cyprian. ^* The neighbouring Bijhops of the Province met in the *^ City that wanted a Biihop, arid eleBed^ ordained and, *' admitted into their College fuch a Man as they judged ^^ mofl proper for the Office : And this they did in the *^ Prefence of the Vto^^l^ niet in full Congregation ^ becauf© *^ the People yvevQ the bej} WitneJJes of his Life and Con- ^^ verfatibn.^' Vindic. Chap. 7. ^^» 41. I could bring a great many more Paffages from that learned Perfon's* Writings pat for this purpofe, if need werej bit I be- lieve he will not be queilioned* 9. I add the Teftimony of the Author of the original Draughty who gives us this Sum of his antecedent Dii- courfe, fayingj '^ We have found it {viz. Popular Elc- *^ (5lion) neither pradifed by our Lord himfelf, nor gi- *^ ven in Commilfion to his principal Apoftles : We have^ ^^ found thofe principal Apoftles nrtanifeftly ordained JJ both Bjjhops and Deacons, in fuch a manner as was ^ kicoiv* I M5 1 ^ inct)nfiflent with it : We have feen that the Apoflkft ^ next in Order to them, and adopted into their Col- " lege, ordained Elders for the Churches, by their oivn *^ perfonal Juthcrity and Choice alone ; and farther, that *^ St. Paul himfelf being one of them, conveyed the like ^' ordaining Power to other fupreme Pallors placed by *' himfelf over the refpedive Churches he committed to ^' their Care, neither in Commiflion nor Inltrudions en- *' joining nor adviiing them to make ufe ot fuch a Po^ " pillar EkBion^ but rather indeed cautioning them. to *' be very wary in that Matter/' Orig* Dr aught ^^ p, 151. Obferve, That this Reafoning is equally applicable to Presbyterial Ek^ions. And fo is what he fays in the next Page, viz', " A Claim of Power, Righ^ or Privilege within the " Chriflian Church, without a warrantable Grant from '^ that Head or Fountain of Power (whether it be jDi- *' lifte^ or purely Ealcfiafiical^ from whence alone it can *^ proceed) approaches near to the very Definition of *' Ufurpation itlelf/' Let the Presbyters Ihew their Claim then, or be obnoxious to this Cenfure of UfUrpation, See alio what he fays, p, 13^. where he conliders St. C)/>^*^^«'s Relation of Sab i mis' s EleSion, and ihews that the People's Prefence and T^efimony was only ufed, and that by Suf'ragium the Martyr all along means only T^ejiimo" vy ; and by Judicium^ the authoritati've Sentence of the Bijbops, And alfo what he fays p, 142* where he has thefe Words, " Suffrage (in St. Cyprtans ordinary Ufe *' of the Word) iniphed. no Eighty or Po'-joer at all in ^' them that gave it ^ or conveyed any ^ttlcy or part of " Tattle to the Perfon they gave their Suffiage for.'' Many other Paflages might be adduced from this learned Man exprels tor the Jblc Epifcopal Power in Ele-^ Uions. Let the Author 01 the Pojlfcfipt fay, whether he be my Friend in thefe Things, or no. 10. 'The next I bring out is the learned Bllhop Beve'^ ^fiige^ "Vvhd 6n ttiefe Words of St. Cyprian^ £p 68* £^ Epifiopus deligatur plehe pnefcrne^ 8cc. fays, Plchs igitur hftereratj ^? unherfa fratenntas^ clems viz. S populus fufrdgahatur ; fed jtf diet uni penes Epifcopos erat : a quihus foiis deleBus efl Epifcopiis ordmandiis^ plebc quidem prdcfen^ ie^ fed non Jimul deligente^ nee pr^ ftps ^ ut deligeret^ fed quod prosimis ^verbis ififiniiatur^ quoniam fmgulorum "uiiam ple- niffime novit. Fr^fens igitur erat^ tit fimni de ordinandi ^Hta teftimonlnm daret, Et hoc^ m faUor^ totum erat fiif'* fragii^ quod jr at emit as in Epifcopi ckBionc ferehat ; ;/iw/-* rum Epifcopi congregati "^firum deligebant^ (^ dekBiim pre-' fonebant populoj cm praficiendus erat^ ft populus nihil ha* heret quod dekBo oljiccret^ Epifcopomm eleBioni fuffiagaba'-' fur ; ac proinde qui ab Epifcopis elect us ejl^ ah iifdern pro-^ tinus ordinabatur^ idqnc per manuum impoftionem ^ ut ctA ultlmis D. Cypfiani ^^trbis patet : fin populo non placer et elcBio^ quam feciffent Eptfcopi^ argumenta fua contra per" fonam deleft ain profereharrtj qu^ pnbUce difcutiebantur^ it a tamen^ ut ulthnum judicium fefendi potefias in Epifcopis ef" feto Et quando quidem ex populi tefiimoyiio ah Epifcopis ex-^ dminato Jlabant ele^i vcl cadebant • kinc Cyprianus ibid. Plehem etiam affirmat potefi'atem habuiffe vel eligendi dignos facerdotes^velindignos recufandi^ And he immediately adds,- ^lod ^ ipfum videmus^ &c* pofttum nonfemper eUgebant^ ac proinde tot urn ele6iionis ar^ bttrinm penes Epifcopos eratj ufque adeo ut mult as legerejit E.pifcopales ordinationes ^ eleBiones etiam cekbratas ah £- ptfcopisjjne plcbe^ d plebe autemfine Epifiopis nullas^ Bever* Ibid. pi^%. coL I. I li The next I dtaw out is Bifliop Bilfin^ who fays, Vermji mc Cyprianus haec csempla (viz* Matthi^ & feptem Diaconorum) eo profert^ ut ektiionem Epifioporum jure di'^ n)ifw populi fffragiis vendicaret ; ex pr^cedentihus nihil e-^ jufmodi confeqaens cjfc facile fsnfit: at que ideo populi folum pr^fentiam ey: illis fir iptur arum locis derivatj ut de vita ac moribus eligendi teftimonium ferrent^ ne alioquin iinprcbi S indigni ad Epifioporum fides latenter obrcperent*, De per- petua Eccleliae gabematione, cap, 7. p. 408* He goes on, Hinc fjl'iz, ex i T/y?/. iii. 7.J tamen iri'^ ferre non licet primariam aut necefiariam eligendi potejlatem jure divino populi fu-ffragiis fuifife conceffam ^ ejufmodi quic^ quavfi,, non dico vos^ fed mortdlium nemo pot eft esfacris litC'* ris demonJirare» Ibid. In that Chap, he has a great deal more to this purpofe* 12. I name next Anto?iius de Do?nimSj the learned Archbiihop of Spalata^ who fays, interpreting the Words of our Lord, Sicut miftt me Pater ^ it a ^ ego mit-^ to vos. Ut quemadmodum ego Patris concejftone ^ mandato elegi vos libere * it a vos etiam conceffione ^ mandate mcOj eligere dcbcatis Epifcopos alios, qui '^vobis fuccedanty ^ illi K % alios '^ r 148 3 • fiJior:^ atqfle ita deinceps ad cofjfii7nmaTmmfecuIL Spalafi de Repub. Ecclef. lib. 2. cap. 2. ^' 51. 13. The next is the learned T^homaffin^ who fay Sj ltd Conjlantijftml Cyprianus, Epifcopos 'EcdefidS Catholkac docGt ad Cathcdras fuas non acccdere^ 71'tfi jtididoj vcce y iiiipcrio Dci^ qui volmitates Epifcoporum eltgentiuin^ ^ tefnmofiia pcpiilorum ipfc regit ^ agitqiie. Confulto dixiy ^'olimtate £- pifccporia^ty populorum tefllmWiio ekBosfuiffe olim Pr^fuksi Eligehant Epifcopij tejlimotm fuo plehs cam eleBmiem ap^ prcbal'atj atquc ita Q ipfe eligchat. Plufcuhim etiam mo^ meriti erat in [({ffiagio cleri^ quam poptiU tcjlimomo. Scd utriqiic eminchat authoritas Epifcoporum Provinci^ Synodic^ ihi coIkBorum^ vota cleric tcftimonia populi audienttiwi^ li^ Irantium^ nunc prohantium^ alias improbantium^ fuo deni'' que judicio S arbitrate rem conficicntimn. Et quidem cum fotefias ilia divina Clericos ad Epifcopatum^ y ad fummam facer dctii Chrifti amplitudinem vocandi participatio qucedam fit S imago esprej/l^ma authoritatis^ qua in Filimn incar^ natiim pollet Deus ^ Pater^ ^ qua ilium in Pontijjcem gi" gnitj Ego hodie genui te, Pfal. 2. non poteji ca confultius cuiquam quam Epifcoporum coetui crcdi^ qui vices Dei y Pa^ tris in terris gerunt. Vet. & nov. Ecclef. difcipl. Part. 2. lib, 2. cap, I. §"2. A gain J Uno ecdemque tempore eleBi fiatini ordinabantur Epifcopi : y qui ordiyiatores erant^ iidemfuerunt ^ prima^ , ni elcBorcs, Ibid. cap. 4. ^ 6. . J And he renders a good Reafon for FdeBions by Bi" | JhopSy faying, Communione quadam ^ participatione ejus divine generationis fummi Pontijicis Chrifii ja^tim ejly ut y Chrifus ipfe Apojlolorumy Apojfoli Epifccpormny Epifcopi alii aliorum Patres ^ Genitores cvaferint ^ corum fciz. quos elegerunty ordinaruntque pcrpetua quadam propagatione code* Jlis y divini facerdotii fui. Ibid, cap, 5. § 10. 1 4. The next I produce is the learned Dc Marca^ ■who fays, Itaquc dcftderia ^ vota clcri atquc populi necsf^ faria quidem crant ut in pacejient ordinatioy fed vis ^fu" premum C I4P 1 fremtm arlitrium ehBionis penes Epifcopos erat uniufcujuf" qtie Provincia. De concord facerd. & imper. lib, 8, cap^ a. § I. Again, J^IL€ dti^ axioms (iciz. deftgnatio & confecratio) fjl> ipfo Kccle/i<€ exordio tifquc ad banc ^etatem in oricnte^ ^ iifqiic ad qtiartum feciih'im in Occident e^ conpmgi fokhant :^ adeo ut deftgnatio ah iifdsmfierct a qiiihus ipfa confecratio^ Ibid. Again, C^terum fi mgotimn ijiiid referatur ad printam CYig'fiem ; mortmqtie "vetuJloC Ecclcfie Mar^ ca fays, that he found no Difference made betwixt them by the Ancients. However, according to both, the Dit^ ference feems to have been ^ery fmally even next to no^. thing. 15. The next I bring is the learned GrotiuSy wha fays. At earn (fciz. ele^irlionem Epifcoporum^ qU(e per comprovinciales Epifcopos fit y probat Nicaenae Synodi raagn^ emu 4. Uhi in Graeco codice nulla plane populi rdcntioy ut m in Theodoyeto, qui ejus canonis fntmtiam duohus locis K. 3 rccita^^ recltatj nee in Carthaginenfi conciliopr'mo cujus can. i^*. iuanifejle Nicaenum ilium refpcit, De imper. fumman poteft. circa facra, f, 299. And again, Conftantinus r^z/c;// Nicaeno, dc eleBioneper ^pifcoposfacieuda^ vim legis trihuit. Ibid. p» 297, Again yet, Vettis Ecckfta qiije Preshyteroru^n ektfiojiem EpifcopOj Epifcopi vero comprovincialihus Epifcopis pertniftt. Ibid. p. 291. 1 6, The laft I produce is Ziegler^ who fays, Prohatio (fciz. converfationis & vitae eligendi^ autem rcSe ifijli'* tui non pcteratj n'lft adhthitis es populo tefiihus^ quihiifctim converfatus filer at eligendus^ De Epiicopis eorumque ju- ribus, lib. 2. cap.T, § 17. And again, Olim vero^ cum Ecclefia z^acabat alicuhi^ cgnvemeharit in emu locum Epifiopi reliqui proDinciales^ S velipf}^ quosidoneos ejje judicabanty proponebant clero ^ pc" puloj ut ex eorum fuffragiis^ numquid impcdrmentum objla^ rety manifefium ficrcf (this is making Suffragium nothing but 'Tejlifnony) aut vero populmnfibi Epifcopmn pcjiu la/it em audiebanty Q ulterius confultahant^ Utroqi. c enim cafu £-» pifcopis cofi^rcgatis judicium y dLvd-^exaii de perfonis in me-* dium propojftis competebat. Ibid, § 29. After that Ziegkr thus plainly afcribes to the Bifiops the Judgment and determinating Po-wery it feems very un-^ ' accountable how he iliould doubt who had the Right of Ekclion ; yet this indeed he does, faying, Utrum autem jus ekSlwnis ad Epifcopos tantmuy qui congregati erant^ pertinuerity tcjiimonium autemy ajfenfus ^ elcciionis compro^ batio ad plehem^ uti volunt non?iulU ; difficile erlt ajfererc. Thus he finds it but difficult to determine whether the BiJhops.y or the Clergy and Peophy had the Right oi Ekr Bion-^ but our Party-writers make no Bones of it.' And Tm perfwaded that after luch a Concellion of the Right of Bilhops, nothing could have rendred it difficult to him^ but a Urong Propeniity to Blunders Popular Scheme. But after fo great a Number of learned Alen, unexce-' pcionable I '5' ] . ptionable for their Knowledge in this Matter, all plain*- Jy declaring, That the///// Right and Fewer o^EkBio?is belonged to the Bijhops^ and only Frcftvc^^ vominatm^y recommending^ petitioning^ before the ElefVion was made ; and affenting to it, or approving it after it was made, pertained to the Clergy and People : Blondcl is not to be regarded, who fays juil as the Protejferj EJJayer^ Review^ er and Appendix-writers do, wlio perhaps have lick'd it up from him ; Licet enim prcccipiias (quas cleri ep nemp nefcit (this, is all the Proof he has for it) //; ordmationi^ hus partes Jibi non ^^jendicet pijc plehis fraternitaSj ^ per commtinem cum ckro calcnlim^ y more judicis^ fcdfecund^'^ riiy propria eUgendi ^ fuffragandi potejatc fungitu'r^ nee minus ei detuUt Cypnanus quam fuffiragium quo defer at ur EpifcopatuSy judicium^ quo exammetur ordinatio S compror> hetur dele5luSy qui tllud adhiheanty ^ calcukm ponant^ S *veri judif is partes agant. Blondel. Apolog. pro fent. cap^ Dc pkbis in elcSiiomhus jure^ p. 384. Not one Filh 15 Jiker another than the EJfajers Scheme is to this. And direcSly with the Reviewer he fays, with relpeft to the Eledion of Matthias^ ^{odcunque poterant (fciz^ Apofloli) eligendum JfatuerCy precari^ fortes jacere^ ftne phhe prJjiare non auft^ (extremely bold I) . perennem exem^ flo fuo legem pojieritati conjlituerunt^ quam fine crimine vel refoeritj vel permperit nemo, Blondel. Ibid. p. 336. But how come they to leave him in what he fay3 ir^ the Words following? viz. Si reSfe contra jus divinu?/^ fieri non pot e ft ^ nee contra exevipla Jpoflolica fieri a quoquam poterit^ ut^ quibus fine populi fuffragio Epfcopos fuiffe ele-* 6fos ojiendi credit^ ilkgitima omnia exempla ejje neceffi fit^ Ibid. p. 388. That is, I'bcy ought to look upon all Examples and hi'* Jlances unlawful^ in which Bi/hops are thought to be chofen 'without the Votes of the People, How will they anfwei? for their own Elections according to this Principle of his, which they ^hemfelves have alio efpoufed, by faying^ K. 4 Thit [ '5^ ] That the Example of the Ek^ion of Matthias (which they imagine was done by the Suiirages of the People, having a Share in it, Review -, p. 105.) iS a Rule that the Apojiks have given for the after RraBicc in the Church. Addenda, p 3. for/>. lojv of the Review i" After that Blondcl goes on, with a great Shew of Learning, to give ancient Teftimonies for iupporting his Scheme, more in Number indeed by far than are in the Protejationj though almoft all that are in the Prcf^^fio;^ are there \ yet all thefe prgve no more than that the Clergy and People were prefent at thefe Eletiions^ and that their Lulinations and fejiimonies were fometimes requi- red. Thele may be feen Jpokg. from ^.391 to p. 469. for full 78 Pages. And then p. 469. he concludes thus, Confultifiifit igitur ffciz, PopuliJ ab eligcnte clero^ two cle-' ricos qiwfcnnque (quanfo magis Presbyteros^ principes omniiiin^ jure canojtico faBos Eptfcopos) cum clcro clegerunty quamdiu prifcdS difcipUn^ odor manfit .Chrijii populis. Exadly with the Protejlcr^ Ejfayer^ Reviewer and Dip"- fertators^ except what is within the Parenthefis. Truly I mull fay they have much Credit in their Feilow-Po- pularift. And thus I have demonilrated, from many hijlances of Antiquity^ and from feveral ancient Cnnnns in the VicWj and from fundry other ofthofe Canons^ and from the con-^ ctirr€f}t Sentiments of a great many of the karnedeft Mo^ derns^ all profeiledly writing upon this Subject, in this Treatife, that the proper^ formal^ full and final Power and Right o^ekcling Bifiops^ was vefted in other Bfjhops ; and that all that w^as allowed the People and inferior Clergy in this Bulinefsj v\as nominating^ recommending^ petitioning and tejfifying^ and that when they were pcrfonally prefent too, previouily to the EJetlion^ and Confent and Appro^ hat ion after it; and that when they gave thefe, that was called their £/i:^7w;, and that not unjuilly, for certainly (hey ^s plainly declared their Choice by thele Means and SignH I 153 1 Significations, as if they had decifively and judicially c- lected by their Votes. And this prepares my Way for what I am to fay upon, III. The lail Branch of this Head, namely the Decree cfEle^iion, This I fhall Ihew to have been a Recommen" datioriy and good ^efiimony of, and a Petition for a Perfon whom the inferior Clergy and People delired to be their Bifhop ; and no more. This I fhall do by thefe three Steps, viz. I. By conlidering what is material in the Examples of thefe Decrees recorded by Raluziiis, a. And what is of Moment in his other Papers rela- tive to thefe. 3. By giving the Sentiments of fome learned Moderns concerning them. And to thefe I Ihall add a fhort View of the State of the Galilean and Britijlj Churches, with refped to this Affair, in the Time oiCharlemain^ and a little after. I. I fhall coniider what is material in the Examples of the Decrees ofElcfiion in Bduziiis's Colleftions, 7'om. 2. under this Title, viz. Formulce nntiqiiat pwnotionum Epif-^ copalinm, The3/ are fet down in coL 5^1. ^fi^^' From whence it will appear, I. That they contained only the Petitions of the />- ferior Clergy and People recommending a certain Perfon, and entreating to have him for their Bifhop. Thus in the 7th Paper, col, 605. entituled, Decretunt clcri ^ plebis Ecclefice Laudunenlis, they tell Hincmar Archbilhop o^ Reims their Metropolitan (as it is fet down in the Append-, p. 30.) That they ought to come to him, cum dccreto ekcitonis fingulorum pttenttum manibus rohora-* to : y de fuh flit uendo'i'/y loco ejus qui dece£it pajlore petition ne fiippUci commoner e. And in the Sth Paper, coL 607. viz. Decretum chrl Pariftenfis^ they fay /Encam Patrem^ JEnsam Pontifi^ cmi habere optamus^ And Hunc quider^i antijljtcm habers cupimnsm E ^54 } gapimus. And Nobis dcfiderantibusy mhis fiagitantilus^ fonatUT celeriter lucerna fuper candelabrum. And in Paper lo. col 608, viz. Decretum cleri i$pkbii Stmnenfts^ they fay that they ought to go to the provin- cial Bilhops cum decreto ek^ionis ftngulonim petentiiim ma^ nib us roboratOj — ac de fubjlitiiendo in loco ejus qui doc e Jit. pajiore pstitione fupplici commoner e. And in the firil of the Formula publiflied by Joannes Cordefiiis^ col. 63 5. viz, that fet down in the Jippend. p. 32, entituled, Decretum quod clerus S populus firmare de^ let de eleao Epifcopo : The Form is, ^uem nobis quanta^ (,ius petimus ordinari Pontificem. From thefe Forms it is evident, as I faid, that all the Clergy and People do, is to tellify their Defrres and In-^ fUnattons by petitioning. 2. The fame thing is alfo evi- dent, by conlidering v^^hat is of Moment in the othef Papers there recorded, relative to thefe. Thus in the ad Paper, col. ^^^. fet down Append, p, ^^. viz. Hincmars Epiftle to Hedenulf Vilitor of the C^iurch ofCambrajj Hincmar oidexshinij that he would haften to exhort the Clergy and People, Ut remoto prir *mto Jiudioy uno eodemque confenfu takmjibi pneficiendum expetant ac eligant facer dot em ^ qui ^ tanto minifterio dignus 'mkat reperiri. Where it is plain that the full Force of the Word eligant is exprefs'd by expetant^ according to the other Papers. . And in Paper i lo col 609. viz. Epi/iola cleri S pkbis Ecclejt^ vacantis ad Metropolitanum^ they fay, ^(apropter ad vefir^e fanBitatis pat emit at em fiduci alitor nojtras fundi" mus precesj pofcentesy ut hunc ilium fumm£ honejiatis fa", mulum nobis Pontificem or din are digne^nini. . And in Paper 12. col 610. viz. Epiflola Ecclefix Se* ■ mniciS ad Hilduinum^ they fay very exprefly and plainly, f.t ft quidem ad hoe onus ferendum perfona quam dicimus fufficere minufve poterity dig nation is vefir^e judicio aut fufci-^. fiatnr ^ut reprol^tur* 1^ not this a plain owning that they I »55 3 they had not made a///// z^A final Ele^mi^ nay, nor done any more than teftified their Inclinations, referring the whole to Hilduins Determination? ^« And in Paper 14. C0L611. viz, Esamijtatio VuilkhertL Archbilhpp Hincmar fays to the Bifhop, whofe Clergymaa the Perfon required was, ^uia vcfier natus^ nutrttus vel educatus^ y ordinatus dignofcitury ^ ckrtis^ ^ ordo^ (^ fields Catalaunica ilium escpofiit. And in Paper 19, c§L 629. viz. Ele^ioy confecratio^ f| inthronizatio Gatisbertij it is faid, Pojimodiim autem ckri 'plebifquc ordinis defideriorum confenfus reqiiiratur. Can any more in Reafon be fqueez.'d out of thefe Pa- pers than Petitioning and 'tejiifying ? 1. This is what I faid would appear, firft from th^ Forms themfelves, and from xh^ Papers relative to them. But the fame Thing is yet more evident from thefe other r^r^^ Conliderations, viz. 2. That even this Liberty oi Petitioning and 'fcftifyingj ^nd of lliewing their Choice by thefe Means, which the Clergy and People then enjoyed, was a free Grant of the Kings of FrancCj and not conlidered as a Thing be- longing to them by Divine or even Ecclejiajfical RighU And therefore, 3. That thefe Decrees of Ek^ion y/Qxe fomeximes re-' jcSfed. Yea, 4. And that the proper Eleffion was made by the Bi-^ fiops^ even at that fime. I Ihall now make thefe three lafl Things appear froni thefe very Colledions of Baluzius, ' •2. Then, that this was a free Grant of the Kings of France J appears evidently from thefe Inilances follow- ing, viz. In Paper i. col. 593. which is Epifrola Hincmari ad Rcgenjy Hifjciunr tells the King, That the Mellengers who came to him from the vacant See of Senlisy rejpon'* 4erunt fe ?wn aliam petitionem e^ parte foci or urn ftwnm ad-^ ferrs r 's6 ] ferre ntfi ut apudfohtam mifmcordiam vcjiram liheram illli "ac regular em elcBionem ohtinere fatagerem. Not fat agar cr^ miir^ as in the I'ranfumpt in the jippendix^ p. 22. And in Paper 4. col. 596. viz. Epijiola Hmcmari altera^ it is faid, Ekcfione canonic a a Domino nojlro Rege vobisfo'-* lita henignitate concejfa. And in Paper 6. fet down alfo in the Appendix^ p. 28. it is in col. 601. intituled, Adlocutio mijforum hnperatori^ Lndovici Pii ad clcrmn y pleheyn ; the Commiffioners tell them, Idea nos hue mijjos fuijfe ut C'.mce(fam ah eo (viz. Rege) potefiatem inter vos eligendi facerdotem adnuntia'* v^mus. And again, Cavete ne ah adverfario decipianimi^ ut con-^, c^ffa potcftas eligendi in majus vos ponat periculum. It is pjLain that they were very* apprehenfive of their ill Ma- nagement of the Liberty allowed them. And in Paper 13. col. 611. viz. Ad Judith Lnperatri", €m^ they fay, Notum vohis ejje credimus quod nohis indi" gnifflmis a Domino Imperatore conceffum fuerit ut e;^ nohis ipfis ekBionem faciendi haherefnus licentia??i. I think thefe Inftances make it evident that this Li- berty derived its Authority no higher than from the^r^^ G'r^:?;^? of the Kings; and therefore if their Eleftions were not made according to the King's Mind, or if there were any finiller Means ufed in the Choice, then 3. Thefe Decrees were often times rejeffed. Here follow three Inflances of this : The firil is threatned on- ly in the forecited Paper 6. where the King's Commif- iioners tell the Clergy and People, That if they chofe the Perfon by any linifler Means, Hoc nequaqiiam confen^ ti^mus vohisy fed Dominio Imperatori adnuntiemus \ S ijl^ Jine ullo periculoj y cum licentia canonum^ undecunque S cuicnnque ekrico volueritj dare potuerit. Et tunc merito au" ferctur a vohis poteftas eligendi. Here is not; only the Ele6lIon threatned to be voided, but the very Po-wsr of cboofmg to be taken from them,^ an^ [ t57 1 find by tht Canoris too. Which alfo plainly ftews^ that their Liberty of chcofmg was but a Grant ot the Em- J)eror, elfe he could not canonically refume it. But in the forediid Paper 1 1. when the Clergy and People of the Church of the Seno?i€S had made an unac- ceptable Eleftion, the King adually rejected it, and, after great Sollicitation, allowed them to make a fecond. Upon which Grant they fay to Heldithij ^wd nunquatfi futt^rum JperabaptuSy alteram nobis ek^ioncm impetrare ae concederejlifdu'ifiis. And again, FecimuSy Dominc mi^ S nunc fccundam eUuiioncni. And again, ^icd optavimusy Tion meruimus adipifa. Was this to infiit on their Right ofEIc^iony as the Protejlcr does in Name of the Subfcri- bers of his Commillion, as he tells us in the Beginning of the Proteftatiotiy though the Words be left out in the Abllraft of it in the Jppcndix ? And in the forefaid Paper 13. they tell the Emprefs, that the Emperor had not received their Choice, faying, Sed cum illnm quern fc it is elegijfemusj y a ferenitate Domini hnperatoris non plerie fuijfet receptus* Thefe RejeO"ions Ihew that their iDecree of Eleftion ■was no more than a fimple Recommendation and Petition. But this will yet more evidently appear from 4. The Fourth Thing which I propofed to fliew from thefe CoUeciionSy viz^. That the proper EJccUon was made by the Bilhops, after the making of that Decree^ even at that Time. This appears plainly from Paper ao. ccL 6']0, entituled, Dccretum ele^ionis Eorelli • where although the Clergy and People fay, FJegiraus hunc Burellum pr£fi>iumy yet they immediately add, Ut ad elcBionem ^ honorem pra:^ fulains pcrveniat. Which evidently ihews that the pro- per Eledion, to which he was but to come, \y^s to be made by the Billiops afterwards ; and therefore the Title of the Paper immediately following, which contains that Deed of the Eifhops, xsek^io^ Cor/fccratio kS inthronizatio ejujdem ^jtifdem l&orelU Epifcopi Rotenfts. Here the RevtewBf' would cry out, as he does Rev. p. 1 80* Strattge Abfiirdi'* tyj thdt the Bijhops Jhould eleB a Man who was already §kBed. Again, in the forefaid Paper 1 9. Archbifliop Dagoter^ Sus gives this Mandate to his Provincials, In ip/iiis loco jubeo ^ ahfolutionem facio dd Coepifcopos nojiros eligere y bentdicere Gausherttim facerdotem* And afterwards in the^ fame Paper his provincial Bilhops fay, Nos quidem humn ks lefti Cbrifti Pontifices una cum^ authDritate £? ahfolutione Domini Archipr^ffulis nojiri Dagoberti cement es tan-^ tarn acclamatoTum unanimitatem^ recepimus in nojlro epif* copali numero at que collcgio proclamatum Gausbertum. The Title of this Paper, as I noted before, is ele^ioy confecra^ tioj ^ inthronizatio Gansberti* And in the forefaid Paper i o. it is faid, Suffraganei e^ jufdcm Metropolis cofwemre debeant^ ^ eleSiionem futuri Pontificis cum confenfu cleri ^ plebis facere. The fame Thing is evident from the forefaid Paper r- whofe Words are (as they Hand in the Appends p» 24, 25.) Cum vota Concordia cleri ac plebis in electione regularly vet ^inftne dominationis confenfum cognoverimus, Hefe the Fc-* ta are fuppofed to be pail, and yet the proper Eledlion was to come ; for {o he goes on, Littcras Metropolitans au£ioritatis fiiper ekt^iofiera certs perfons ad Coepifcopos Re-^ morum diccefeos dirigemus^ certum diem ^ loci'jn eis de^ Jignantes quando ^ quo ad ordmationem ipfius eleBi aut ipjl convenianty aut littcras fui confenfus per Presbyterum aut Diaconum tranfmittant* Upon thefe lall Words the Appendiii-'-joriter makes this Note, p. 25. The Author of the late View, if he will not deliberately fhut his Eyes^ niufl hence fce^ that all the Bi-* pops of the Mctropohtical Province of Rheims (which is the chief in all France^ were to convene together ^ for Con- fecration vnly^ not for Eleftion. But I muil fay truly, that I cannot fee that from henc^ t »59 1 !\ence, let me open my Eyes never fo wide, but I eafi* !y fee the contrary. And my Reafons are, i. That the Metropolitan was to direO: his Letters concerning the Election, fuper elcciiop.em, i. That the Reafbn why the provincial Bifhops were to convene, was partly to ^Wt theiT Coftfent '^ or if they could not convene, they were to fend it in Writing by a Presbyter or Deacon : "Vvhich implies that they were to choofc. What elfe could make the Confent of the Abfents needful? The Cofifecration Only could have been performed by any two or three of them, without any Confent from others. And I fay further. That, for thefe Reafons, the Ordi" tiatio here includes the whole, viz. both Ek^im and Confecration. Upon the firfl: Words of this Paflage this Writer alfo notes, /). 24. That, hy the whole lienor of this ancient Pan ptTj the Reader will clearly perceive^ without the leajf Foundation of doubting^ that the Ele£iion was entirely to be performed hy the Clergy and People of the Diocefa This I poiitively deny, and allert that the Reader may eafily perceive the contrary, from what is faid* And he adds further. That it is therefore clear to a Demonjirationy that Vota can only figntfy what we call Suffrages. But I fay, Tnfly this Gentleman's Demonjirations are very ill founded : For I have proved already that the(e Decrees of Elegit on were nothing more than PetitwnSj and confequently Vcta in them muft be underftood as the Na- ture of the Thing requires; that is, this boallcd Demon^ Juration notwithftanding, they can only iignify IVipeSy DefircSy PrayerSj Petitions. But be fides this. Til give another plain Reafon why they do fo in thefe CoUeftions, and that is. That the Metropolitan s Vota were joined with the People's and Clergy's, though he was not prefent, as is evident from fcis Letter to the Clergy and People of Camhi^\ i^t dowa i i6o ■] down in the Jppend. p. 27. viz. Vctis noftm in. tmtm Do* mino mediante convenient thus ^ yet I believe this Gentle-* man will not fay that Hincmar was one of the Clergy and People that voted. But now to return from this Digreffion, I fay, it is e- vident alfo, that the proper Eledion was made by the Eifhops, from this Pallage in the Difcourfe concerning the ,Manner of confecrating B/popSy fet down in the Jp" pend p. 34. The Words I point to are ;>. 35. viz, Utrni^ mis qusni a trihus^ rdiquifque omnibus affenfum pr^ehenti" huSy mdlatenus Epifcopus ordinetury ^ communi voto ordi^ natio celehretun Here the Abfents muft give their JJfenty as well as thofe who are prefent at the Ordination; and of thefe Eifhops it is here faid, that the Ordination mull be ce- lebrated by their commune votum. Upon which Words the Writer notes thus, What eJfc can Votum here meait than a Vote ? For which I thank him, becaufe it is evi- dently the Vote of the Bilhops. But I believe he has not adverted to that. And that the Bilhops were the Elc^ors is clearer yet from the Words following, viz. ^uod idcirco injiituente Domino fieri jubctury fcilicet tit non ah uno^ fed a euntiis provincialibus ordinationes Epifcoporum celcbrentury nullate" fius minus qaarn a t rib us praefenUhuSy ceteris omnibus tefii'^ fnonio liter arum confentientihusy ne aliquid contra fidem Ec^ cleftot unius tyrannica auBoritas moUretury S regula velfi-' des confundcretur credentium. Upon which Words I obferve, 1. That Ordinationes here muli fignify the whole Pro- cedure (notwithftanding the Writer's Note) becaufe it is faid, tnjlituentc DommOy who never placed any of thele Powers in the inferior Clergy or People, but only in his Apoftles and their Succelfors the Bilhops, in thefe Words, As my Father fcnt mCy fo fend I you. 2. I obferve, that without this Eledion by the Bi- fliops^ t i6i ] ftiops, the rcflof the Words of this Paflage, particular^ ly theib, ceteris confcntieritihus^ ne ahqiiid contra fidem^ ^c, are downright N^onl'enfe. For how could IiDio'Va^ tioiis uptm the Faith be hindred by the Bilhops, if not tl cy^ but the C!tr^it olini a nomifiationefimpnci^ 'vel pr^^fintationcy ant pcftnlationc ; tiequc in ekfiione ullum jus acquiri cenfiiit cjccio fiiper quod lit cs S j^frp^ {(J^i'^t excitanda. Ibid. § 51 • In li is Mind there was no Room for Protcjlatmis. I ihall add a third, "uiz. Dr. Comber^ who fays, " But '^ that which fecured this Right in the Billiops to judge *^ oi Candidates, was a Caitom which began in this " Age (piz, St. Amhrofes) and which fome weakly urge " to prove Popidar Elc^ions ; that is, the Clergy and '' People's lubfcribing a Petition, and prefenting it to ^' the Metropolitan, who with his Suffragans dctcrm'med " the Electron as they law fit ;- — -- fo that the Biiliops " were under no Necellity to grant this Petition, if they *' diiliked the Perfons.'' Companion to the 7'cmplc^ Vol. 2* P' 299. He was fo far from thinking that thefe Decrees of Eletfion entrenched upon the Po7/er of Bidiops, that they rather confirnied and iecured it. And he expreHy calls thefe Decrees, Petitions ; and that they only came in in St. Jmlrrofi's Time, that is, in the fifth Century. And having there cited fome Pailages of Leo men- tioned in the F:e-w^ he fays of them, 'l^is ^jcy cbfirvable thefe are all Direct ions given by Leo-fo Metropolitans and "chief Bifliops, 'who then ijucre Electors. Ibid. p. 300. Now whereas the £>i//^7t^f or, Jpp, p, 146. having ci- ted a Palfage from Liberates Archdeacon o[ Carthage^ in which are thefe Words, ^'i^. Ut inthronizarcnt altnmy Decreto popnli^ lays of this. This is of more Force for the People's Right and Intereft in the Promotion of a Bi/hopy than all that the Viewer has brou;iht^ or ever zvi/l be able to bring aga'mfl it. I hope the candid Reader is now able to judge what to think of this Genrleman's Confidence; parcicularly, whether theie bare Words, Dccrctum po^ L 2 jjulij [ i64 1 pnlij imply fo much Right and Intcreft in the People ai to this Matter, as he would have them do. And as to this Pailage of Liheratiis which he fo much boafts oi, which is in his Breviariifm^ cap, 14 y 15. in ^om. 5. oi'the CoiincilSj col, 76.3. I obferve of it, i. That it lays this Decntum pcfuh w as but a Grant allowed them by the Emperor, asoblerved before of thole in Baliizius. The Words of it, as they ftand in the Appendix^ p, 144. are. Hoc enim 'S Impenahbiis faiitiiomhiis jiihehatnr : There is no Divine nor Ecclefiaflkal Right of the People owned by it. 2. I obfefve, That it fays alfo, that the proper Ele- , 6tion was made by the Bilhops, though with the WiU of the People. Its Words are, Reverfi jlint autem xMexan- driam qui cum eo vencrant Epifcopi : Here it mentions their Names and Dehgnations^ and then adds, Ut cum onvnium ctvium vohntate cligerent ordiriandnm Epifcopum : Which fhews that the Decretiim popiih was no more than their Petition. And fo I have done with this, and pro- ceed now to another Head, viz. y 5' '^'^ g^^^ ^ ihort View of the State of the Gallican and Britijh Churches in the Reign of C^^r/c?- mam and thereabout, as to this Bulinefs ot Elections. In the View I accounted only for fucli Eletfions as are recorded to have been made in the firft 450 Years o£ Chriftianity. My Reafons for this w^re thefe, i. Be- caufe in that Period the Government and Difcipline, as well as the Do6frine of the Church, v/ere freeil Irom Alloy and Corruption ^ the Church then ailing by its purely ipiritual Powers, at lealt till the Time of the Council o^ Nice in the Year 325; and for the other 1 25 Years much more io than afterwards, when by the Bounty ot Chriftian Emperors, Kings and Princes, fe- cular Emoluments and Honours were beftowed upon the Church j and upon that Account Billnops became to have [ i<5,? 1 have great Power and Interell in the State ; and there'- fore it became necefiliry to Princes to take great Care who were promoted to that Office. And hence it ne- celiarily followed, that the Procedure of the Church in the BuJinels of Elections of her Bhhops would be rnucb dilturbed. 2. Another Reafon was, becaule the Protefter appeal^ to that Time, laying in tlie Protcjfaiion^ Jppcfidi^:^ p, 2, I'he ancient Method 'which was pratllfed in the Churchy — hcfore the Ekclion was devolved upon the Chapters^ mufi now take Place, For thefe Reafons I only meddled with Eleftions du* ring the foreiaid Period : Nor could I have dream'd that the JppendiX'Writer would have fo far negleded, or forgot thefe Things, as to have deicended to feek Re» fuge in later Times, when the Regularity of Church-^ Affairs, particularly in this Matter of Eledions, was fo much diverted from its primitive and pure ChanneL But I cannot but look upon this as a plain Confelhon that he expeded little Help from thofe early Ages to which the Appeal was made. But I pafs this, and purfue my Purpole, I faid in the firil of thefe Realbns, That in later Times, particularly in the Reign of Charles the Great, and a little before, and after the Procedure of the Church was much di-» flurbed in the Eledions of her Billiops. This Diifurb-^ ance proceeded from thefe two Caufes elpecially, viz. From the Regale on the one hand, and from jimbitioji and Covet otifnefs on the other. By the Regale I mean, ii^ general, the whole Power which Chriflian Princes ai- lumed to themfelves in Church- Affairs; although tho Regale^ among foreign Writers elpecially, be ufed in 4 more limited Senfe, viz, to iignity the Right Princes have to enjoy the Emoluments of vacant Sees, during \ht Time of the Vacancy. The Rcgaky as I have faid, neceflarily refulted, in a L 3 greai C 166 J great meafure, from the Donatives made by Princes to the Church, which obliged them to look narrowly into the way how they were employed, and particularly to take C:;re that Bilhops lliould be Perfons devoted to their Intereils. And this furnilhed them with a Colour for taking the Elections of Eiihops into their own Hands, or to make Conceffions of them fometimes to fuch Perfons as they knew would not, nor durlf not crofs their Inclinations. This was the Cafe particularly in Franco and Germany^ in the Time of Cbarkmaiju This is the very Account given of it by the Sieur Heifsj in his Hiitory of the Empire printed at the Hagiic^ Anno 1 715, %vo. In l^om, I. lih> i. of the Life oiChaYlcmain^/p. 48. thefe are his Words, Or comine ccs Eveques ne pcmwie^it fnlftfier fa}is. quclqiie fatrimoinc^ les rnhncs Soii'verains kur affe^ioient des hi ens pour vivrc ^ ^ cctoit encore en vert a de ces biens qiiils rckvcient de la pniflance fouvcraine cotmne les atitres ftijets, i. e. " But as thefe Biihops could not " fubiilt without fome Patrimony, the fame Sovereigns , " bellowed upon them Funds for their Maintenance ; ^' and hence it was that in Virtue of thefe Proviiions ^' they depended upon the fovereign Power like other ^^ Subjects/' And a little after he fiys, Otjf hi la four ce du droit que les Scuvcrains ont do temps mmcnwrial cFel/re les Evequcs^ y kur donner les invcf'itures des terres S des liens Ecclcfiaffiques^ c^ de tons autres drcis rcgalicns a eux concedcz* i. e. " From hence is the Source of that *' Kight which Princes have had from Time out of " Mind to choole Bifhops, and to give them the Ihve- ^' Hitures of Lands and of Church-Revenues, and of *^ other Pvoyal Rights granted them.*' Nay, in the End of the fame Paragraph hp lays, l^ous ces droitSyjen" tens le drcil; d'invejftture^ t? Ic droit de regale^ font done compris dans le droit dcfou-verainete^ ou dans (e quon appelle les droits rega/iens. Ft il faut^ pour dtfputer ces droits a tin Sciiverc'Ui.^' lui di/puter^ ou lui oter nii'ine fa couronnc^ [ i67 ] i.e. ^^ All thefe Rights, I mean the Right ollnveftiture, " and the Right of the Regale, are comprehended in " the Right of Sovereignty, or in that which is called " the Royal Rights. And for one to difpute thefe " Rights with a Prince, he may as well dii^ute with, " or take from him his very Crown.'' From thefe^ Things we clearly fee the Claim that the Kings of France laid and do lay to the EkHions of Bfiops. Nay, Moniieur PafquicTj in his Bock entituled, Lcs Re fen be s de la France'^ Par, 1607, 4?p, gives us a Rela- tion, from which we fee both the Extent of the Regale of the Kings of France^ and alfo how early it was brought in among Princv-s, probably a little before the Time of the Council Oi Ch alec don ^ Anno 451, or there- about, by the Emperors Leo and Zenc^ but moil certain- ly in France by Clovis the fifth King of \homi^ nium • ^ ehgatnr Abbas juxta canones * non cnlm ad Re^ gein^ fed ad Epifeopos attmet Ecckflaftieos conftituefe. Vide JrJowel ubt fupra^ p, i j. At this Council Wlthred Kino* pf Kent was prefent. Kow from thefe Things it plainly appears how the EleCtioagt C 17^ ] Eleftions of Bifliops were difturbed by the Regale^ par- ticularly in France^ in the Time of C/;^r/^j- the Great, and ibme Time before and after it. For whereas thefe Eledions, by their original and regular Courfe, were and ought to have been in the Hands of Bidiops alone, we fee in the preceeding Relations, that lometimes the Emperors and Kings kept them in their own Hands, and fometimes entrulled them in thofe of others, beiides Bilhops, as in thofe of the inferior Clergy and People^ or of the Dean and Chapter^ or t>ean and Chapter and Cha^ ,pons. And hence Difturbances happened them as much and more too, from another Caufe belides the Regale. 1. And that was Secondly^ from Amhiticn and Covetouf-' nefs ; becaufe the fecular Honours and Emoluments an- nexed- to the Epifcopal Office became a fufficient Bait, even to Perfons of high Rank and Quality, and there- fore wxre a prevalent Temptation to iuch as were of am- bitious or covetous Difpofitions. Wherefore v/hen the Power of Prom.otion was taken out of the Hands of the Bifliops, who, as the Emperor Vakntinia:i laid to thofe at St. Amhrofcs Eledion, were vouchlafed the Divine Grace proper for their Office, and when that Power was lodged in the Hands of, or rather aiium'd by Princes ; or committed to the People, or inferior Cler- gy ; then frequently Perfons arfed by worldly Mo- tives, made their Court with the one, and their Interell with the other, fometimes by Services, fometimes by Friends, and fometimes by Bribes, and by fuch iinifler Means obtained the Epifcopal Dignity and the Emolu- ments thereto belonging. Thus Charles Martel about the Year 730, beflowed Archbilhopricks and Billiop- ricks upon his Captains, as Rewards of their Services in the Wars. Particularly he deprived Rigobert Archbi- fhop of Rhei7?is of his See, and gave it to one Afilon one. of his Captains. Thus alfo Charles the Bald about the Year 845, gave the Billioprick of ^rsves to Hildiiin one 9( t '^3. J of his chief Favourites. This wag often done witTi fa fcandalous Precipitancy, that the Perfons to whom the Sees were given wejre the firft Day Laicks, the next they were entred into Orders, and the third were made Biiliops. Le dcfant (lays Pafqiiier^ Refercb, lib. 3. p. 441.) que rofi rcprenoit aux premiers (x7;s. tbofe'of the firil Royal Line of France) cjloit qiiils en grattfioient les courtifans^ ^ ceiix qui auparavant n* avo'tent jamais fait profcflion de clergie^ teUemcnt qiieftans de/iincz par le Royy (ill jour^ an lejidemain tis p^'enoient la tonfnre^ pais les or^ drcs^ pour e/lre puis aprcs confacrcz. i. e. " The Fault " which w^as charged upon thofe of the firft Royal " Line was, that they gratified their Courtiers and fuch " as had not formerly made Profelfion of being of the "•^ Clergy, with Church Preferments ^ fo that thofe " who were appointed by the King one Day, did the '' next take the Tonfure, and the third Orders, to be " confecrated Bilhops the fourth." And, as we heard before, w^hat was done by thofe of the firil Line was pradiicd alio by thofe of the fecond with greater Liberty: Thus Riidolphus^ yhi;io 928, gave the Archbillioprick of Kheims to Hifgo^ a Child of five Years of Age, Son to Count Hcriterty who was then a great Man in FrancCy Refercb, p. 320. And this Management was not mend- ed under thofe of the third Line ; for Lezijis VII. about the Year 11 40, though an Eledion had been made by his own Permiliion, yet by the Importunity of fome am- bitious Perfons about him, he was moved to order a le- cond, Refercb. p, 447. And as the Regularity of Eleftions was thus diilurb- ed by Ambition and Covetoufnefs, when the Princes took them in their own Hands, fo neither were they free of this, when the Clergy and People nominated the Perfons, as fometimes they did : For then they duril not pitch upon atiy but whom the Kings approvcd'of ; or it they did, they were not the lefs obnoxious to Cor- ruption^ ^ '74 J ruption, as IS manifeft from the Inftarice of Joannes s getting himfelf by that means chofen Billiop of Aki^aH'' dria^ in the Time of the Emperor Ze}io^ as is fet down in theF/Va', /). 234. which x\\q Reviewer has not been plea- fed to notice. In both thefe Cafes Epifcopates were frequently ob- tained by Bribes and Simoniacd Padions. // amtt lors deny: vices en ccjic France (fays Pafqntcrj Refcrch, p, 301.) ^11 i f cjloyent rendu s fort f ami Hers ^//x eleBion^dcs Evef^ quesj la Simonie, fc? tahiis que ton commcttcit en favcnr des grands Seigneurs^ Parce que fous le nom d'eleciion on I'endoit par hrigues fourdes les Archcvefchez ^ Evefcbcz* i. e. " There were two forts of Vices at that Time in ^^ France which were very common in the Eledions of *^ Bifhops, Simony^ and the Abufe which was committed ^^ in favour of great Perlbns. Becauie under the Name ^' of Ele6lionSj Archbiiliopricks and Bilhopricks were *' fold by fecret Pactions/' And certainly to remedy this was that 1 1 ft Canon of the 5th Council of Orleans^ cited in the Addenda^ p. 5. appointing, " I'hat none be *^ allowed to obtain a Biflioprick by Price or Bribes • but " that he be confecrated to it by the Metropolitan or " his Subfticute, with the Will of the King, according " to the Choice of the Clergy and People, as is written ^' in the ancient Canons/' Thefe Canons could not be very ancient which required the Will of the King. This Canon was made Anno 549, long before the Time of Charkmain. And now, becaufe of thefe Diforders in this Matter, I marvel how the Appendix-writer could take Injlantes or Rules of pure Elections from thofe Times. Thus I have given a lligrt View of this Matter, as it Hood in France and Britain about the Time of Chark-^ main^ to which the Appendix-writer refers by his Cita- tions out of Baluzius, I proceed now to another Thing of fome Conlideration in this Difpute, and that is, § 6- Of C ^is 1 > ^- Ov Dcpcudencym^Jiidcpendcncy. Thefe&Il in here to be cdiidered w ich relpect to two Things, iv-s. I. With relpeA to the Church and State. And 2. With refpecl: Vd Bijljops iimong tpjemfclvcs. I. Concerning the Dependence of the Church upon the State, I laid in the Vicw^ p. 8. ^' As they were at ^' firil inttiuuted and managed without any Dependence " upon each other, {o it would be of unipeakable Ad- " viintage to both, and to all the Members oi' either, " if they were allowed to continue lb/* To this the J\evi€zver {lijSj p. 6%. ^This^ a?id what he hath to this pur^- pofe^ may be fiifficient to take off the Clamours offome People Tjhich they have raifcd of late to bad Piirpcfs, But in the View J p. 225), 237, ^ Jeq, I gave Realbns why it can-' not do fo, which theie Gentlemen have thought fit to neglect. Thefe Reafons I could confirm by the Tefti- monies of many learned Men, were it needful. IT. The other Caie in which Dependency and hdcpcn^ dency fliils in to be conlidered here, is with reiped to Blihops among themfelves. Of this Independency of Bifliops the Effaycr talks at an odd rate. He lays p, 13. I'hat St. Cyprian'V Speech at the opening of the Council ()/" Carthage (wherein he ex- horts the Bilhops there prefent to fpeak their Mind free- i ly, without pretending to judge or cenlure any, if he ihould happen to diifent from them) plainly fuppofes^ SThat noftngle Bijhop 'was to he determined^ even by the Ma- jority of Suffrages^ againjl his own Judgment. And the Reafons he alcribes to St. Cyprian for this are, i. "that every Eifljop is entirely Mafier of his own Refolutions. 2. '■That he can no more be jndged by others^ than he can judge ethers. 3. That to pretend to judge a Bifmp^ isto affume the peculiar Prerogative of Ci-irist, who alone ts the Bifroop of Btfhops ; and who t hire fere is the file and only Perfon ''Jjho hath Power ^ or can call them to an Account for their their Anions. This is indeed very genenilly and pofi-s tively faid. And/>. 15. he fays, From whence it appears^ that Bi" pops not only in different Provinces^ hut even in one and the fame Province^ may determine differently from their Col- leguesy without being liable to any Cenfires from them^ if they do not break Communion with them. And p. 23 and 24. he fays, But thcn^ as hath been already obferved^ in thefe Councils no Jingle Bijloop could be determined by the Majority of Suffrages againft his czvn judgment ^ and therefore no Canon decreed j which could 0- hlige the whole Province^ without the Confent of all And^. 33. as to Ufages^ he fays, As to which ei'ery Bipop was abfolute Mafter of his own Adminif rations^ as hath been already obfirved by St. Cyprian. Thefe are very plain and full Alfertions truly of the Bifliops abfolute and unaccountableVowi^v^ which raife him above all Judgment^ but that which proceeds immediate- ly from God. At this rate I think indeed he ihould have fuppofed alfo, and aflerted too, the InfaUibilty of twcxyfingle Bi- iliop; and that Bifliops were not inferior to the good Angels^ but rather more perfect, confirmed unchange- ably in a State of Grace and Goodnefs, un err able in Knowledge, and impeccable in Practice : Elfe the Con- dition of the Church, I muft fay, would be very ba77 r ftiics of one Limit at m^ and was alTured that St. G)frian w ould have done (b too. His VV^ords for this 1 quoted In the Vieiv^ p. S8. in which he exeems ii'om the Bi* ihop's fovereign Power fuch Things as were, i. Deter- mined by the IVcrd of GOD. 2. And by the Canons of the Cathdick Church (by which I luppole he means the ylpojlolick Canons^ or Gb^^ of the Primitwe Church'^ and the Canons of diefe other Councils, which go under the Name of the Code of the to/iverfal Churchy and perhaps altb the Jfrican Code*) 3. He exeems fuch Things as \^'ere determined by the radicated Cufioms of the Ca^ tholick Church. And 4. Such as were determined by the common Authority of the Province in which the Bifliop had his Diocefe* But the Reviewer^ p. 78. di iTe nts from this jufl and reafonable Sentiment of that great Man, in two of thefe Particulars, viz,> As to the Bilhop's being bound to ob- ferve the Canons of the Catholick Church. This Particu- lar that Gentleman leaves out altogether* The other is, As to his being obfiged to comply with the Determi- nacions made by the common Authority of th^ Province. In this he -should fain contradict Mr. Sage^ and upon the Matter does io, faying. But then hew his being fuhje^ to the Authority of the Bijhops of the Province^ which is like^ '■jvife added ty Mr. Sage, can he Confiffcnt with his Inde- pendency, or with the Teilimonies produced for it from St. Cyprian in the Ellay (and many others might he adduced) I own I am at a hfs to comprehend. Both in this Gentle- man's Judgment cannot confjft* But I muit oblerve here, that the Pev/cwers acknow- ledging the Bilhop to be limited in his Indtfcndencyy by the radicated Cuf 'cms of the Church, takes his Abfolute^ nefs down a Peg from that Pitch oi Ele'^jation to which the Kffayer fcrews it up, p. 72. faying, fhe 'terms on which the Catholic k Church was then unittdy %vere only thofe of the 6hc Faith and one Communion : Whilj!- 'thcfc M ' were [ 178 ] Wri^ ohferved^ enjery particular Bifiop was dbfoluie mthifi hi^ own particular Churchy dnd accountable to GOD only for his Jdmimjirations. But this Opinion of the Review-^ er^ together with thele two I'erms^ takes in alio the ra^ dicatai Cjujioms of the Churchy in which he fays, he a-^ grees with Mr. Sage, p- 78. Nay the EJfayer feems not to agree with himfelf irt this Matter : For if, as he faid beiore^ a Bifhop be en-' tirely Majfer oih\s own Refoluttons, and cannot hejudg" ed by others ; and if others judge him, they ajjlime the peculiar Prerogative of C h r i s t ; Then how does he agree with himfelf, in faying p, 29^ That the Bifiops his Colkgucs may examine and condemn his Do^rine^ and upon his pcrftfiing in his Error^ declare him to he a Hcreticky mdfo no longer a Bipop of the Catbolick Church ? Is not this to judge him^ and that with a Witnefs of Dcpojition ^ Do not they, by fo doing, according to the EJayer, afr fume the peculiar Prerogative of Christ? But to return, the Reviewer (as I oblerved) would fain fay, though he does not fpeak out very diftindly, that the Biiliop's being fubjeft to the Authority of the other Bifliops of the Province, is inconfiftent with his Indepen^ dcncjy and with the fcjiimonies produced for it from St.- Cyprian in the EJfay* This leads me naturally to do thefe three Things here^ ^Jz» I. To examine the Import of thefe fcjlimonies of St. Cyprian in the F.ffay, 2. To confider the Sentiments of the primitive Church with refpe6l to this Independency^ And 3* To fee what the Sentiments of learned Moderns arc concerning it. L Let us then firft examine thefe fejtimonies of St. Cy- prian in the EJfay. The moil material one of thefe, and that upon which the greateft Weight is laid, is St^ Cy^ prians Speech at the opening of the Council of Carthage* This Council was aflembied by St. Cyprian to confider tlK; Afiaij: of heretical Baptifnts^ and to determine whe- thei? C »7P 3^. ihtt they were r^//V/, or not. This was a Mattel* at that Time undetermined, not only by Coilncils, but e-* Ven by the Scriptures, for ought that had plainly ap- peared. And the Bulinefs ot that Council chiefly was, to examine whether or not the Scriptures had determin- ed the Point. Wherefore in this Cafe it was neceifary, that every Bifhop fliould Ipeak out his Mind freely; and this he might well do, becaufe he was conlidered as one i^ot detelrmined to either Side of the Queltion by any precedent Rules, either from the Word of God, oc the Decilions of the Church, And this is what St* C^- prian advifes them to do in the firil Words of that Pai^ fage, faying, &ipere/t ut de hac ipfd re quidJinguUfentia'^ mus^ profc'rdmffSj ntmiricm judicafitd<:>^ ant a jure covimU'^ moms aiiquem (fi diverfum fcnfcrit ) amoventes. For how* Could they well do it, fince there was no Rule or Ca- non for doing {o ? He adds alfo another ReafoA for his not debarring a- ny from his own Communion, in cafe they differed from him, which is, Ncqtie enm quifqaam ?JoJfrum Epifiopum fe ejje Epifcopomm conjlittiit^ ut tyrannko terrore ad obfe-^ qncndi neccffttatem colkgas faos adigdti. In which Word$ he (though he was Metropolitan of the Province) re- nounces that tyt'annical way of doing, which Vi^or Pope of Rome had ufed toward Polycratcs Bifhop of Ephefus^ and the other JJian Bifnops, by excommunicating them^ for their not complying with him in the Day of cele- brating Etifier ; and aifo that which Stephen Bilhop of Rome ufed at that very Time towards thofe who diller.t- ed from him, as to thofe heretical Baptifms, ^viz^ by ex- communicating them alio* But on the contrary he fays, J^atim hdbeat ordnis Epifcopus pro licentia Ubcrtatis y ^c- tcjiatis fiia arhitrium prcpruwh This could Oxily be in Matters not determined by the Word of GOD^ (as it -was not fure but this»Bufinefs of heretical Baptifms was) or in Matters left indifferent by the radicated Cujfntns of ' M 2 lh# tUe ChiifcR, which even the Revieijuer excepts. Any of thefe two, viz^ the J^ord ofGODj ox the radicated Qi'^ fpml of the Church; and alfo tht umverfally received Carwfts of the Church, if there had been any fuch at that Time^ would have limited this arhitritim proprimn of a- ny Bilhop^ Nay the Determinations of a Synod of the province would have done fo, even in St. C)'/^r/Ws Judg- Jtient, as Mr. Sage fays of him in the Tallage before mentioned. - To confirm this Opinion of Mr. Sage^ I find in St. Cjpians Epiflles t\^'o plain Inftances of the Regard he had,* and would have others to have to fuch Synodical Decifions* One of them is that ofl^bcrapius mentioned before^ who being a Bilhop of the Province, had con- trary to a Synodical Decree admitted one J^^{?r a Lapfer to Communion, before the Expiration of the full Time they had appointed for Penance in fuch Cafes. Of whom he and 66 of his Collegues in Council fay, Epiji^ ^()* ^ i^ *^//^ res nos fatis movit rece(jmn ejje a Decreti noftn an^ thoritate> Scd lihrato apud nos diu conftlio^ fatis fait ohjurgare Therapium collcgam noflrum^ quod temere hcc fc" cerity ^ injiriixijfe^ ne quid tale de deter o faciat. i. e. *' We were fufficiently troubled, that he receded from " the Authority of our Decree. But after we had ^^ long advifed about the Matter, we thotight it enough ^' to chide our Collegue 7'berapiuSy becaufe he had done ^* this Thing raihly, and admonifli him not to do fo *^ hereafter/' From hence we may juilly colleft, That St. Cyprian And his Collegues thought that 'Therapiu/s arhitrium pro^ priam was limited by the common Authority of the Fro^^ njincc^:. and that they could have inflifted upon him a heavier Cenlure ; but that, after mature Deliberation a- bout it, they thought it fufficient no chide or rebuke him lor the firff Fault ; but that he might expeft a feverer Punilhmeiit; if he fell into a fecond Tranfgreffion ; and ' there- C '80 therefore they gave him a feafonable Warning to t)eWare of it for the iuture. I think this does not look like as if St. Cyprian bad patronized tht EJfcuycr^ imaginary In^ depe?ideticy of Billiops. A fecond Inflance is concerning one Gcmwius ViSfor^ Epijf, 66. who by his Teflament had nominated Geml'^ n'tus Fatijiinits 2l Presbyter to be Tutor to his Children, contrary to a Decree of the Provincial Synod ; Cum jampridcm in conciVto Epifcoponim ftatutim fit^ nc qui s 49 Clericis ^ Dei minij^ris tut or em vel curator em tejiamentofuo confiituat^ ^ I. And, whicli is very remarkable, though this Synodal Decree was made by the Bilhops their Pre* deceflbrs, yet St. Cyprian thought himfelf, his Collegues, and all the People of the Province, obliged to. obferve it : ^iod Epifcopi antecejjores nojiri religiose conjjder antes ^ ^c. They themfelves had not been prefent and confetn^ ing to the making of this Decree, yet they thought themfelves bound to obey it^ for lb he fays, Utfacerdo^ turn decrcfmn religiose S necejpirie fa6ltim fervctttr a jichis^ The fame Thing may be coIle(fVed from St. Cyprian s^ frequently referring Matters to the Determination of 6)'- ^mds : For why were Matters referred to them, unleft their Determinations were obligatory upon all concern* ed in thofe Synods, Bifliops as well as Clergy and Laity? I return again to St. Cyprians Speech. He adds, ^an^ quam judicari ah alio non pofflt^ cum nee ipfe pojjtt alterum judicare^ Where he again difclaims a faperior Po'wer of oneftngle Biiliop over another, and no more, But ho is not ipeaking at all of the Power of Synods. And truly this Claufe (as I before obferved in noting the Errors of thefe Gentlemen's Tranilations) the EJfayer has rendrcd very erroneoufly, by applying that to a whole Synod or Council, v/h'ich St, Cyprian ipeaks only of any on^ J^le P^rfo^ij for he renders it thus in the plural Num- M 3 bsr, ber, j*?^ can no more he judged hy ot;hers, than he caM judge others. But does not what he concludes with at leaft ihew that he is for the EJjayers fenfe ? viz. Sed expeSiemus u-^ mverfi judicium Domini nofiri lefu Chriili, qui unus ^folu$ habet foteftatem, y pr^ponendi nos in Eccleji. 42. ah 45. Difcretionis ^ feparationis afcfaif^ y EccJef^de clcrcliBdC ipft rat ton cm Domino reddi^ tiiri. \\ ere they exeem'd trom the Cenliire of the Church for all this ? I think noc, Thns I have examined theie Teitimonies which the EJJayer adduces from Su Cyprian^ and ihewn that there is nothing in them that can import this abfolutc^ this //;/-« accountable Independency of Bilhops io much boafled of by the EJJayer and his Party. IL 1 come next to conlider what the Sentiments of the Prtrnitive Church were with regard to this Point. I think 1 need not go very far to find what they were. The A^ pojfoltck Canons alone being niade betore and in St. Cy^ prian'st Timer, are a fufticient Standard for this. In theie Canons we have no fewer than Eight and twenty that appoint Cenfures to be in.llided on Bilhops expretly, and name the Faults for which they are to be fo cfpfured. And (wliich is very remarkable) none of . thefe thefe Faults amount to what may be called properly Schifvi or Hirefj^ the only two Cafes in which the £/• faycr allows a Bifhop's Depofttion canonical, faying p, 32. If he "juas orthodox in the one Faith, and ohferoed the Therms of the one Comnn union ivith his Colkgnes^ then this (econd Bificp '-joas not fo much to he reckoned a fecond, as no Bijhop at alU And again, p. 27, ^he ^erms on which the Cathohck Church isoas then united^ were only thofe of the one Faith and one Communion: Whilji thefe were oh-' ferjed^ every particular Bijhop was- abfolute within his own particuhr Churchy and accountable to GOD only for his yidminiftrationso This is pretty pofitive indeed: And yet a full Third-part of all thefe Canons is employed iri appointing for him by Name, among others of the Cler- gy, Ceniures of diflerent Degrees for Faults of different Kinds, fome of which Tm lure will properly fall within the Ciafs of Jdminifirations ; for in fliort, the Canons make no Dillin6lion of the Faults, other than what de- pends upon their Hainoufnefs, For the 73 appoints him to be called before Bilhops, and examined, and cenfu- red, if he be yetr^ycpQei^ ^ nn, u e. if he he accufed for any Fault ; in his Adminiilration, or out of it. Indeed they order him to be punifh'd for Crimes^ for Scandals^ for Breach o( Difcipliney for deviating from ra'* dicated Ciifioms^ fox Vices^ fox Negligence, I ihall inftance in Canons for each of thefe. For Crimes » The 25 orders him to be depofed, if he be catch'd in Fornicationy Perjury, or 'ThcfU And the 28 orders the fame Punifhment for his fr iking either any pf the Faithful^ ox Infidels^ though they Ihould happen to be Criminals ox Delinq^uents. For Scandals, The 42 orders him to be fufpended from Communion for Drunkenncfs. The 38 decrees the lame Punifhment for his Uncharitahlenefsy in not afibrd-? ing Neceifaries to any indigent Clergyman. The 6 or^ ^ ' ' ' ders [ i86 ] ders him to be depofed for pitting away his Wife under Pretence of Religion. For Breach of Difciplim. The 9 appoints him to be fuipended from Communion, for not communicating when Occalion offers, without a reafonable Excufe. The 1 6 decerns him to the fame Puniihment for detaining ano- ther Bifhop's Clergymen. The 36 configns him to De^ pofition for ordaining without his own Bounds, The 45 orders Sufpenfion from Communion iox praying with He^- reticks. The 46 condemns him for allowing heretical Baptifm. The 47 depofes him for not baptizing fuch as have been baptized by Schifmaticks or Hereticks. The 50 decrees the fame Punilliment for his ab/laining fron> Marriage J Flep and WtnCj not on account of Devotion^ but Impurity, The 51 appoints the fame for not recei-^ ving Penitents, The jja orders the fame for abftaining from ¥lep ^ndJVine on B'eflival-days, not for Devotion's fake. The 67 the fame for receiving afecond Ordination, The 68 the fame for not fa fling in Lent^ and on Friday and Wednefday. The 69 the fame for fafing or feajiing with Jews. The 75 excommunicates him for difpofeng his See to his Relations. The 80 defpofes him for ^;;- tangling\i\vci\^im worldly Bufmefs. The 82 does the iame for engaging in the inilita/ry Service of the Romans. For deviating from radicated Cuftorns. The 8 depofes him for obferving Eajtcr on a ic;ro;i^ D^_)'. The 49 does thp fame for not uling ^'rine^Immerfon in Baptifm. The 62 inflifts the fame for eating Fkjb with its Blood. The a the fame, for offlrmg at the Altar Things not ufual. For Vices. The 44 condemns him for Covetoufnefs^ in taking (7/^/r)' from his Debitors. And the 7 depofes him jfor giving himfelf to/'a/Z/^r Cares, For Negligence inhisJdminiJfration. The 57 fuipendsi him from Communion for the frj} Faulty and depofes hirn for per fevering in it. I d9 not know .what the Efayer means by making ^ ' . Bilho^, [ >87 ] pifliop account alk to GOV only for his Adminijtrationso But Tm lure here the primitive Church makes him ac-* count ahk to a Synod of Bifiops for Faults of all forts. I carinot but think therefore, that he has been excelTively fond of his Scheme in the EJfay^ when he would publilh it, and paw^ it upon th^ World, without fo much as confidering how it confifle4 with the Code of the ^r/- mtivc Church* It is to bp obferved herp, that \6 ofthefe Canons are ^mong the liril 50, which by all Criticks are reckoned i)ot ot later Date than the third Century. Perhaps others may clafs forne ofthefe Canons other- wife than I baye done : In that they may ufe their Free- dom; it is but a Circpmilance; th^ Canons are ilill the fame, however they be c|afled, ril only add here, that in tl^e Beginning of the fourth Century the Council of 'Nice^ which was not for alter- ing old Cuftoms, was far from the Efayers Mind, who fays /). 23. That in the primitive frovingiS Councils no ftngk Bifiop could he detmnined hy a Majority of Suffrages. agairijl his own Judg?n€nt\ for that great Council, Can. 6. decrees, that the Sentence cf the Plurality mufl prevaiL From whence we may coljeft, that the lame had been the Cuftom formerly, tlie EJfayer's Conjedture notwith- ftanding. Now as thofe who were to be Judges of a Bifliop for ^he forefaid Faults, or any other, fo far as concerned Church Cenfures^ I obferved before from the Apollolical Canona, that they were the Bifhops. The 73 of them cxprefly appoints this; and alfo, that if a Bilhop be f/- ted before them and compear^ and confefs or be convi^y ^ht\x Sentence is to pafs according to his Demerit, Buc jf he dp not compear, he is to be cited afecond Timei and if he i\itvi ahfent himfelf through Contumacy^ the 6^^ l^od is to pais SenUn(;s agai^ft him, And fgr tbi,s purpofe, ^long . [ '88 ] among other Things, the 38 Can. Apoji. appoints a pro*, vincial Synod to be held twice a Year. The 16 Canon of Antioch appoints the Sentence of the provincial Synod to be final^ if they be tinammous. And if they be not, or be not fufficient to decide the Point, the 6 Canon of Conflantinople orders the Aftair to be brought before a greater Synod. And in cafe the , whole Bifhops of the Province cannot conveniently meet, as in Afdck particularly it was very diffieult for them to do ; the African Code, Canon 1 2. appoints i a Biiliops at leaft to be Judges in the Caufes of.Biihops. , And, as I faid before, the Judgment of thofe Synods was anciently looVd upon as the Judgment of God and Christ. Thus Conjfantine the Great fpeaks con- cerning the Donatijisy Metim judicium poJhiJant^ qui ipfe jadiciim Chrijii expetfo. Dico enim^ ut J e Veritas hahety facerdctum judicium it a debet haheri^ ac ft ipfe Domlnu.s re-^, Jidens judicet. This is in Epiftola Confiantini hnperatoris ad Epifcopos CathoIicoSy pofi Synodiim Arelatenfem fcripta : inter mommcnta ad Donatijfarum Hifloriam pertinentia Optato Mikvitano fubnesa. And accordingly the Counr cil oi Chalccdon cry concerning the conciliary Decifion, AuT« J^iKoua, Kei(J'ii' djj'm 0sk aeiTi^- o Xe«r©" ecT'Dcetc^t th ->}sro- Cone, Chakcd. Al% ii. Tom. 4. coh 697. by Lahbei and Cojfart. And thus I have ihewn what the Sentiments of the. primitive Church were in this Affair of the Independency of Biihops^ III. I proceed next to give the Setitiments of fome learned Moderns upon this Head. I begin with Dr. Mrett, " It was by no means convenient (fays he) that f^ any Biihop fliould be abfolnte without a Superior to ^^ judge him in Ecclefiaflical Matters ; neither was it fit ^ that his own Presbyters, who, by dired Apoilolical ^ InHitutiouj were his Subjedsj fhotild have an Autho- *^ rity to convene or ccnfurc him ; neither could any tj " is A downright overturning of the original Jnjictu. ion tf Epificpacjy and of the Dejtgn of Almighty GOD in that Jnflttutiom And again, p, 44. fhis Multitude of Bijkops in one Church is a falfe Reprcfentation of the archetypal Unity of the Church in Heaven* And therefore is Herejy in Fatf» Nay, p. 43. he fays, And the Defign of GOD herein beings that our myftical Unity with this Church m Heaven^ and with the Father as the fupremey through the Son as the fubordinate Head thereof fhould b& tranfa^ed by vilible and fenfible E(5types, reprefenting the inviftbk and celeflial Archetypes (after the manner of co^ 'uenanting Symbols^ which are always underjiood to convey the Benefts reprefented by them) when this injlitutcd Re-- prcfentation is violated^ we have no Ground to espeSi that the niylHcal Unity which was deftgncd to he tranfaBei . thereby J can be continu ed. This is indeed laying a mighty Strels upon this Re- prcfentation by 2.ftnglc Biliiop ^ and all this we muit take upon little more than his bare Word. But, that I may to the Convidion of the unprejudiced Reader confute this chimerical Scheme, I iliail ift Ihew fome grofs Ah^ furdtties that neceilarily flow from it j and idly I ihall propofe fome ^lejfions to the EJfayer^ which further de- monilrate it to be without Foundation in the holy Scri- ptures, and inconfiftent with the Pradice of the Catholick Church. I. I. The firfl Abfurdity th:it follows from this Scheme is, that, if (according to this Author) there can he no true Unity betwixt C h k 1 s t and any Church that is governed by a Multitude of Bijhops tn common^ and that every Church mufl have for its vifthle Head and 'Principle of Unity oneftngle Perfonj as reprefenting the unus Deus and uaus Chriilus ; Hence it wiir follow that the beft and N a pureit pttteli Church that ever was upon fiarth, 1 meani tfed whole Catholick Church, as it was at firfl founded by the ApoftleSj and for fome Years at leaft after our blelled Lord's Afcenfion, had no true Principle of Unity, and cdtifequently was not truly united to C h r i s t their fdpreme Head. That the Apoltles were the firil Bilhops of the Chriilian Church is owned by all that maintain the divine Inflitution ot Epifcopacy ; and that for fome Years at leaft (if not during their whole Lives) they go- Vefn'd it in common, that is, that their Power and Ju- tildi6lion over it was cv-ordmate^ fo as none of them had any particular Flock, or portio gregis^ alhgned to him, but what was equally fubjed to ail and every one of them, is, I think, denied by none that call themfelves Proteftants* If therefore a Multitude of Bifhops in one Church, or a Church's having more co-ordinate Perfons than one, as the Heads thereof in common, is %falfe Reprefentation (as our ^Author affirms, p. 44.) of the archc^ typal Unity of the Church in Heaven^ it nee eflarily follows, that the Unity of the firft and befl Church that ever was in the World, which was thus for fome time govern^ by the Apoflles, or Bifhops in common, was falily reprefented, and confequently (according to his Reafoning) it had m Ground to expeSi that the injjiical Unity betwixt it and its LordpDuld thereby be continued^ i* e. at the Time when the Church of C h it 1 3 t was in the flrideft and truell Manner united to him, it was not united to him at alL We are told A^s ii. 42. that the firlt ConVetts to Chri- ilianity continued in the Apojiks Do^hine and Fcllowpipj ii €, owned them in common for their fpiritUal Guides and Rulers ; and not that fuch a Number of them was fubjeft to St. Peter^ others to St. James^ others to St. John^f &c* and confequently that the Apoflles in com- mon were equally Heads to them all ; or to fpeak more properly, as their Lord was one with the Father^ and they (as he bad prooufed) one with him'^ fo they became oner great [ ^91 ] great HeaS. or Prificiple of Umty to his Church under him. With what Face therefore can thi$ EJfayer fay, as he does p, 42^ That the Government of a Church l>y a Multitude ofBipoop in common^ is a dow^^ight overturning cfthc original Infiitation ofEpifcopacy^ and of the J)cfign of Ulmigpjty GOD in that Injiitutton^ when the firft ana original Governmeni; of the Church was fuch ? But oar Author will fay, as he has done upon other Occafion?^ That the Apoilles were extraordinary Perfons, an(i that therefore their Practice can be no Precedent in the prdh fiary Government of national or provincial Churches^ This is the common Shi:^ made ufe of by thofe of ph^ Presbyterian Pcrfwalion, who would thence elude th^ Argument drawn from the Example of the Jpoflles for the Imparity of Church Officers, that the Authority and Jurifdidion of the Apoftles was extraordinary,and expired with.them. But as this Pretence has been ihe wn to have no Weight or Force with refpeft to Church Governn)ent in; general, fo it muft have far lefs here : For if it is effential to a true Church that it have ontfmgk Perfon or vifible Head to ^eprefent its Unity with that in Heaven, and with** out whom there can be no true Reprefentation j it mul| unavoidably follow that when there was no fuchPerfpa in the World, there was then no Church that wag truly reprefented ; or which is the farne thing, there was no true Union between Christ and his Church at ^ha^ Time, which is groily abfurd and impious to imaginef I frankly own what the Reviewer tells us, /). 82, Th^t the Difparity betwixt the Apofllss^ as Perfons endowed y^ifh the highefi Degrees of Infpiration and extraordinary Gift^^ and the Bijhops as appointed by them over thefe par^ fibular Churches which they had plantedy isfo obvious th^f mthing need befaid to render it brighter, AncJ again, /)o 84* Great in truth is the Difference bttzfjeen t^)e World ^n4 a Qity^ and very gr^at is the Difparity htwixt an ^foffk fi^at Uuncfsy and th^ Bijbops thai an m^de- by tbs ^pofiks. C 19S 1 But what is all this to the purpofe ? Does this Difference or Difparityy however (o great, alter or deitroy the Nature of Things? Does it make thefe twelve Apoftles to become phyfically and numerically one Pcrf^m? Did they therefore leave off to be a Multitude ofB'ifoops^ and as fuch govern- ing the Church in cora;*'.on^ and reprefenting its Unity with that in Heaven? And if fuch a Reprefentation is at all limes a falfc one, mufe not theirs have been fo too ? In a mo- yal or political fenfe they were indeed one viiible Head to the whole Church ; and in that ienfe ib were the Col* lege of Bilhops to that oi Scotland^ fo long as they ad^ ed in Coacert together, and did not break the one CojU" tnmion^ either among themfelves^ or the other true Bi-* Ihops of the Catholick Church. If it be faid, that the Author is fpeaking of ;?^^io;;^/ ^nd provincial Churches, ^nd that the Catholick Church was not then fo diftinguilh-* ed and divided, the Abfurdity will ftill recur ; for thatr Catholick Church was one, and therefore, according to our Author's Doctrine, ought to have had but one, and not many cc-ordinate vjfible Heads, as the Apoftles cer-» tainly were, Be fides, even then the Catholick Church •was compofed of feveral particular Churches : For we are told, JSl, ix. 31. that then (;'. e, a little time after St, Paurs Converfion) tb^ churches had rcjl throughout atl Judeay and Galilee^ and Samaria, I would then ask the Effajer^ who were the particular Heads or Reprefcn^ tatrjes to thofe particular Churches. I believe no body will fay that as yet ^ach of thefe Churches had its parti-^ cylar local Bipop fet over it; but that all or moft of them were taught and managed by fome itinerant Church-Of- ficers ot" inferior Rank and Order, w^ho were lent to them, and recalled at Pleafure, as the Apoflies judged expedient. If fo, they had none but the ApoiUes in- €ommon iox tYidx vifible Heads and RcprefentativeSy.and confequently the Argument againft our Authors fanta*=^ •Hicai Scheme remains in lull. Force* 2. An(> c m- 1 : 3. Another Abfurdity that follows from this Author i Dodrine is, That when the Bilhop of any particular Church dies, immediately all belonging to that Church, how good Chriitians fo ever otherwife, have the myfti-* cal Unity between them and their great Lord and Head difcontimied^ till a new Bifhop is fet over them. For if the Faithful cm no otherwife be united to Christ, but by one Bifliop as their vifible Head and Reprefent^ tive^ how fhall they be united to him, when that Chain or Bond of Union is by Death interrupted and broken? If it be faid. They .are Hill united to him by the Soul of their deceafed Bilhop, then it will follow that he ftill continues their Bifliop ^ and if fo, there is no need ot a new one. Befides, he certainly ceafes to be a vi/fblc Head to them, which by our Author's Scheme is prin- cipally required. But our Author w4ll father fay, That they fall immediately under the Government of their M- tropoUtm^ who with him and his Party is fometimes all in all. But what if the particular Bilhop who deceafe^ is the Metropolitan ? To whom muft they next have Recourfe for keeping up the Union ? I fuppofe he will then fend them to the next fenior Bilhop of the Province ; But he has no more Authority over them than the other Bifhops of the Province, and can do nothing in that Matter but by their Appointment. Befides at this rate he falls into another Abfurdity ; for it is equally mon- ftrous for two Billiopricks or Bodies to have one Head, as it is for two Heads to have but one Body, which (according to him) is a Violation o/Cukists Inftittition^ and ^ifalfe Reprefentation of him. But I will bring the Matter clofer home upon our Author, by asking him who were the vifible Heads or Reprefentatives of the, whole Church or Churches of Scotland in the Interval between Bifcop Rofs's Death and the Inftalment of Bilhop FtdlartonP That was (according to this Scheme) a dif* mal StaU iude^d, as fgme of the Farty upon a lelfer Ac- N 4 ^Q^^Vkl coijnt have called it ; for then we had no vifible Headsi or Reprefentatives. The Bifhops that furvived Bilhop- Kofs were all, In the Judgment of this Author, Utopian, Eifliops, and confequently by his Scheme ablblutely im-!*-, proper Inftruments for that purpofe : therefore, as there was then no other Bond to unite us to Ch r i s t, we > were, according to this Hypcihefis^ broke otf from' ■ Ch a I s T^s myflical Body, and no longer a Part of his Church. But as this dreadful Gonlequence dilcovers the i\bfurdity of the Do<5kine from which it flows, \t remains that, for avoiding thereof, we betake our felves to a more iblid and comfortable Principle, which is, That when the Bifhop of a particular Church dies, the Members of that Church ilill continue their Union with Ch r I s T, by being fubje6t to the other Bifhops of the Province, in Communion with whom their own particular Biiliop governed them • or if thefe fhould alfo be wanting, as they are a Fart of the Catholick Church, they, as Members of that great myfikal Body of Chr i s t, are united to him by their Union with and Subjection to the true Pajiors and Governors thereof And if this is the Cafe, as certainly it is, then they are under the Govern- ment' oF a Multitude of Bifliops ading in common with Teipect to them, till fuch time as they ihall have a par-* ticularBifhop of their own fet over them. 3. A third Abiurdity, or Difficulty at leail, that prefc fes fiard upon this Author^ Scheme, is taken from an Expreffion of his, /). 44. where he fays, That a MiiltH tude of- Bifiop in one Chnrch^ without having each their particular local Diji-ri^ ^ffign'd the^n^ is HERESr IN FAC'T\ What he meansby Mercfyin Facf^ I Ihall not precifely determine ; But probably he fignilies either that fuch a Thing is really and trtify a Herely, or that thofe who do that Thing are^r^^/^.;?/Hereticks. Novv^ jet him explain himfelf which v/ay he will, it will hence unavoidably follovy, icha^ all the Biftiops that were ' ; . ; create4 [ 201 ] treated after the Revolution to Bifliop Rofs's Death, and feveral afterwards, were truly or praSiically Here-^ ticks, for accepting of an Office after fuch manner, a^ jnade k a Herefy tor them to do fo ^ and likewife that one of our Metropolitans, and the other Ante-revolution Bilhops w^ho created fome of them, were Arch-hereticksj as being the firfl Authors of that heretical Pradice. And what will our Author fay for himfelt^ who with his whole Party did for fome time own fuch Bifliops for the lawiul Governors of this Church? And how came, he, or at lealt fome of the chief Abettors of hi? Party, to receive the higheft Orders from the Hands of inch Her etkks^ without making them firlt abjure thac Herefy ? II. I proceed in the Seco?jd Place, to put fame Queries tp the Effayer concerning this Matter. 1, And firit. If God ha§fo defign^d It, and that this Onenefs of a Bilhop in one Chrillian Churchy is a Point fo extremely elfential, why are the holy Scriptures, particularly of the Neis) T'ejlament^ fo filent about it ? •Wopld they not have very carefully and plainly in- liruc>ed us in that Dodrine upon which our Union and Communion with the Church on Earth, and in Heaven too, and even with G p n and our Saviour, entirely de- pends ? Would our Lord never have fignified to his A- poftles that it was abfolurely neceffary tor each of them, and their Succeilbrs the Bilhops, to fettle in one Diocefan Church, to reprelent him there ? But rather, on the con- trary, would he have commanded ail and each of tlieni to go and teach all Nations ? 2, I ask, Why did not the Apoflles immediately fettle themfelves in particular Churches, there to repre- lent the Lvgos^ as his ESlypes ? But on the contrary, why did they travel throughout the World, and chofe ana ordained their Fellow-labourers to do {o t®o? So that many of them were jn one Churobj teaching and go- •'.' ' [• ' " ' verning tetmng it at one Time, as in Jerufakmy.Antmh^ Rom^, Corinth^ Epbefusy &c. 3. Iftirtherask, When St. P^^// left i7/V«o?/;j^' and ^?r/i at Ephefrs and Crete^ why does he not exprefly tell them in his Epiftles to them, that their chief ^Deiign of being fettled there, was to reprefent the one Logos ^ And to take fpecial Care that there fliould not be moi^e Bifliops. than one in one Place, left the Dcfign of God fhould be overturned^ and Herefy in Fad committed, ^and the Benefits of the rayfikal tlnion loll? 4. Why did the Apofties fettle two Bllhops together in fbme Cities ? In altis ant era civitatihus (fays the very learned Biftiop Pearfon) aUqumdo duo Apojioli Ecclefias OMgregahant^ ^ loco few qtiifqne Epifcopim reliquit. ^io4- ipfe Epiphanius rf^ £aV^/^ Romana ij^r^ 27. ohfervat. • tf'iide diibitat an ^tiam cum Us alii duo Epifiopi effenty qui eorum mces^ cum abej/ent^ feipplerent, V indie. Epift. Ignat. P^rf, 2. cap. 10^, Here then Epipbamuji thinks" that there might he f pur Bilhops in ofje City at once. Nay this Father, H^erefe 68. tells it as a fing-alar Thing at jdlexandriay that it never had two Billiops together, as -Other Churches hadj oJ ^ ^6ts (fays he) m 'A^i^dvJ'peiA J'vo k'TTKTKO'r^^ eiX'^i <^^ ^ tLhhtXA ly^K^jitricu. ThuS tWO OX foUV Bifhops at Cfice reprefented the L:igos in one City. ^. Why did Bilhops in Times of P^r/^^/^j^/f^;* and He^^ refy teach and govern feveral Churches in common, as Jtbanafms and FMfebius of Sa^nofata did in the Time of the Arian Herefy, erdaiiiing Presbyters and Deacons in them, zwdifettm^ m order 'whatever they found wanting there ? What more could they have done in them, if' they had been properly their own Churches ? Now if fundry Bilhops did fo in thefe fame Churches, as certain-? ly they did ; and any one Bilhop might do it as well as another, v,^ere not thefe Churches then governed by Bi* (hops in common? And was there then in them no niQT^ b^^one/;^^/^ Biflaop to reprefent the Lop^ r - i r ^^3 ] This Argument the Re^jiewevy p. 85. IKifcs off thus^ Who doubts that a Bipop may perform Eptfccpal J^s in a vacant DtJlriS^ -; — But that he poiiU claim a proper . and dir^^ Jmifdi^ion over it^ without a canonical Ek^io» and Deftgnation to he Bipop thereof^ isy J hcheve^ without Precedent, But I fay, 1. That this was exercifing proper and dIrefV Juriff diftion there, and that they claimed Right to do lo, as being Bifliops of the Gatholick Church. 2. Any one Biihop might do this as well as another, and no doubt fundry Bilhops at onqe did fo j and there- fore governed fuch Churches in common. The Reviewer^ p. 86. fays further, How this is to he donc^ and on what Prmciples^ has been already pcwed in the proceeding Eflay ; particularly^, that when any Bijbcp becomes heretical' or fihifmaticaly. they are to declare him to he no longer a Member ^ ' and far lefs a Eifhop of the Catho^ lick Church :, and to take care that his See^ as thereby he^ coming i^canty be fupplied imth a Succejfor canonically pro^ vtoted thereto. But I anfwer, That this teaching and go-' verning fuch Churches in common, is much more than all that ; and inconfiflent with the £/7i^> But (fays he. Ibid,) what is there in all this that can he allcdged as a Precede fit for a Set of Bi/hops pretending, to govern a whole national Church in ciommon^ and without hih^ 'Ding any Tttle to be Bifocps^ or Principles oftfnity^ to any ef thefe particular Churches or Diocefes^ of which it confifieth ? I anfwer, » i . That in what I have fhewn both here and in the View^ there is very much ; but as he has min- ced the Matter, there is very little. 2. I anfwer, That that Set of BifliQps, a^ Bifhops of the Catholick Church, have Power to exercife their Of- fice, where ever they can do it, without violating the peace and Order of it; efpecially in that Church for whofe ^nflrudion and Government they were peculiar- ly confec rated and appointed. And what I have faid before prgve^ this aljf9o An(J certainiy if a O^urch may [ ^P4 3 bfs governed by Biihops in common, as I have fliewtx fundries were, then Biihops may be appointed and con-; fee rated to do To. But to confiriii this the more, 6. I ask, Why were there Biihops confecrated and appointed to be Helpers to other Bifhops in feveral Churches, if more BiiliOps than one in a Church be an overturning of the Defign of Go d, and Herefy in Fad?- And that fuch Helpers were given I iliew'd in the Vicw^ p. 1 36. And the Revk-wer does not deny it, but adds other Inftances of it, Review^ /). 132, ^feqq> 7. I ask, Why in Ibme critical Jundures, and par- ticularly for putting an End to a Diipute, or curing an inveterate Schifm, two fiiili ops were fometimes allow- ed to be made Partners together in Power and Dignity in one and the fame City ; as was propofed in the Caft of PatiUmis and Mektius in the See of Antioch^ and in the famous Conference at Carthage for reftoring Peace between the Donatiji and Catholick Biihops? It this wa^ a thing abfolutely unlawful, as it muft have been ac- cording to our Author's Scheme^ it is not to be thought; the Catholick Bifhops would have gone into it, far lefs been the iixiiPropofers oiit ? The learned Mr. Binghamy Orig, Ecckf» Book 1. chap, 13. § a. has a quite different Opinion of it, w^ho after a pretty full Account of the Matter, concludes with qbferving it 2Lsfueh an Infianceof a mofi nohle^ felf-denying Zeal arid Chamty^ as is fcarce to he parallel* d in any Hiftory^ and which j^f Unity to it and its territory ^ as the Jewlih ^High-priejfj .and his tne Altar was to the Ctty and Nation of th^ Jews, And by the by I muil obferve, that if this Reaioning ^hold,. there could be but one Commumon'table^ in a lite- ral fenfe, in any one whole Diocefe^ as there was but one Altar in all the 'Jew ijh Church* And I may julHy lay of Bilhops acting in common in a national Church, as the EJfayer fays of all his Diocefan Billiops, Jhidi^ viz. As all thefi High-priejis or Bijhops are immediate Reprefentatives of the one inviftble High^pricji oi* ■ ^fhop Jesus Christ: "this (and "their Unity among themfelves) makes thent all to he conftdcred hut as one High'* prieji or Bifjop ; and all their Altars but as one Altar m a myjiical fcnfey as all reprefenting and uniting to this one High^priejl and Altar in Heaven* But the Reviewery p. 87. fays, Confccrated to infpe^ a National Churchy as the Author faith of fome certain Bifhops among us^ is a Novelty unheard of'^ one Jingle Injiance therc^ of would be of great Value. I anfwer, I . It it were a Novelty, yet I have put it beyond all Doubt, that feveral Billiops may govern a Church in common, and have done fo many Times ; and there- fore they may be very lawfully confecrated upon that Defign. But, a. I gave a very remarkable Inllance of it in thtVicWj jp.117. [ 006 ]^. 117* '^^^' That the Bifliops ot this national ChnrcH did govern it in common, and were confecrated for that End before the Reign of Malcolm Canmore. For the Truth of this I adduced the Teftiinonies of Mr. Collier^ Archbifhop Spottilwood^ and Buchanan. To this the Re^iewer^ p. 88. fays, -jTbree very incompe^ tent iVitneffes in Truth ^ feeing the eldeft of, them^ with rc*^ fped to Tme^ lived no lefs than 500^ Tears after the pre^ tended Fa0» Hedor Bojichad been offironger Authori-^ ty^ for His from him the fe others borrow the Story: And yet the fame Mr, Boyfe has tacked it fo ill together^ that h$ himfelf gives us feveral'Diocefan Bipops in Scotland^ long lefore the Days of King Malcolm Kanmorej a Catalogm pf whom I pall here fubjoin. Upon this Period of our Author I make thefe three general Remarks, viz, , • I. He inlinuates that all Witnefles are incom-petentj unlefs they liveid at the Time when the Fa6t of which they teftify was done ; although thefe Witnelies be Men of Learning, and have had the Story from others of good Credit. This is llriking at the Foundation of all Hiltory, except what is delivered by thofe who them- felves were Eye and Ear-witneiles to the Fa(51:s. a. Though the Story be borrowed from He^lor BoecCy 'tis the more likely to be true, fince he feems to have taken it from the Life of Kmg Malcohn and Queen Mar^ garet wrote by 'Turgot Biihop of St. Andrews^ who was familiarly acquainted with King Malcolm and Queeti Margaret^ as Boece tells us in that firft Edition oi his Hiftory which the Reviewer ufes, lib. 1 2. 'fol. 268. 3. He reprefents Bocce as impofing upon Poilerity, and contradiding himfelf, in a Matter of Faft in which he was entirely indifferent • nay, and the Particulars of which he came to the Knowledge of by good Authority, as I have juft nov/ laid. But by examinbg the Particulars, and hisJR.elation of t ^°7 3 of them, we will clearly fee that he has not tacked them ill together^ as this Gentleman would mifreprefent him: For from hence we Ihall fee that thofe Biihops, which our Author would have him make Diocefan^ he fpeaks of them only Jis Bifhops reftding in fome certain Places (for every Perfon muft reiide fomewhere) but who, ac the fame time extended their Miniftry to fundry whole Nations ; lb far wete they (in his Account) from being rellridted to one Diocefe or Diflri£V. And fo I come to examine our Writer's Catalogue ; which I Ihali do in jBoeces Words. He begins with Amphlhaltis^ Ep. Sodor. in Ifle oiMan^ Boecc^ lib. 6* foh 102.- cent. 4. This Man our Author would have to be a Diocefaft Bifliop : But hear what Boece fiys of him ; it is this, Hos {^viz. thole Chriftians who fled trom the Perfecution under Conftantmsj who was Ciefary under the Emperor Diocletian^ and in JSri- tain at that Time) CYathiJtnthus Rex^ adfe confiigientes benevolo affecfii fiifcepit^ ^ t(t in Mona infula conjiderentj facra ibidem 'dom But he had the fame Reafon to call VdUfed Ei-* iOhop of the B/^fs^ becaufe Boece^ Uh. 9. foh 1 77. fays of him, VaJdredifs Scottts gencre Ptfiorum DoBor : qui uH Pidos nfia fide pio hiftituijjet fudorc^ in Bafia (arcis efi mmcn in Laudonia loci natura omnium mi{?nti[ftin£^ fcopu-^ lo ultiffJmo ampins dfiobus pa(fiium millibus a conti?ienti^ mi'^ dique mari ciijcto ftt^e) mta dcfungitiifi But Bocce fpeaking of Palladias^ uhi pfpra^ goes On with Scrjamis and TervanaSy faying, Palladiu's Servanum Epifcopum ad Orcadas infnlas mijfiim^ tit pcpulum rudem Chrijliana pietate injlitueret^ creavit* Et Tervanum, qtiem infdntem luftrico la'ocrat fonte^ Pi6lorum Archiepif^ €cp'jm conftituit. {N, B. If thefe were Dioccfan Biihops, they were elected and fettled by Bifhop Palladius,) Eo^ demferc tempore miffits ej}- ^ V^xxizms fanBiffmtus Epifco-^ pus a CoeleJiinOy qui Hiberniam jam dudum veram colentem pi ct at cm a Pelagian a impietate facris monitis y cxemplis tueretUT, Horum cxacld ac religio^a diligentid Chrijliana pietatis cuUus Romance Eccleficc ritu ^ injlituto^ longe late^ que per tri^ rcgna^ Scotorum, Pidprum ^ Hibernenlium, (large Dioceles, but taught and governed by them in common) veteribiis pojlbab'^tis ritibusy fanac' ac pie eji coti'^ jirmata. The next our Author mentions is Patrician, Boec^^ of him, of Cf^/wci// the ancient, Medan^ Modan^ and£«-» chin^ Id). 8. foL 1 57. cent. 5. fpeaks thus. Pater vojlrates Colmannus prjfcus^ Medanqs, Modanus, y Euchinus Epifcopi Chriili dog?riatis per Scotorum, y Pi6lorum agros pa concionatores. Pafftfunt complures fub idem tempus an" tijlites S faccrdotes propter Chtifti ncminis confeffionem d Saxonum fcritate in Albione, conJlanti[Jimis animis inai'" tyr'mm : aUt alio fngientes fecundioribus fc rebus fervave^ runt : ^ inter ecs Parricianus F.pifcopus vita ^ difciplincl infignis apud Congallum Rcgcrn^ a quo pr^-diis S agris in •Mona infula donatnsy I'itam planl Chrifliano dignam docen^ O * dQ [ 210 ] do y exhoYtando ad meltora pregit. For his Refidencd there he muft be the Biihop of Man. And for the fame Reafon there muft be another Ef. Sodorenf according to our Author. Of him Boccc^ lib. 9. foL 1 64. fpeaks thus, Inter nojiratcs Brigida fan^iffima wgo. H^tc decimo quarto anno viy: fuperato^ ^^Sodoren- fem Epfcopum {yiz. the Bijfhop who refided at Sodora^ iot his Name is loft) in Monam infalam (hujns aittem w- ^7*5 Jicuti alwrum coniphirium^ vetiijlate^ norainis memoria peri it J patcrnis forttmis^ quae amplijjlmije era?it^ contemptisj aufngit. This is all v/e have of him, enough for the Reviewer to make him a Diocefan Biiliop. The next is Kentigernus whom he will have Bifliop of dlalgoWy for no other Reafon, though frequently he travelled to and refided at very diftant Places. His Sto- ry, as Boece has it, lik p. foL 172* is this, ^remiit Ken- tigernus primariam facri magijiratus fedem Glafgw, qui" turn fanBiJJiimis Ahhas Colurnba facro coUoquio congrejfusy wnlta de Chri(liance rdigionis arcanis coram Bud^o Rege dtfferiiit. Jliquanto poji tempore Kentigernus Columbam ad Caftrum CalidoniiS comitatus in cxnobio quod Convallus fuadente Columba recenter extruxcrat^ Athalos, Calido*- nios, Horeftos (thefe were the People between J'ay and I>ee^ w^hich altogether with that ^iGlaJgoiv made a pret- ty large Dibcefe) ac vicinarum regionum incolasy quorum magna vis per fingnlos dies ad cos Chrifti dogmatis audien^ di caufa confu;>iitj docendo^ monendo^ hortando ad ver^e pie^ tat is oh fern; at ion e7n infiigarunt. After this Kentigern re- turned to Glafgow ; i^o that he was plainly itinerant. Next comes a local Bijhop fomewhere in Lothian* The whole Reafon of this Defignation is, that Bocce^ lib, 9. fol^ lyy. fays of him, Pojiridie quod loci Pontifcx^ &c. And the like Reafon there is for calling the next a lo^ cal Bipop fomewhere about St. Ebb's Head, viz, be- caufe BoccCy lib, 9. foL 1 78. fays of him, Sacro antijiitc loci. And C ^" ] .. And next, becaufe there was a Bimop that refided at '-Aherncthy of the PiBs^ he muft be a Diocefan too. EoecCj hl\ 9. foJ. 1 87. fiiys of him, E-rat id temporis Abefnechi Pidorum oppidmn^ mfriine Otholiniae, mimerojiffimura^ pri*^ viaria illhis gentts Epifccplfcdc horiejlatum. It feems they had but one Bilhop, and that he travelled up and down, but for the moll patt flaid at Ahernethy. St. Andrews was afterwards yZv/^j pmnarii Scotorum Epifccpi^ yet the Bifliop refiding there had then no limited Diocefe, as ihall be told by and by. Cmamis alfo muft be a Dioccfan^ viz. Epifiopns Sodo- reniis, becaufe BoccCj Hb. 9. foL 179. barely calls him, Santftffimns Epifcopus Sodorenfis Conanus* The Reafoli why thefe Bifhops that refided in the tile of Man were called SodorenfeSj was becaufe they refided at Sodora there, as I faid ^ and the Reafon why they ordinarly relided there was, as was faid above, that Kilig Congal'- Ins gave Patricianus fome Lands and Revenues there, which he left to others who refided thefe after him. And that Bifliops were thus defign d from the Places of their Rcfidences, and not from their Sees, is mofi: e- Vident from the Story of the next whom oar Author mentions, viz. Aiia Bilhop of Whit em in GallGwaw Boecey lik 9. foL 1 87. cent. 8. ipeaks thus of him, Beda hcmn '(viz.. Carididam Cafdni) Pidiminiam vocat^ Aftamque antijiitem qui fitb id tenipus facri fedi Candida in Cafa pr^t- /////', eumque vlrtmi prim&m pojl diviwi Ninianum ibid ait gefftffie Eptfcopatum. (iV. B, This was 400 Years after M- nian^ no great Sign that Candida Cafa was then the Ca- thedral of an Epifcopal Sec) Id fi ita eft,^ Po?itifices fedcni tencre in Candida Cafa pojlea dejiiffe neceffim efi dicer c^ (/. e. there was not another Bifhop that refided there after this j!^a for 200 Years more) qii'm mftrisfaproditinn annalibusy Hebrides, Gallovidiam ac illis vicinas rcgiones Sodorenli E^pifcopOy cm in Mona infiila fcdes erat facra^ ufqiic ad Malcolmi tenii Regis tempera in rebus parmjfc diviniSy O 2 (that .(tliat IS, they followed the neareft) ah eodemque regefa^ crim Candidse Calk magillratum non ifijl^tutum^ fed rejii" tutumfitijfc. The Biihops added in the Addenda prove no more than the others, viz. no more than that they refided at fuch or fuch a Place, but without any limited Diocefe. And that's the Reafon why the Biihops reiiding at St. jludrcws were not deligned by a See, but by their Pre-^ cedency, viz. being called Ma^imi Scotonnn Epifcopi, The next Biihops he adduces for Diocefans are Bea^ fjHSy Domrtiusy Cormacus and Ne^anus. Thefe were Biihops at MortUchy where an Epifcopal Seat was ere6l- ed by Malcolm II. about the Year lOio, though at that Time Dioceles in this Kingdom were net divided, nor limited. The Bifliop's Seat here was fometime after- wards tranilated by King David from thence to ylbcr^ (feerh The Story according to Boece^ lik 1 1. foL 253. is this, Neqiie voti ad Murthlacum uJtimis in pr^lio urgenti" has pcriciiUs faBi immemor Malcolmus, (€dem divo Molo- co facr am ingenti fiimptu confiruy:ity quam^ Jive quia voto it a fe ajlrin^craty five quia regionum qiias Dea Speaque fumina daiidant incoU majori quam par ejfet intcrcapedine eorum ah Epifcopo disjungerenturj Epffcopalem fedcm fa^am pr^diis agrifqne dc Murthlaco, Cloueth ^ Dummeth cum eormn Ecclcftafiicis redditibus ad Ponttficios fmnptus dona-' vit, EJiquc facra fedes ad Davidis primi Scotorum Regis tempera Murthlacenfis appeUata, ^iio tempore^ eodem Bavide pio Rege anthorcy Aberdonenlis fa^ay S amplio" rihus donata rcdditihusy longe ornatior cslehriorque cmi^is efi habit a* Murthlaci factum magijiratnm omnium primus geffit Beanus, vir pivtaie y eruditione inftgnisy inter divoSy fed aliquot poji annoSy relatus. In ejus locum fuffe[fus Do- nortius. Huic Cormacus fucceffory non abfque fanSitatis opinioney hcatum finem uterquc fortitus. Ne6tanus inde tc-^ miit Pontijicatumy qucfn David primus Re^yjure inter divos numeratusy Murthlacenii feds Aberdoniam trarflatuy ut patnm [ ^13 ] patrcm fe?nper 'vcneratits Aberdonenfem anttjlitem vohit appcUavi» This fame Sec of Mortlich was the firft that was li- mited j for this Boece tells us thoughtfully and dillindly in Jib. 10. foJ> 208. i'aying, Pontificiam fedem dndum Pi-' dlorum ^/^ Abernethi oppido^ co fcrro £? igni dekto^ adteyrif plum Reguli tranfiidit, (iciz. Keuhcthiis Rex circa ann» 84c.) Et emide biiic oppido San^t Andrese ades nomen c/i fatlum^ cofqne qui illiic per plnfcnla hide tempera facnmt gcfs^re magiftratiim ma>iimos Scotorum Eptfcopos appella^ riiut. Nondum enim Scotorum regmwt iiti nunc in Diocce^^ fes divifum or at : fed qunns Eptfcoporum^ qr.ios ea ^etatc vi-^ ti€ fanB'imonia reverendos feceraty qugcunque fuiifet loco fine difcrimine Pontificia munera obibat, Hujujmodi Scotorum Ecclcji^ admimftratic ad Malcolmi tertli tempos ra perftveravit^ quando ipfe fuperm admomtus^ titi fuo re-^ ferctur loco^ facrum Murthlacenfem inftituit magijfratmn. He again repeats the Subltance of the fame Story, Jih 12. foJ. 268. faying, Fucrant ante h^c tempora (viz. Mal^ colmi tcrtii) quatuor Scotiae Epifiopi^ Santfi Andrew S Murchlacenlis, qui in fuo vigorc etiam tumjlabanty duoque alii Epi/ccpatusy Candida Cafse ^ Glafguenfis, qui jam turn coUapfi a temporihus Kentigerni Ninianique pent hi^ tcrJerantj cos pyjmum rejiituit dclcBis ex onjni Scotia v^rtU'^. tc eruditioncque prucfiantlhus vlrisy duofque illis alios adjc-^ city Moravienfem ^ Cathanenfem, quihus uti fuperiorihus hifgnijfimos pr^fecit viros^ fuifque tcrminis inclujit,^ HerQ is the firll Time their Limiting is fpoken of How widely docs the i^i^i;/6^ce;^r's Dreams differ fron> this diflincl Account of this Matter, who would have before this Time I know not how many Epilcopal limi- ted Sees in Scotland^ and Diccefan Bifnops in them, ^-i gainlt the Faith of all our Records ? And thus we fee, that the Confcratm ofBlfiops t& in-^ fpecf a national Chuvch in comfnon^ is rot a Novel y unhcarci of] as this learned Gcnrleman is pkafQ-i ^Q taHv Herq Q 3 '■ ■ i* I ^14 1 is a plain Inftance thereof, ho v/ ever great or fmallValuo it may be of. AncJ now having vindicated what I faid in the Vi(;w upon this Particular, I return again to my Queflions concerning the Ejfaycrs Scheme, viz,^ That each Bilhop in his Diocefe is to reprcfent the one Logos'^ and if there ihould be two or more Bifhops in a Dipcefe, or in a na- |:ional Church teaching and ruling them, or either of them, jointly and in coinmon^ then that is a (alfe Rcprc-^ fintationj it is Htrefy in Fall^ and, in a word^ it is an o^ n)erturmng pftbe InJiiWtion of GOD. I have already propofed Eight Oueftions upon this, all founded upon Matter of Fa6?, which, as I judge, can- not be anfwered upon the EJfajers Hypothefis ^ and there-^ fore I mull conclude it to be groundlefs, imaginary and erroneous, neither founded upon holy Scripture, nor countenanced by Antiquity, but contrary to both. Indeed all orthodox Writers, both ancient and mo-?. dern, fay, that it is convenient that each Diocefe have iips own Bilhop ; and further, that if a Bifhop be fettled in a Diocele by competent Authority, and yet another fet up there in Oppolition to him ; then that other is a Schifmatick^ arid out of the Church, and, in St. Cyprians ' Words, he is not o, ficond B^opj but no Bipof» But this does not hinder, but that two in a Diocefe^ or more \\\ a national Churchy may ad and rule it in Ijnity with each other ; in that Cafe they are to be reckoned, in a religious and myllical fenfe, but one Bilhop. And the mbre to confirm what I ha\'e faid, I wxWjirJl ask ano- ther Quellion, and then mention the Sentiments of fbme learned Moderns upon this Head. ^>. Then I ask. Why have not Chriilian Churches, e« fpecially the Churches of J^';v^/^;W and Scotland^ mention-^' ed this momentous Matter in their OlF^ces ofConjQcration^ If the Effayers Elypotbtjh be true, they have certainly t^een guilty of a very unpardonable Omiffionj in never • ■ ■ • ••' ■ ' io C "5 ] . _ fo much as putting either the Bilhop or People in mina of this eliential Point, viz. That the Biihop was to be the only one Biihop in the Diocefe, whatever Ihould be- fall him, whether Accident, old Age, or other Iniirmi- ty, but that he alone w^as to repretent the Logos there; and if he or they allowed of another Biihop during his Life, or Title, they would be guilty oiHerefy in FadJj and lofe the Benefits of the ynyjitcal Unity, Why in the Articles of Examination before the A(£t of Confecration, was there not fuch a one as this infert-^ ed, " Are you perfwaded that you are to be the only *' Perfon in your Diocefe who can reprefent the one in-^ " vifMe Higb-prieliiwit'^ and that, whatever happen to *-' be your Cafe, if you admit of any other Bifliop to of- " ficiate there, you will be guilty of a downright over- ^^ turning of the Inftitution of God, and deprive you?: •" Flock of the Benefits of the myjiical Unity ? " Nay, though the future Biihop be fpoken of as Ek^y yet why is the Form of Confecration itfelf no other** wife worded, than as may fuit to a Biihop at large ? That is, it confecrates, not to the TVork of a Btjhop in a Diocefcy but in the Church of GOD in general. And no Direcfion given to the confecrated Biihop, to remember,, that he is the only Reprefent ative of the Logos that can be there without Herefy. And in the Exhortation after the Aft of Confecration.^ there is not fo much as the leait Hint of this nioft weigh-*. ty Duty, * Certainly* the Churches of Ch r i s t from the Begins ning never thought upon this great L>eftgn ; the Dilco- very of it has been referved to our happy Days, and is Iblely owing to the Efaycr. Happy Man ! Hicite io pPC-^ any is io bis dicite pecan I And now I proceed to give the Sentiments of fame learned Moderns concerning the Lawfiihiefs^ and Expe^ 4fency. and fomQtim^^s even the NeceJJtty of Bilhops ud^ 4 i^.^- ing in common in a Nation or Diocefe. Here I need not again adduce the Tellimonies of Archbiinop Spotttf-^ wood and Mr. CcIIicr^ aflerting not only that it is lawful, but that in Facl: it obtained in this Kingdom ; and I be- lieve that Mr. Collier^ and fandry other Men of great Learning, did fo in England^ and fome continue to do fo at this Day. The Teilimonies of the two former I adduced in the Vle-w^ p* iij, I adduced alfo there, p. 1 14. the exprefs Tellimony of the learned Mr. Brngbam for this ^ where he alio cites the famous Words of St. Cyprian to this very purpofe, "viz* ^vere is one Epifiopacjy cf which part is eji joyed by e'very one of us in whok^ which he rightly paraphrases thus, " He does not fay it was ^ *^ Monarchy^ in the Hands of any lingle Bifhop, but a ^' difflffeve Po'wcr that lay in the whole College- of Bi- '' fliopg. Aid he concludes^ Now from all this it appears *^ that every Bilhop was as much an univerlal Biihop, " and had as much Care of the w^hole Church as the ^^ Bifiiop of R(jme himfelf ^ there being no A'ifs of the ^' EpifcopalOliice wl^ich they could not perform in any *' Part of the World, when need required, without a ^^ Difpenfation, as well as he."" I thought fit to repeat theie here, becaufe the RcvicW" f r has minc'd Mr. Bingham s full Tellimony almoll to nothing, Re-j. p. 86. faying only, 'Tis indeed well obfer^^ ved by Mr. Bingham, 'That when ever the Faith was in. I}anger of being fubverted by Herefy^ or dejroyed by Perfi'^ cutwn^ then every Bifs^cp thotight it part of his. Duty and Olfice to put to his behnng Handy and lahonr as much for miy other Diocefe as his own, Thefe Word^ are io thin, I did not think it worth while to tranfcribc them ; Part of the Words I rranfLribed from him w^ere, ^' By this *' Rule of there being but one Fpificpacy^ every other ^' Biihoprick w^as as much their Dioceie as their own: ^^ And no humaije Laws or Canons could tie up their ^k Hands from performing fuch Acts of their Epifcopal . ' " OiBce [ ^>7 ] " Office in any Part ot the World, as they thought ne- ^^ celiary for 'the Prefervation of Religion/' This, I think, is to claim as proper and direSi a JnrifditTi'' . Oft over other Diocefes in that Cafe, as over their owtJy by virtue of their being Bilhops of the whole Ca- tholick Church, according to their Confecration • yet the Re'viewer is pleafed ingenuoufly to fay, p, 87. Nofje of the hijlanccs do in the Uafi import^ that a Bijhop can claim any proper or diretf JurtfdiB'ion over another Dmefcy '-jotthoiit a particular Eletiion to he Bipop thereof. Here I niuil make a iliort Digrelfion, to fpeak of the Meaning of the Phrafe, tmus Epifcopatas^ in St. Cyprian. The Occalion is this, I took notice in the View-^ p, Ii5« and here, a little above, That Mr. Bingham rightly renders it a diffi'Jhe Po-ivcr that lay in the whole College of Bj/hops. But though the EJfayer has a deal of .Work; \\ ith this imus EpifcopatnSj yet he fpeaks fo confufedly of it, that I declare I cannot underfland what he makes of it; for fomecimes he talks as if he meant the whole College of Bi/hops by it, as p, 1 9. after he fays, Jnd all thefe Hsgh-pricfis or Bipops^ &c. he adds, and this is that unus Epifcopatus in St. Cyprian. And thus he fpeaks of \tp, 22, 34 and 41. but inofl plainly^. 58. faying, the Collegium Epifcoporum is the fame with that unus Epifco^ pdtus. But at other times he fpeaks as if he meant the whole Church by it ; ioxp, 1 9. thefe Words of St. Cyprian^ Unus Epifiopatus cuius aftngulis infolidum pars tenetur^ he ren- ders thus, nat one Epifcopate^ of which each Bijhop has a part in whole committed to his Management. Here cer- tainly he riiuil: mean the Church by it. But what need I guefs, fmcc he exprefly fo explains himfelf ^. 22. faying^ One Ep/fiopatey of which every Bijhop holds a part in Ibli- dum; that is^ though every Bijhop has but one part of this one Elcck of Qkkist committed to bimy yet he has thcre*> \n the full Power of the whole Epifcopate. And again p. [ ai8 T 40 and 41. he fays, It muji he that one Epifcopate of which every Eijhop holds a part in fbiidum \ that is^ as >St. Cy- prian elfewbere exprejfeth ity Fsuajjingle Pajfor has a Por- tion of I he Flock committed to him^ which he ma^ rule and govern. I think^ in thefe he makes the 0}ie Epfcopate the F/ocky for it is of this that, according to him, every Bi- Ihop has a part in folidmn^ and yet he fays this of the one Epifcopate • therefore he makes them the fame thing. But the true Reafon of this his confufed Talk is, that he milhikes St. Cyprian ; for that Father, as tar at leafl as I ana able to underltand him, means neither the Col- lege ofBiJhops^ nor the whole Churchy by his umis Epifco- patHs ; but the Epifcopal Office^ and the Powers thereto belonging. And to prove this, I iliail prefent the Rea-r der with a Parcel of PaiTages from that Father's Works, wherein the Word Epfcopatus^ and unus Epifcopatus are found, and where, as I think, they can have no other Meaning. Thus in Ep. 6. § 5. (I have told before that I ufe Pamelias's Order) he tells his Clergy, that he re- folved to do nothing without their Advice and the Ad- vice of his People, d primordio Epifcopatus mei J i. e. plain-^ ly from the Commencement of my Ofice. And Ep. 42. A a. he tells Cornelins^ that they had intimated to all Epifcopatus tiii ordinationefn^ i. e. his Ordination to the £- pifcqpal Office, And Ep, 45. § 2. he tells the fime Come- liiiSj that now the Verity and Dignity Epifcopatus tut (a e. of thy Office) was put in a molt clear Light. And jc*^. 5^« § 4* ■ he tells A'ltonianuSj that Cornelius did not fuddenly come ad Epifcopatmn^ i. e. to the Epifcopal Of- fee. x\nd again Ibid, that he did not feek Epifcopatunty the Office, And again /^/V/. that he was forced t© receive Epifccfattmy i he Office, And again Ibid, § ^, that though Jie did not ambitiouily feek Epifcopatum^ yet he ihewed gieat Virtue alter he had undertaken it, fufcepto Epifco- pau. And Ibid, j) 16. he has Epifcopatus unus^ Epifco- portifii ^nultorum concordi numerofnate diffufus. Which [ aip ] Words the F-ffhyer^ p, 12. has moll ambiguoufly rendred, Peribns of an unanimous Multitude of many Bifhops. And the fame Is his Meaning in that celebrated PaiTage of his in hisTreatife t£tTctpT/('e^i/Ti;V *' T/ruVj M» £>'ovr5? Kct^ii^pcf.v o'lKi^ctv, 33 Tjonaras fays in Can, *' ^"j. Cone, Laodic, held Ann, i(i^. In which Canon 'tis " left to thefe Pcriodetit^ to fupply the want of fix'd '^ Bifhops, in thofe Places and Countries that were not *' thought conliderable enough to have a fix'd Bilhop a- *' mong them. And afterwards at the Time of the ^' Council of C/!?^/^e^i9^/ Mention is again made of them; ^' as of one BalentitiSj whom, being a fcandalous Livet, " Ibas is accufed in the Council to have ordained Pref- " byter and Periodeutes!' ChriJr,CommiW, Part 3. Chap, 6. p, 83, 84. Here is an Account of many Btjhops at large ; and that all Bifliops may exercife their Office in any Part of the World, except where the Rules of Or- der and U?iity reflrain them. What is above faid is more than fufficient to ihew that the Effayers Scheme is' truly an ^irj' one, and without a-^ ny manner of Foundation : But there are two Confidera^ tinns yet behind, which further prove, that were this Scheme never fo trnc^ yet it will by no means anfwer the Partyh I 223 ] ^ yariys purpofe, nor in the leail juilify their prcfenfe Schilin. 1. I'he Fh'Jl is, That at the Time this Schifm com^ mcnccdj which I reckon from the pretended Eledion of Bilhop Millar to the See of FJinburgb^ Anm 1727, there were no Bifliops at largc^ as the E[layer defcribes them, in Scot land J iave only one, viz. Biihop Caut, All the rell had local DiilridVs ibnie time before affign^d them, "VIZ. Bilhop Millar th-at of the Merfi^ Bilhop Duncan of Glaigvju, Biihop Freehairn oiAnnandak^ and Bilhop Gad'- derer oi Aberdeen-^ who were all owned, and peaceably fubmitted to by the Clergy and People of thofe Diilrids, without the leaft Oppolirion* 2. The Second Confi deration is, That had thefe Bi- Ihops been Bifliops at large^ in the fenfe our Author dc- fcribes them ^ yet being till then univerfally acknow- ledged as the fupreme Rulers of this Church, there was not a fufficient Keafon for commencing a Schifm at the rights upon that Account : Nor had thefe Perfons who begun it, Power and Authority to make a Reformatio!! in that Matter. Schifm in the Church, and Rebellion in the Stare, are Things fo deilrudive to both, confidered as Societies^ that if ever they can become lawful (which I extremely doubt) it mull be only then when all other Means are tried in vain, and Things are brought to the lafl: Neceflity. But this was far irom being the Caib here. If the creating of Biihops at large were fo great, nay fundamental an Error, as our Author reprefents ir, it is not ealily to be imagined that Men fo eminent for Piety and Learning, as our Bifliops, both Conlecrators and Confecrated were, would have gone into it. But let us fuppofe them ignorant of that grand Error, of which the EJfayer^ for ought I know, has the Honour oi making the tirll Difcovery, and that the fune is as plain and evident us he would have it appear, we ought in Charity to believe, ^that had this in a dilcreet manner beea t "4 i hcen laid before them, they would foon have altered their Pradice : But we never hear of any Petitio/i or Re-* monfirance made to them to that EiFe6t. But let us far- ther fiippofe, that the Matter had been laid before them^ and that notwithllanding, the Thing complained of was - Hill continued without any manner of Kedrefs; yet I would fain know who gave thofe Bilhops ol the Party a Power to abolifh fuch a Practice at their own hands, and thereby to divert the other Bilhops of this Church of that Right and Jurifditlion which v^^as hitherto not only owned by all to belong to them, but was till that ,very Juncture exercifed by themfelves. Errors and A- bufes may creep into a Church, but every one has not a Power to reform them ; and fo long as unla'-joful Terms of Communion were not impofed, which cannot be pre- tended here, it was not lawful to make a Separation or Rupture on that Account. If that lliould once be allow- ed, farewell to all Peace and Order in Society. But why iliould I infill upon a FaB which did not then e- xill ? For that Error ^ if it was one, was a good time before this almolt entirely removed ; for, as I faid, at Biihop FuUartons Death all the Billiops of this Church had local Diilriits appointed them, except one, viz. Mr. Cant. And yet of this one, though according to them an Utopian Biihop, and as fuch a Heretick in Fa^y the Chief of the Party thought fit to take the Advan- tage, and made no Scruple by his Means to advance themfelves to the higheil Dignity in the Church. The only Thing that can poffibly be faid to this is, That the Promotion of thofe Bilhops to their feveral Difcricls was uncanonicaJ^ tor want of a previous ]Fk3ion by the Presbyters and Laity of thofe Diflrids, and by Confequence void and null, and that therefore they ilill continued, as they were before, Bijhops at large, ^ J : To this it is anfwered, i. That I have in this a.nd i •my former Treatife evidently proved that the Eledion . of t ^^s 1 of Clergy ^nd People is in nowife necefBry to the con** ftituting of a Diocefan Billiop. 2* That none of thofe Bilhops were fettled in their Diltrids, till they were firfl recommended to the Clergy of theie Diilrlds ; and that their previous Jpprohatiori ofj and after Siihmijjion to them, was every way equiva- lent to an Ehtfion of them. But 3. If nothing lefs will ferve the Turn, but that it is ablblutely ejftntial to the Conftitution of a Diocefan Bilhop, that he be previoufly elefied by the Clergy and Laity of the Place, and that their Votes ate formal and dccijive in the Matter ; I much doubt if there now are, or for many Ages have been fuch Bilhops in the World. If the Eledion of the Clergy and People is a Thing fa ellential and indifpenfahle^ it mull certainly be oi Divine Appointment, and if ib, it mull be both in whole and in every part unalterable by any humane Power. But that the Thing is quite otherwife in the Judgment of the Bulk of the Chrillian World in all Ages, is plainly evi- dent from their various Condu(5l in that Matter. For fbmetimes we find thofe Eledlions made by the Bijfoops of the Province only^ fometimes by the Clergy and OpPi*' mates^ the common fort being excluded. In the ele- venth Century it was put into the Hands of a Chapter^ or fele^ Number of the inferior Clergy, to the Exclu- lion not only of all the reftj but alfo of the whole Body of the Laity. But generally in Europe fovereign Princes have for many Ages taken the Nomination into their own Hands ^ and To it continues at this Day. 'Tis true the Chapter retain a Shadow of Right in the Eledions : but it is no more but a Shadow ; for it is extremely rare to find them reject the Perfon whom the King had na- med to them ; and that is no more than putting a Nega^ live upon his Nomination, and fo is not properly an Ele- dion : But I know of no Inflance, in Britain at leaft, for thefe 2.00 Years* where they have prefumed to pitch t 226 1 upon another Perfbn than whom the King had named to them. In the Greek Church, the largeft now in the World, our Author himielf acknowledges that lince the eighth Century (but others, as Petriis de Marca^ liiy from the Beginning) the Eleftions of Biihc^s were and ftill are carried on by Bifhops only,. Now what fhall we fay of thofe Bilhops ? Were they all Bilhops at large? If fo, Bilhops at large are not fo late and unprecedent- • cd, as the Party would have them. And yet, according to our AuthoVs Dodrine, fuch only they muft have been, as being dellitute of that ^Z^;//-/^/ Ingredient for contenting them D/o^^yi//, namely 2i previous ElecTioti . of them by the Clergy and Laity of their Diflrids. , Nay, if this Argum.ent be allowed its due Force, it will hence unavoidably follow, that all the Bifliops of the * Party are themfelves nothing elfe but Bifhops at large^ and as much Utopian as their Neighbours : For if it is,-., eflential to a local Bilhop that he be chofen by the People, as well as the Clergy, then their EMiions alfo; " muft be null, for want of the Concurrence of the former,' as much as if they had wanted the latter. This Rea- foning the Protejler can by no means refufe, who ftrug- gled lb hard for the Right of the People, as a thing mQJf fjecejfaryj in the Cafe of Bilhop None, And yet in his own Ele61ion and that of his Brethren, the People's Right was wholly neglefted or overlooked. They tell us in- deed, they do not esclude the Laity ; but lince they have been actually excludedj or not noticed in all their own Ele6i:ions, what can the Meaning of fuch an Expreffion be other than this, That they are willing to take in the Laity, when they have V^e for them • but otherwife when it is not for their Purpofe, they will favc them that Trouble. Now if the People's Suffrages may be omitted, why may not al(b that of the Clergy ? And if the one or other may be at Pleafure difpenfed with, it is manifeft as the Sun at Noou-day, that there is no El- fentiality [ 2^7 i fentialky nor Neceflity in either. Hence we fee what extravagant is^otions Men will advance, what Abfurdi- tics, nay Seli-contradi61ions they will run into, who are relblved at any race to maintain the Interejis oi' d. Party y though never ib contrary to the innnutable Principles of Jupce and 'Truth. But I leave them to find out Ibme new Scheme tor anfvvering this Argument, arid proceed to another Head, "uiz* vV ^^ I defign now to fay fomewhat concerning Metropolitans. The Occalion for my doing fo is this, 'VIZ. That though this be a very obfcure Point, and dif- ferently Ipoke of by learned Men, yet the Ejjayer^ Pro^ tcfier^ and the Sahfcribcrs of the Terms propofed to the College of Bifliops by the Leaders of the Party, are very politive and dogmatical upon it, as If it were mofl perlpicuouily handed down to us, and, as is ufually faid, delineated with a Sun-beam. For 1 . The E[jayer fays, p. 23. very pofitively, 'float the Catholick Churdj has been from the Beginning dijirihuted into Provinces y for the better managing of the common Cor^ rcfpondence among its Bijhops. And in every one of thefe Pro\)inces there was a ttpcot^ or Primus ; cr, as h& was ajtcrwards called^ a Metropolitan, — to whom it be-^ longed to call the provmcial Councils^ 6cc. 2. In the Terms propofed to the College,the Subfcribera. as dogiiiatieally fay, There can b^ no Order or Unity in a national or provincial Church without a Metropolitan. And to be fure liich a Metropolitan as the Protefler defcribes ia the Protefationy Append, p. 18. i^aying, 3. The Confirmation of the Metropolitan (to a Bifliop's Ele6lion) is ncccffary by the ^th and 6th Canons of the Council . 322. he fays the two famou$ Synods of ^/m tioch^ related by Eufehius^ lik 7, cap, 28, 30, wherein the Bilhops of feveral Provinces met together againft Paidiis Samofatems\ and that Firmilian Bifhop ofCj'fa^ rea in Cappadocia prefided in the fjrft of them. He was indeed a Mihoi^ o^ a civil Metropolis : '^ But (fays th^ *^ Do^orJ Antioch was out of his Province, and ma« ^' ny of the Bilhops which aflembled with him v/ere ^' not his Suffragans, fo that he could not aft in that; *' Place by Virti;e of any Metropolitical Right^ but im^ ^^ have been only a Chair^man chofen by the Afl^mbly. ^' It is plain therefore that this Synod could not allemblej ^' by Virtue of any Metropolitical SummonSy but rnuf^ ^' come together as neighbourmg Bilhops, at the Defire *' of thofe who found themfelves grieved by the Herefy ^' and Tyranny of Paulus^ Yet this Synod was ac- " knowledged by all the Bifliops of the World to have ^' been then agreeable to the Rights and Conftitution '' of the Church, Which (fays he} is a plain Argu-^ ^^ ment that Bilhops might and did meet fo before the <^ BilhoDi, wfco had their Seats in tUe M^ropolis of ^ (( ii. a [ ^30 J ^' Province, began to be look'd upon ^s Metropolitans 6t ^^ chief Directors of all the other Billiops within that ci- ^' vil DillriiV. For if there had been no fuch Cuftom *' from the Beginning of Chriflianity for neighbouring ^^ Bilhops to meet at the Defire of thofe that required '^ their Advice and Afliftance, Pauliis^ who was himieif ^' a Metropolitan, would have excepted againit this ^' Proceeding, and not have fubmitted to the iiril Synod, ^' as FjtjQbius fays he did, and promiied to renounce his " Errors. Neither would all the Bilhops of the Church have acknowledged the Proceedings of this Synod to be juft, as it is manifeft they did, even after the Time that Synods had been ordinarily held by the Metro- ^^ politans for fifty or threefcore Years. So thefe two Councils were certainly held by the ancient, primi- tive, and Divine Right of the Church, antecedent to that of the Metropolitans, and which was not then fully given up to them/' Thus Dr. Brett. From which I remark, That he differs vallly from the Effayer in thefe three Things efpecially, i}iz» I. That though the Roman Empire was divided into cml Provinces in Aiigajfus's Time, yet th^t from the .fcV- ginning of Chrijiianity the Catholick Church was net di/fri'^ huted into Provinces^ for the better managing of the common Correfpondence among its Bipops. And that though in the fivil Metropolis there was a Bilhop who in after times be- came TT^^rQ', or Primus J or Metropolitan^ yet that it did not belong to him, even in the third Century, at leail not every where, to call provincial Synods. Which Things the iiffajtr politively and magiilerially afierts, Eut that thefe Synods did^meet at the Pkafure of the Jieighbcuring Bilhops, and at the Defire of other Billiops xvho found themfelves grieved by the Miiman.^gement of their Fellow-Eilhops, and that without ^uy Metrcp^ litical Summons^ but by the oijcient^ primitive^ and Divine £/ght of thii Church^ 'X, That [ ^31 3 1. That though for the more regular and ciuickef Difpatch ot Bulinefs, and other external Conveniencies tending to promote Order and Unity, Metropolitans were piece-meal introduced ^ yet the Dodor does not think, that there could be no Order ?ior Unity wtthoitt theWy as the Subfirilers of the "terms dogmatically allert^ but that thele might be had without Metropolitans ^ by the ancient^ primitive^ and Divine Right of the Church. 3. That the Dodor has no Notion of Bifhops being rndependent of their Br(4hren-Btpops ; but that they, e- ven though they were Metropolitans themfelves, might be conveend before them, ^vi& judged by them, and cen-^ fnrcd and even depofed too, if they deferved it J as PaU'* Jus Samofatenus was. a. The next I adduce is Dr. Cave. I cited his Sen- timents in this Affair out of his pri^nitive Chrijlianityy ia the View p. 102. owning that he could not find when tt he-* gan^ but that it was a Cujlom of ancient Date. But he does not think that Metropolitans were fettled from the Beginning : For thus he fpeaks in his DiJJertation con-^ cerning the Government of the ancient Churchy by.BijJjops^ /idetropclitans and Patriarchs^ Lend. 1683, %vo, " Becaufe (fays he) Controverfies began to arife be« " tween the feveral Bilhops, and fometimes between " them and the inferior Clergy, which could not eafily ^' be determined, where every one's Authority was in« ^' dependent, it v/as neceffary that fome one Ihould prew ^' fide over all the other Bifhops of that Province, as *' the Proconful did in the civil State, who might con* ^' vene Synodical AfTemblies, adjull the Dilferences, ^' and manage the Ordinations of the provincial Bilhops, <^ And for this none could be fo fit as he that refided in *' the Metropolis of the Province, thence called Metro-* ^^ politans" Dijfert. ^.35. This is tiot to derive their Inftitution from the BegSn-^ P 4 Viu^gj . [ ^3^ ] ^ ning, but to afcribe it to Emergencies that fell out. fbme time after. And the fifth Obfervation he makes on the 6 Canon of I Nic. Council, is, " That the Rights of the Roman ^' Metropolitan were not due by any Pivine Conftitu-* *^ tlon, but flowed only from Cuffcom and the Pradice <^ of the Church. This is here {ytz. in that Canon 6.) ^' laid down as one of the main Foundations upon which ^' the whole Body of the Canon is built; the Rights ^' here conveyed not being Divine Inftitiftions^ but ^* d^yaJla. ^9m, ancient CuJlcmSy introduced by Time and ^' Ufe and a wife Contrivance/' Ibid,^» 8 1 , And again, " What Power foever (fays be) our ^^ Lord or his Apoftles conveyed to Bilhops, this is cer«- ^^ tain, that all Bifliops, as fuch, Hand upon a common ^^ Level, and that Superiority and Subordination among ^' them is merely from humane politive Inftitution, bor-? ^^ rowed from the Forms in the ot// StatCy and with ^^ great Rea(bn brought in to comply, with the Conve^^ ^' niencies and NecefTities of the Church, And to this *^ the Fathers ufually refer it. Thus we fee they here <^ deterrnined the Cafe of Metropolitans/' Ibid* p. 83. And the further to prove that Metropolitans were only brought \x\ by Ufe and Cullom, and humane Contri?»- vance, he fays, " Thus the Council of £/)^'ty?<\y fpeaks " in the Cafe of the Metropolitan ofCjfrns ^ndA/tioch^ ^^ KuTaTv Tdhat K^cr.7v<^Au UQ- , Can.^ 8. Aud the Fathers ^^ of the 6th Council in triillo confirmed the faid Metro*. ^^ politan's Rights, rtctia. rhj) a,pxcu^i> a-'wu^i^fiv. Jbid. 3. The next I adduce is Dr, Barrow^ The Differta^. /or upon the 4 N/c. Can. append, p, 148. refers to hirn upon this Head, but wichouc fetting dawn his Words, faying only. That /;; bis i'reatife^of the Pope's Suprema-' cy, the Reader ivill fee the Nccejfity of Pr mates or Metro-^ j)oIitans. Come then, to fee whether he makes them to h^from the Beginning of Chrijiianity^ and by Divine or Jpojiolical '[ *33 1 Jpcflolhal Iriftitution, or of fuch Neceflity that there can be no Order nor tfnity without them, Til be at the Pains to fet down his own Words here, whereby we will alio have a Swatch of the Dijfertators Ingenuity. Here they are then ; " At firit (fays be J each Church was fettled apart un- ^' der its own Bilhop and Presbyters ; fo as independent- ^' ly and feparately to manage its own Concernments, " each was m^tckipolkS- ^tidewrooy.Q-" Pope's Supremo^ OS P' 162. Is this to make Metropolitans as old ^s front the Begimiing P Well. He %s further, " The Truth is, all Ecclefiaftical " Prelidencles and Subordinations, or Dependencies of " fome Bifhops on others in Adminiflration of fpiritual ^' Affairs, were introduced merely by humane Ordi-? ^' nance, and elLabliflied by Law or Cuftom, upon pru- ^' dential Accounts, according to the Exigency of ^^ Things : Hence the Prerogatives of other Sees did " proceed." Ikid, Is this to make them of Divine or <' JpoftQlical Inflitution ? But further yet ; ^' Thus (fays he) I conceive the MetropoUtical Gover-^ ^^ nance was introduced by humane Prudence, follow- " ing Confiderations of publick Neceflity or Utility, ^^ There are indeed fome who think it was instituted by ^' the Apollles ; but their Arguments do not feem con- " vincing, and fuch a Conflitution doth not (as I take it) '' well fuit to the State of their Times, and the Courfe ^' they took in founding Churches." Ibid. p. 164. Is this to make them fo nccejfary^ that no Order or Unity can be without thern? 4. I produce next the Author of the original Drai'ghto Of this learned Perfon the Writer of the Poflfcript to the Jppcnd, p. tilt, fays, Fvr the Origine and Rights of Me-* tropollnans, fee this Juthors Judgment^ p. 3 1 4- 1 5- t 6- 1 7o ^/id jud^e whether be i^ould ^CQufk the Jfertors of the Ne-* celiicf ;[ ^34 ] ceffity of a Metropolitan in a provincial Churchy o/'Blaf* phemy. Before I fet down this Author's Words taken from thefe very Pages, I mult purL;e my felf of this Imputa- tion wherewith this Gentleman calumnioufly charges me. Then I called, and do call that a Matter of ahfolute Neceffityy which is fo neceilary that neither Order nor Unity can be in a national or provincial Church without it. View^ /). lOi. I hope Order and Unity are abfolutely ne- ceilary to the Church. Upon the Suppolition therefore, that all Bilhops were inflituted by our Lord and his A- poilles in exact Equality, and that they had not inllitu-' ted an Order of Metropolitans^ fuperior to other Bilhops, without which Metropolitans the Terms (as I have often faid) politively afferted that there could be no Order nor Unity : Upon this Suppolition, I fay, I asked thefe Quer fl:ions, viz. " Has our Saviour and his Apoilles omit- *' ted to appoint that, without which there can be no " Order or Unity ? Muit the faulty Defeat of his Inlli- ^^ tutions, in this Matter of ahfolute Necefftty^ be fup- *^ plied by humane Prudence ? Muil the Church with- *^ out this Jrm of Flejb unavoidably be disfigured by " Conff/ionSy and rent with perpetual Schfns? And- *' then' I faid, and do fay. That I doubt thefe Jbfirdi-^ ^^ ties border well nigh upon Blafpbe?ny,'' There are fundry kinds of Necefjjty^ particularly two, carefully diilinguiihed by Philolbphers, viz. abfolitte Necejfity^ and Nccejfity fccundtm qiiid^ as they ufually fpeak. I did not, nor do not fay, that the foTefaid Ab- furdities follow from this lall Species^ nor are they chargeable upon the JJertors of it ; but upon the firft, and the Afiertors of it as to Metropolitans j I ftill think they are. And this Gentleman has Caid ne vel ypv to convince me of the contrary ^ and if he had, I think I have fufficiently vindicated my Opinion by the forego-. r ^33 ] ing Teflimonies. Yet to lliew* that the Author of the origwal Draught does not differ from the former, I fliall here fubjoin his own Words. They are as follows ; P. 315. " But whatever Occafion we aflign for k " {viz* the Introdudion of Metropolitans) the Matter of " Fadl (I think) wants no other Evidence, belides the " 6 Canon of the i Nicene Council, which exprefly calls ^' fuch a peculiar Pre-eminence of many chief Churches " in feveral Provinces of the Empire, by the Name of ^^ i^ycuict f9ji, or Citjfoms of an ancient Ji an ding in the " Church/' Now does his calling them Ciijfoms of an ancient Jf and" ing at all infer, that he makes them oi Divine or Jpofto^ Itcal Inftitution ? Does it infer, that they are ahfoluteJy neceffary in the Church, becaufe no Order or Unity can be without them ? No body doubts thtfirjf^ but I believe few will be fo bold as to maintain the lajl. Again, f. 317. he fays, " Thztfome Antiquaries ^hct '' that Prerogative of calling Councils in fome peculiar " chief Billiop in each Province of the primitive Church " from the very Time of the ApolUes Deceafe, as they " alfo do their Right of preliding there when they met." This is the Subltance of all he fays of the Origine and Rights of Metropolitans ; and in this lall he does not fo much as deliver his own Opinion, but only tells what is faid by fome Antiquaries. I proceed now to another 'uiz. 5. Antonins de Dcminis^ who fays, Totam vero banc Hierarchicam fiihcrdinationcm inter Epifcopos Catholicje Ec clcfi^^ folo jure humane Eccleftafiico cjfe injiitutam^ inde vel maxtml patetj quod in Conciltis omncs controverjj^ circa ilJanij non nift ex fatutis Ecckjiajiicis terminantur^ y ex civitatum typis ficu/ankus. De Repub. Ecclef Tom. i. .//^, 3. cap. 2. 5 17. Agab, Ut plam videas non jun Divinoy mu Romano Pontic T 235 J J>€fttifieio^ fed SynodicOy ^ Patrura co7iventiom^ Prevlnda^ rum CLiram juijje certis Ecclejiis attributam. Ibid. ^ 8. He neither makes it oi Apoftolical Inftitvition, nor db-^ fokitely necejfary^ 6. The next I name is Sutcer^ whom the Dijfcrtator upon -xeiPjTov^iv^ Jppftd, p. 6y. in the Note, calls a very learned Perfon. His Words are, Pofiea uhi Epifcopi ma^- jores Presbyteris faSfi funty qui re ac nomine iidem erant^ turn Epifcopi Jingtdamm civitatum Prcsbyteriis fiiis per tO" turn orbem pr^pojitiy pares inter fe raanferunt ac ajjToyj,(pethoi* ^lod ufque ad Niccenum ferme ConcdiuM^ ^ paiilo diutius duravit^ Ab eo tempore impofiti funt Epifcopis MetTOpolita;^ qui etiam ordinationem Epifcopormn in fmgulis Pro^oinciis kabuere. Suicer in voce Epifccpus^ Now becaufe the Rev i ewer y p. 80. fays, that , Pctr, de Marcay Bifhop U/hery and Bifhop Beveridgey think that Metropolitans were of ApoJioUcal Infiitiitiony without fet-? ^ng down their Words ; Til here do it for him, to fee whether they do fo or no, or what can be made of them, I begin with T>e Marc a, 7. He fays, That the Reafon why the Divifion of the ■Church into Provinces was made, was to follow the fecular Type and Form of the Divifion of the Roman Empire, faying, Opportwnitas itaqiie £^ commoditas popUf^ forum effecity ut in Ecclefia ratio haberetur dignitatis quam civitas ilia obtinebat in imperio* De concord, facerd. & imper. lib* 6. cap. u § 8. This hp tak^s from 9 Can. A/JtiocL Of this no body doubts. But then this Confideration muft neceiTariiy have been made by the Church after the Apoftles Days, 'Tis true, that the Apoftles firft plant- ed Chriftianity among the GefitileSy in their chief Cities y^ becaufe they were to exped in them both the moll plen- tiful Har^^ilj and alfo the moit prevalent Example to other Places, But for ought we can diftinftly leapj 4hefe w^re their only Motives, and not that thefe Cities,' t '-57 1 were Metropolises of Provinces, ot that their Bifhop*. might have a Superiority over the other Bilhops of theie Provinces ; for all Antiquity tells us, that Bilhops were inilituted in an exaft Equality. But becaufe that thefe were the chief Cities ^ind. alfo that Ghrillianity was firft planted in them, and that therefore the Bilhops of them did convert the neighbouring Places: From all thefe it behoved naturally to follow, that the Bilhops of thefe Cities would be more refpeited than, the Bilhops of meaner ones ; and hence by Degrees it came to pafs, that they were in procefs of Time made Metropolitans, I'herefore fome Writers fay. That the ApolHes gave Occalion for this Precedency : but indeed that feems to be by Accident ^ and not of let Purpofe ^id Delign. And for this Reafon it is, that De Marca indeed thinks that this Divifion and Precedency may be refer-* red to the Apoilles, faying, Ut ego quidem exijilmo for- mam dijirihuendartim Provinciartmy y MetropoUtanorum infiituendorum JpofloU tradiderimt. Ibid. ^ p* Not that the Apoflles act ti ally 7nade the Divijion^ or tnjiituted Me-^ tropolitanSy but that they gave Occalion for doing it af^ ter wards; and therefore he adds, Teamen id niillibi tnfa^ cris fcriptuns pr^^cepum ejf. And there he remarks two Things, whereof the firfl is in thefe Words, Primtim enim inde fa^um ejl tit veteres banc Provimiaru7/i di'uijin^ nern^ non ipjis Apoffolis^ fedpatnhiis y i)ctiijl<€ confitetudiui -trihuerint. And I fay, this fully fbttens any thing that he fays ; for whatever his Opinion was, certainly the jincients knew better how the Divijion of Provimes^ and the IriffHutton of Metropolitans were made, than he could do. 8. I come next to confider what Biiliop Bcvcridge fays. He in his Note on 6 Nic. Can, fpeaks thus, Ul-i ettam ultimo ohfervare licet^ patres NicSBnos ornncpt Metro^ foliticam tarn Alexandrini qtiam Romani Epifcopi potcfta^ tcniy [ ^38 ]. temy non ApqfloIoYUnij nediim Chrifti infiitutioni ^ fed taft'^ turn antique confuetud'mi accepta?n hie referre, I think this is not making it to be of Jpojfolical Injiittition. But the Reviewer cites his Codeyi Canonum Ecclef primit* vindic, lib. i. cap, 5. for this ^ but he has not favoured us with his Words, therefore Til fet them down here. There then he fpeaks thus, ^lapropter vis diibitare li-^ cetj quin aliquo faltem modo ad ipfos Jpojiolos referatur (fciz, Metropolitanorum inftitutio^ qui ft non ipfi hunc primatum injiitueruntj inflituendo tamen viam firaiierunt apertijjtmam. No doubt they did, but (as I faid a little before) this was by Accident. Does he here exprefly call it an ApoftoUcal Jnjiitiition ? Does he fay any more than that by planting Chriilianity firil in the chief Cities, they pav'd the way for its after Introdu^ion ? What he fays diilindly of it is this, E prcemijjts vide^ re ejiy Metropoleon ^ celehriorum mitatum Epifcopos in Europa pariter atque Afia aliqualcm in Provinciales fuos Epifcopos primatum hahuiffey iifqiie prcclatos fidjf^y priuf' quam diicenti a ChriHi nativitate anni efflimffent. Cod. vindic. lih. 2. cap, 5. ^ 8. I believe few doubt of this: Eut is this to call it an Apojiolical I'/iflitutim F And he fays 611. Hoc (viz, their Preeminence) fane ordinationisy qua ft EpifcopuSy virtute nemo ftbi vendicare, potejiy quippe qua omnes acqaalem poteftatem curamqueftbi conmiffam habent. And he fays, Incepta eft enim vel in^ Jiitutay priufquam mnverfalia Concilia cekbrari axperint* Who doubts of this ? But does this prove the Reviewers pofitive Allertion? Nay, which is more, he fays, Scd mirarifaheaty nee qui'- dem immeritoy qua tandem rat tone hcec covfuetudo in Ecck'- fiam prime introdu&afty tit licet Epfcopatus ttbi que gentium unus tdemqueftty tiniis tamen in unaquaque Provmcia Epif- copus ceteris pr^efjety (^ majorem quam rcliqui autoritatem habmt. By which he fiiews that he was fo far from thinking [ ^59 ] tWnking it an /poJloUcal Injiitutiony that he wonders how it came in. Yet he lays, as de Marc a did before, that the A- pollles gave Occafion for it, faying, ^mmvls emm ipfi nnfquam^ quodfcimus^ diferti pr^cepcrintj ut unus in tina^ quaqiie regwne ceteris pneeffet Epifcopisy mdmn nt qui Me- tropoli prxficitur^ alt is prafhrctur-^ cum ipfi tamen in £r- clejiis wjlituendis ad Provincias jiista civikm imperii difpo- faionem^ mc non ad Metropoks earum^ ftngularem refpeiium Ijahiicnnty hand duhitare licet^ quin Provinciar/wi in £^- ckfia ad imperii excmphwi divide fidarum forma ah tpfis A- pofioUs manaverit, Bever. ihid. lib. !• cap. 5. § 15^ What he means by his faying here that the Form for the after Divtfwn of the Provinces in the Church flowed from" the Apollles, he tells us there alfo, faying, Cum ipft igituT Apofloli in Erclefia propaganda tantam Provincial film ^ Mctropoko'd raticnem hahuerint^ exempio quidem^ //- cet iion pVitcepto fiiOy Mctropolitanis S Primatthus in Ec^ ckfia injfitiieridis occaftoncm prdehuerunt. Ibid. All therefore that thefe two learned Men fay dillinft- ly upon the Head is this, i. That Metropolitans^ fome of them at leaft, were fettled in the Church before the Beginning of the third Century. 2. That they were brought in by Degrees, they knew not how, by the C//- Jlom and Pra^ice of the Church. 3. And that which gave Occafion to this Pra^lice, was not the Command nor hijfitnxion of the Apollles, but their planting Chri- Itianity firfl in the chief Cities i^ by doing which they iliewed a greater Refpeft to them than to others, and fo by their Ei^ample gave occalion tor after Ages to do fo too. 9. Archbifhop Ufker is another to whom the Reviewer refers for this Apoflolical hijlitittto?^ but he takes care not to give his Words ; but I iliall. They are in a fmall Traft of his called the Original of Bijbops and Metropolis tans^ pubiiihed in a little Book, entituled, A fitmmary t MO ] VU'W of the Government both of the Old a^d Newi'eJ^afnenty^ Oxf. 1 64 1, 8w. He is indeed juft of the fame Mind wkh the two former, as to this Affair, and fpeaks as duhiott/ly about it^ for, after he has ihewn that the fitfl Churches were planted by the Apoftles in MetropoUs'sy and that upon that Account their Eilhops had much Re^ fpeii from, and Influence upon the Biihops of inferior Ci- ties, which were afterwards converted, and in whofe Converfion and Plantation they themfelve^ had labour-* ed ; he fays in the End, " The Beginning of which kind *^ of Subordination of many Bifhops unto one chie^ if it *^ were not to be derived from JpojMical Right ; yet it ** is by Eeza fetched from the fame Light of Nature ^' and Enforcement of NecefTity, whereby Men were *^ at firil induced to enter into Confociations, fubjeded *^ one unto another ^ and by Buccr acknowledged to *' have been confentaneous to the Law of C h r i s t, ^* and to have been done by the Right of the Body ox /' Christ; and by all Men muft be confelled to be *' conformable to the Pattern delivered by G o d unto ^^ Mofes," Origifial cj Mctrcp. p. 74. Now is there any thing peremptorily or dillindiy fidd here, as to its Jpc^ fiolical Infiitution r* He reafons for it from its Lawfulnefs and Conveniency^ and the Conceffiofis of Adverfaries, and therefore from the Right of the Church to introduce it. But his Reafoning from thefe Topicks is a plain Indica- tion, that he had nothing demonfirative to advance for its Divine or Apoftolical Inllitutioni Indeed his and Dr. Hammond' z Reafoning too upon this Head, reach no further than Conjectures, as is evi- dent both from their Words, from the Teftimonies of other Perfons of as great Learning, and even from the very Nature of the Thing, all agreeing that by Ch r i s x and his Apoftles, Biihops were inllituted in an exact E- quality as to their Epifiopal Office^ and purely fpiritu^ Powers. IL An4 t 141 1 ir. And fo T come now to fay fomething of the Em and Dcfign of their Inllitution. The Reafon of this Branch is, becaule the Subfcrihers of the forefaid Terms would have us believe, that it was becaufe m Order or Ufiity could be without them. But I fliall fet down the Teliimonies of fome learned Men, to fee whether they fay fo too, or whether thefe Propfers of the T'erms have been thus pcftthe without Book. In the Vicw^ p. loa. I fet down a Paffage from Df. Cave's Primitive Chrijftanity^ and another from Mr. Bing'* hams Origi EccL pretty plain upon this Head. They are not long, and therefore I will repeat thehi hefCi I. " The Original of the Inflitution (fays Dr. Cave J *' feems to have been, partly to comply with People's " Occafions-, who oft reforted to the Metropolis for DiC- ''^ patch of their Aftairs, and fo might fitly difcharge *' their Civil and Eccleiiallical Concerns both at once ^ *' and partly becaule of the great Confluence of People *^ to that City, that the Bilfiop of it might have Prehe^ ^' minence above the reft, and the Honour of the Church " bear fome Proportion to that of the Stare/' Primitive' Chrijfianitjy Edit. 3. Svo, Lcnd>, 1 676, p- 226k 2* " Perhaps ffays Mr. BinghamJ it took its Rife front " that common Refpect and Deference which was u- " fually paid by the reft of the Bilhops, to the Biihop ^' of the civil Metropolis in every Province; which ad- " vancing into a Cuftom, was afterwards made into a " Canon by the Council of Nice." Orig. Ecch Vol, i. Book 2* chap. 16. p. 183. I obferved upon thele, That hone of them derives their Original from any ahfolute Necejftty there was for them, but only from civil RefpcB^^ or fome Cctrjeniojcy in Bulinefs. I cited another Pailage from Dr. Cave out of hid DiC- fertation concerning the Government of the ancient Churchy pertinent to this very Purpofe, above/). !233. he ends ic Q^ thusj [ M^ ] thus, ," And for this none could be fo fit as he that re- *' fided in the Metropolis of the Province, thence cal- *' led Mctropolitaru' And he goes on thus, " Partly, *' becaufe the Countries for the moll part round about *^ had originally derived their Chrifkianity fi:om thence : *' And 'twas but fit they Ihould pay a peculiar Kelpedt *' to the Mother Church ; partly, becaufe moll Perlbns ^^ had occafion to refort thither for the Difpatch of Bu- '' finefs, and might with the fame Opportunity conve- ^' niently tranfact both their Civil and EccleliaitickMat- *' ters; and partly, becaufe it v^as but reafonable that ^* the Bilhop of fo eminent a Place Ihould « Tz/yit 'TFfon- *' y^d-cu, have an honourable Prefidency over the reft, *' as the Council of Aitioch^ Can, p. particularly pro- *' vides in this Cale/' Cave^ Dijfert. p. ^^, 3. The next I adduce is Dr. Brett, His Notion of the Defign of their Tnftitution is this, ^' They (/. e, the *' Apoftles) fixed a Bilhop in each of the principal Ci- '' ties (or ckil A'fetropolis's) where they faw it requifite, ^' and gave thefe Billiops Orders, as other Cities of the ^' civil Province lliould be converted, to fix Billiops alfo *^ in them. The Apoftles being very careful to place ^' the moft extraordinary Perfons in the Metropolitan Ci- ^^ ties, becaufe there was the greateft Harveft, and moll ^' Occafion for Men of extraordinary Abilities and ^' Gifts : This caufed the other Bifhops of the Province ^' to make their Applications to them for Advice in their ^^ weighty Affairs, and to pay a Deference and Refpect " to 'em upon all Occafions ; fo that all the Bifhops ^' conftituted by the Apoftles were of equal Authority as <* they were Billiops, and therefore when a new Bilhop *' was to be made, either upon the Death of another, or *' becaufe the Number of Converts was increafed, they *^ met together to confecrate him, yet they yielded a " Precedency to the Bifhop of the Metropolis * and the ** like was done when they alTembled to confult of any ^^ othet [ 243 ] •^ other Affairs of the Church. This was found the ^' moil prudent and convenient Method to preferve the ** Unity of the Church in feveral Provinces/' Account of Church Goverfmientj chap» 13. />. 238* All this is, as I have faid, for Rcfpeci and Cotiveniencyy not for ahfolutc Ncceffity. 4. Hie next is Dn Barrow. " Becaufe in all Socle- ^^ ties (fays he) and Confederacies of Men for ordering " publick Aftairs, (for the fettling Things in Motion, *' for efte£>ual Difpatch, for preventing endlefs DifTen- *^ tions and Confuiions, both in refolving upon and exe- *^ cuting I'hings) it is needful that one Perlbn ihould *^ be authorized to prefide among the reit, unto whom *' the Power and Care ihould be entrulled to convoke *' Ailemblies in fit Sealbn, to propofe Matters for Con- " fultation, to moderate the Debates and Proceedings, ^' to declare the Refult, and to fee that what is agreed " upon may be duly executed ; fuch a Charge then na- *' rurally would devolve itfelf upon the Prelate of the *' MetropoUsy as being fiippofed conllantly prefent on the ^^ Place, as being at home in his own Seat of Prefi- ^' dence, and receiving the reft under his Wing ; as in- *' conteftably furpafTing others in all Advantages anfwer- *^ able to tht fee ular jidvantages of his City/' Snprem* />, 163* All Matter oi Policy and Prudence j no abfoluteNc^ cejtty. And this he himielf expreily fays, '' Patriarchs, Primates, Metropolitans, were according to Prudence conftituted by the Church itfelf, for the more order- ly and peaceable Adminiftration of Things/' Ibid, p. I 29. " Thele (fays he J did ftand under Authority *' of the Church, and might be changed or corrected as *' was found expedient by common Agreement." Ihid^ 5. The laft I adduce is Antonius de Dominis^ faying, "Eccleft^ minus infiru^^^ S pofteriusfundatae^ ad has pr^e^ fipuas Apojiolicas*^ pro mfiru^ione^ fthi femper cofifugicn'- dum putarint. ^las mihi vidaur origo confaetudinisj ut a a t ^44 ] dU III. I proceed nov/ to fay fomewhat upon the ancient Powers of Alctrcpolitans^ particularly the Negative in provincial Aliemblies afcribed to them by the EJJayer^ and infilled on by the Protejfer. We fee from the Te- ilimonies of Dr. Brett and Dr. Barrow above fet down | in the Branch of their Antiquity^ That in the Beginning \ each Bifhop was free of Subjedion to any Metropolitan ^ and that Synods met together without any Metropolitical j Summons^ by the primitive divine Right of the Church : \ and that Bifhops prelided in them, as they were eleftea by the Members. Indeed after Metropolitans were fettled, there is no t)onbt but that they enjoyed fandry Privileges and Powers beyond their Comprovrncials^ by Cullom and Ap- pointment of the Church, fuch as, to convocate provin*- cial Synods, to preftde in them, and that no w eighty Matters belonging to th^ Province could be determined and [ ^45 1 l?ind executed without their Prefcnce or Knowledge ; pur* Iticularly, not the Ek^wn of Bilhops. Thele are Things that all Writers ancient and modern do agree in, But then as to their negative Voice in thofe Synods, the bell Writers exprelly deny that any fiich thing be^ longed to them ^ and fpund their Sentiments upon aU'* cient Canons, Indeed the allowing of a Negative to any one, is gi-s ving him a princely Prerogative among thofe others over whom he has the Negative : Which is not agreeable to that Equality which our Lqrd eftabliihed among hi^ A^ polHes, and their Succelfors the Bilhops. And for feac of Ufurpations of thi^ Nature, the African Code, Can, 42, exprelly difcharges the firft Biihop to be called an Esarch or Prince of Pricfisy ox higheji Pncjiy or any fuch Name J but only the Bijhop oftbefirji Chair, And in the Vicjo^ p. 103, 185, 186. I have cited fe-* yeral ancient Canons which reilrain the Metropolitan in the Exercife of his Office, to the Concurrence and ConfenP of his provincial Synod. Thefe Canons are, JpoJ^. 34, Nic, 6. Antioch 9, 2 Areh 5. And of what t f4id there^ the Effayer and Reviewer take no Notice., Therefore I will now proceed to confirm this Opinioa by the Teitimonies of fome learned Moderns. 1. In the VteWy p, 104. I adduced Mr. Binghanty fay-i ing, That the Metropolitan was fo far frorq having a A^^-^ gative over the provincial Synod, that on the contrary there lay an Appeal from, htm to it \ and that h© wa^ only the Prcfjdent^ or Moderator^ and I)ire^or ojf B^lx-a nefs in i:. 2. And Fiewj p, 168. I cited a Paflag^ froni Mr. Col-i. lier^ faying concerning the Eleclion of Bilhops, Tha!: ^he Bilhops of the Province either confirmed ox voided the Choice : And that it was bec^ufe the JVleeting o-t Synpds grew leis frequent, ''that that Power was afterwaicda de-^ yoived upon th^ Metropolitan, Thi^ is !^uC uuking \im\ t .45 ] m a manner, their Depute or Subfi'ttute. This is far from allowing him a Negative over them. The next I adduce is Dr. Brett^ who fpeaking of the 4 Ntc. Caij, fays, " However this Right of coytfirmingy " this r: K\>^':'^ did not give the Metropolitan a Ncgattve *^ in this or any other Matter, he was only hereby con-* " itituted the Chair-man or Preftdent of the Aiieinlly, ^' that declared the Determination of the rell, as is evi- " dent from the 6th Canon of this Council/' Jcccant of Church Government^ p, 262. Here he repeats the Canon, and then fays, " By which it is evident that tbough the ^' Sentence of the Metropolitan, that is his Cvyjkmaticnj ^^ or KvfS^, was neceflary to the Ordination ot a Biiliop, ^' yet that he was not to give that Sentence or Conhr-^ *^ mation merely according to his own Will and Plea-r ^^ fure, but according to the Suffrages of the Majority of ^' his Comprovinciah" Here he repeats the 5th Canon ot the 2d Council ofjrles^ where it is appointed, ^hap the Metropolitan fiall follow the Plurality of Voices in t?je Ele^wn. Ibid. p. 263, 4. I name next Dr. Samuel Parker^ who %s, " The ^^ plain Meaning oiCan.ApoJf. 34. can be nothing elfe ^' than this. That all Affairs of Weight and Moment ^' ought to be debated and determined in a free Coun- ^^ cil of the Metropolitan and his BiJbopsJ' Account of the Govern, p. 180. For he fays a little before, " That if ^' yvauY^ fignify Corftnt^ then no Bulinefs can be done, ^^ unlefs all the Bilhops of the Province agree in Opi- ^' nion; and if one diiltnt, it ihall hinder all Proceed- ^' ings, which is too abiurd to be here fuppofed : For f inftead of lecuring the Government of the Church, ic f' utterly confounds it/' Parker^ tbid, p. 170. And yet, as abfurd as this is to be fuppoled, the Ejfajer adually fuppofes i:, faying p. 23, But tken^ as has been already hbferved^ in thcfe Councils^ no ftngU Bifoop could be deters ^tf^f4 P^ a Majority cf Sup ages againji bis G%m Judg^, ment' r 247 1 mefit ; avd therefore no Cano?i decreed^ winch could ohllgt the whole Province^ w'tth$ut the Confcnt of all. And again, /). 25. / cmrrwt fee what Privilege he (the Metropolitan) has in this Matter above the reft^ unlefs it he that they could not meet or a3 in Council without his calling it^ and pre^ Jiding in it. Yet even in this Privilege alio Dr. Erctt^ as above, has fhewn that he is millaken, as to thole early Times, of which he is fpeaking. But Parker adds, '' The 6th Canon oi Nice^ afcer it " hath made a peremptory Decree, that no Biihop be *' ordained without the y J^^ of tht Metropolitan y itim- " mediately adds, But if any one be duly and canonic ^^ cally eleded by a common Suffrage, (A^. B, This is another Voucher for that Canon's determining Ek^ions) " though two or three dillent for Love of Contradidi- ^' on, yet the major Vote carries it. And this being fet " down without Exception, if the Metropolitan himfelf " (without whofe Knowledge nothing is to be done) " be one of the peevilh Diflenters, the fenfe of the Body ^' of the Council is by this Rule ^o prevail/' Ibid, f ♦ 181. And he goes on thus, " And if it were not fo, there *^ would have been then no JurifdiAion in the Church *' to reach the Mifcarriages ot Metropolitans, becaufe ac ^^ that Time there was no higher Handing Authority ^' than the provincial Synod ; and if he was not liable to ^' their Cenfure, he mult be exempt from all Ecclefiafti-» *^ cal Judgment : A Thing contrary to the Senfe and <^ Pradice of the whole Church, and never challenged ^^ but by the Popcs^ when they had fwallowed np all the ^''Jurifdiilion of the Church into St. P^to and them^ ^' felves.'* Thus Parker ^ ibid. p. 181, To this learned Man the EJfayer goes point-blank op-» pofite, who Ejfay^ p. 46, 47. exprefly fays, T'he Coun-* i:il'decrees in the 6th Canon^ 'That in that Cafe the Sajffrage 9f the Majority pall prevail \ hut ftill^ fo as they dedare it ^4 ^* [ ^48 ] t« h a fhin^ very mmijefty that if any be made a Bi/hcpy mthoiit the Suffrage of the Metropolitan, the great Synod determines^ that he ot^ght not to he a Bijhop :^ which is plam-*, ly afcriVwg a Negative to the Metropolitan in all Ordina'^, tions. This, in Parkers Judgment, is a T'hing contrary to the. Senfe and Pratt tee of the whole Clour cb^ and never challen^:. ged hut hy the Popes, 5. The lail I Ihall mention here is the learned Dr. Barrow^ to whom the Jppend/x~zvri'ter refeis, Jpp, p, 1 47. And I am very well pleafed, that what I have laid as to this Negative^ ftand or fall according to his Judgment : And though that Gentleman has not thought tit to fee- down his Words, I will^ they are as follows, '^ It is an unreafonable Thing ffaj's he J. that the 0-. " ■ pi;iion or Humor of one Man (no wifer or better com- ^' monly than others) fhould be preferred before the *^ common Agreement of his Brethren, being of the *' fame Office and Order with him ; fo that he iliould ** be able to overthrow and frullrate the Refult of their- *' Meetings and Confultations, when it did not Iquare ta *■* his Conceit and Intcrell ; ^ efpecially feeing there is not ^'^ the lead Appearance of any Right he hath to fuch a ^■^ Privilege, grounded in holy Scripture, Tradition or '^ Cuiloni/' Pi)pe''S Sup-emacy^ p. aop. Again, ^' When any of theie (viz. Patriarchs^ Pri-- ^^ matcs^ and Adctropclira/is) did begin to. domineer, or *•- exceed his Limits^, he was liable toAccoun;andCor-. ^= redion/' Hid, p. 130. And, ^.' When Primates did begin to fv/eU and en- '^ cioacb, good Men declared their Dilplealure at ii;, an3 "^ wiihc'd it removed ^ as is known particularly by the' *^ famous Wifn of Greg. Naz. viz. 'iu o(pi^ov yi- (xn^'i iJi ^.reg. Naz. OraU a 80 Barrow j, ihid^ Again^ [ ^49 1 Again, " It was then (anciently) a paflable Opinio^ ^^ that he {the Eipop of Rome) as one was in Reaibn o« ^S bilged to yield to the common Judgment of his Col- f legues and Brethren- as the Emperor Conftantius tol4 ^' Pope Liberiusy That the Vote of the Plurality of Bi- ^f {hops ought to prevail; tZv ^cc? '7r^eiovG>v 'Ets^kottuv n 4J, ** o<^ iq^v.-ii' [t(p^^ti:* Iheodor, i. i6« Barroij^y p, 212, Ones more, '^ It is indeed there (viz. 6 Can, Nic.y ^' faid, That none Ihould be ordained ycoejL<; yr(iijL,i^^ ^' without the Opinion of the Metropolitan ; but that *^ doth not import a negative Voice in him, but that the <^ Tranfadion ihould not pafs in his Ahfence^ or withouc ^' his lOwjuIedge, Advice and Suffrage : For fo the ApQ*;? Itolical Canon (to which the Nicene Fathers there did allude and refer, meaning to interpret it) doth ap- point, That the Metropolitan ihould do nothing ojsy TYii 'TTciviav yvauff^, without the Opinion of all; that is, vv^ichout Suffrage of the mofty concluding alhy ^^ (for farely that Canon doth not give to each one a ^' negative Voice,) And fo the Synod o^ Antioch (held ^' foon after that of Ntce^ which therefore knew bell the '^ fenfe of the Nicene Fathers, and how the Culloni -^ went) doth interpret it, decreeing; 'E^r/V^co^o;' /u« x^es- ^' XidLi. Can. 1 9. in which Synod yet they determine " Y.ecf-THvihjjT^v -xKHovm 4,7:zov\ no peculiar Advantage in '• the Cafe being granted to the Metropolitan.*' Barrow^ ibid. /?. 212. Now briefly to recapitulate this Difcpurfe concerning MetrcpolitanSy I fay, if ancient Canons pretty plain ia themfelves, and interpreted by Men of undoubted Know- ledge and Learning ; if the Reafoning. of thefe Men upon them, and their Tellimonies of them, ferve ta prove any thing concerning the I.aVvs and Pradice of the Church regulated by thefe Canons : Then from this PilcQUi;fe it folbw^ l. That l\^w%\iMctrcfcIitans wecc * ' ' iV^doubC'q [250] undoubtedly ancienter than the firft Nicem Council, yet they were not of Divine nor Jpqftolical Inflitution, no, nor even from the Begimiing of Chriftianity ^ but brought in by Degrees afterwards, 2. That the Reafon of their Introduftion was Refpe^ Civil and Ecclefiaftick paid to the Billiops of the civil Metropolis^ Sj and Conveniencies in the orderly and fpeedy Difpatch of Eccleliaftical Afiairs ♦ and not that there could be no Order or Unity without them. 3. And that though tliey were the Callers oi frovinciaf Jfymdsy and the Prefidents of them when met ; yet they had no negative Voice in them, but were to be regulated hj the Plurality of the Voices gf their Brethren, ^ 9» I N the EJfayy p. ^^, in the Note, we are told. That Dr. B.ofs (late Billiop of Edinburgh) in the Inftruments of Confecration which he granted, lliles Iiimlelf, Sedis SanSit Andreas nunc vacantis Vicarius:^ i.e. Vicar of the now vacant See of St. Andrews, And truly I muft fay, the Prvtejicr has laid no fmall Strefs upon that iare Defignatio^?^ viz. even to afcribe Bilhop Fullartonj feecaufe he had the Infpeftion of the City of Edinburgh^ though only that allenarly (as I have proved in the Pre-^ face) and was not properly the Billiop of that See, a Ne^. gative in all Synods and Aliemblies ol this Church, be- caufe by the Law of this Nation the Archbilliop of St. Andrews had it perhaps. And Append, p. \ 9. politively fays. That the Btfiop of Edinburgh (meaning the faid Bilhop Fullarton) fupplies the Place of the Archhipop of St, Andrews, during the Vacancy of that See^ by the Char^f ier of EreSion of the See of Edinburgh. Though in that Charter he be -only appointed to fupply the Place of hi§ Chancellor^ Now becaufe {o very great Powers (fuch as that Ne-^. ga^tive particularly) are inferred to be veiled in a Bilhop pt Edinburgh^ iuppofing there WQre one really fuch, jfroi^ C ^5t 1 from the bare found ot the Word Vtcar^generaJj or fa- ther Chancellor^ as it is in the Charter of Erection. I have endeavoured to inform my felf of the Rtfe of thele Offices, {viz. of Vicarage ncrals and Chancellors) and the Extent of their Powers. But not to fpend too much Time upon this Subjed, I fhall deliver what I am to fay upon it in the \\^ords of Dr. Brett and Mr. Johnfon. The Account Dr. Brett gives of them is this, " This " Authority (fays he) which is now exercifed by the " Bifliops Vicars^ under the feveral Names o{ Vicars-^ " general^ Chancellors j Commijfaries^ and Officials ^' is the only Office retained in our Church that appears *' to have no better Original (viz. than Popi/hJ being ^' inftituted, as has been already ihewed, about the ^' tenth Century, in fome Parts of Chriflendom, and not ^' known in this Realm till about the twelfth Century, *' that is in the darkell Times of Popery^ and when the " Papacy was at its Height, and impofed what it pleafed " on the World : And the Effe£t of it was the putting '^ down by Degrees of Diocefan Synods and Epifcopal ^' Chapters^ where for a thouland Years together Ecck" " fiajltcd Caiifes had been wont to have been decided.'^ Account of Church Govern, chap. ii. p, 203, Thus we have an Account of the Time of their Rifi^ Kext he tells us the Occafion and Reafon of it, faying, ^' Gratians Book {viz, his Colledion of Canons and " Conftitutions Eccleliaitical, pubhlhed Anno 1 151.) ^' meeting with a very favourable Reception, and be- ^' ing fuppOi'ed to contain all the Canons and Conilitu- " tions of the Church which v/ere neceflary for publick ^^ Ule, and proper for the Decilion of all Matters ot Ec- ^' chftajiical Jtidicature^ the Biiliops by Degrees began ^' to leave oft' to conlblt with their Clergy in the Deter- ^' mination of Caufes and Controverlies, and to appoint ^' inch as had ftudied Gratian (who foon began to be ^ read in Schools^ to hear and judge of all canonical ^^ Matcersj [ ^s^ ] . *^ Matters, whom they termed their Vicars or Cha?i:eh ^^ lorSy of whom we hnd httl^ or no Mention before *• this Time, at leaft not as to any Ecclciiallical Judica- " turc which they exercifed. ^' Gratia/is Colledion of the Canons therefore, in ^f aii Probability, laid the Way for the Introdutlrtion of *' Vicars^gejieral^ Chancellors^ or Officials^ becauie they 'f were unknown in his Time, but very common im-^ ^^ mediately after/* Brctt^ Ibid. p. ao6. Where there ^re a great many ' Grievances and Abufes laid to their Charge. Upon this Account I briefly remark thefe few Things folio wing, z'iz. 1. That Vicars^g&neral and Chancellors are a very late Inllitution, not being much above 500 Years old. 2. That they were brought in in the darkeil Time* of Poper)\ 3. That they had a very bad Effecf upon the Honour. and Ppwcr of the CLvgj. 4. And eipeLially, That they were frequently, and ipay be Lay-men^ viz. luch as were or are well acquaint-? ed with Gratians Collections, 5. That their chief Deiign was to judge of fuch Ec« cleliaflical Caufes as were decided by p-'esbyters in Dioccfan Synods and Epifcop^l Chapters before. 6. That they had their ConmiJ/ms from the Biiliops ; for they appointed them : Therefore their Power could lait no longer than the Life of the Bilhop. Now I take Leave, from the Conlide ration of thefe Things, to put this fmgle Quelilon, viz. V Are thefe Vicars-general proper Pe;fons,, as, fuch, to be Metropolitans^ and hav^ a Negative over Synods of Bilhops ; and that even after the Death of the Bilhop, Mandator ? Or were they ever defign 4 for this Pur-^,' pole ? Ancl here I cannot forbear faying, That the Prot^Jler ^nd Ejjayer bath endeavoured to charm us, and^ for ought I know, hhiifelf too, by the Sound of a hare IVorJ^ without conlidering its hr.pori. As for Mr. Johnfon^ he in his Vade^-mccmn^ Vol i, p 163. Edit. 4, Lorid. 171 5, diftinguiflies the Jurifdiftioa of Bifliops and their Vtcars or Chancellors into xwo Branched bir Kinds, viz. one vchmtarjy and the othar judicial or contentious. The ^JoJuntary ]urifdl61:ion of the Archhifiopy Primate or Mttropolitany he fays, coniifls in "vifitingy not 05\ly the Diilrifts of his own Archdeacons and Commiflaries^ blit every Diocefe within his Province ; in exercifing the Power of Ordinary within every fuch Diocefe, die- ting the Vacancy of the See, and even during Six Months upon every Vifitation ^ in confirming the new Biihop^ and appoijiting Coadjiitcrs to thole who by realbn of lo- £rmity ftand in need of them, granting Inftitution, ^c-* And he fays, JJI this is or may be performed by his Vicar^ general. Ibid. p. 267. Now this, according to him, can only be done da- ting the Bilhop's Life : For he i'ays- " The Deans and " Chapters of Canterbury and Torkj during the Vacancy '' of either Archbilhoprick, are ftill Guardians of the *' Spiritualities of the feveral Provinces and Diocefes ^ " that is, (fays he J All the Ecclefiallical Juriididsoii " belonging to the Archbiihops, is, in the Vacancy of ^' the Sees, exercifed by them, or their CommilTioners^ " they vifit, hold Courts, grant Dilpenfations, Inllitu- ^' tions, ^c* Johnfon^ ibid. p. 61. By which it appears, that the Vicar-^generafs OiHce continued only during the Archbiihop's Lifetime. What can be drawn from this for a Vicar^genefal's bet- ing a Metropolitan^ and having a Negati'vCy as aforelaid, ftlter an Archbijbop's Death ? Bcfides, r .^54 3 Befides, there is a DiiTerence, I judge, and that a Wide one too, between a Vtcar-'general and the Guar^ Hans of the Spmtualities. Thefe lofty we fee, olBciate in the Vacancy, but not thefrft. Thus I have finiihed what I defignd. And novr cameftly pray, That Almighty God may vouchfafe to blefs it for His own Glory and the Unity and. Peace of this Church, Jmef$. FINIS. ^^•J54^. L -\ /<-3 nnceton Theoloqic.il Seniin