to judg the accusations that are against any byshop lastly to call synods and there conclude and decide what may seem best for the welfare and spiritual government of his province Are these the works of authority power and jurisdiction yea or no If they be not how can any autority or power be proved For all power is proved by its act or how in particular may it appear that byshops have any autority over their presbyters or ministers But if they be then is ther more than a precedency or order amongst byshops then did not Christ leav his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another as this Disswader talks For the laws and consticutions of this our Church and Kingdom do publikly attest that this our English Church is settled according to the will of Christ by archbyshops and byshops which is absolutely true then also did not Christ send all his apostles with the same whole power then were not all the apostles the same that Peter was then did not an equality of power descend from the apostles to all byshops then is there a step beyond the ordinary byshop nay two steps before you come to rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls then under Christ is not every byshop supream in spirituals nor yet in all the power which to any byshop is given by Christ all this I say is true whatsoever your Disswader talks against not only the Catholik Church and government which was here for above a thousand years together in England but against the very frame and constitution of his own Protestant Church wherof he is himself an unworthy member But ministers when they begin to talk against popery they are so heedlesly earnest that they knock out their own brains and either to get a benefice or honour in it they destroy their own Church that gives it them I can no more wonder now that such an one as Whitby in his book written against worthy Cressy should say so peremptorily that an archbyshop hath no power or autority and that his grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction as he there talks impar congressus Achilli since a man of such renown as Doctor Taylor should speak the same here and give the Presbyterians and other Sectaries in the Land such a fair occasion and president to undermine and overthrow that Church which is but lately lift out of the ruins of their hands The same argument that proves the byshop an ordinary byshop to be under none but immediately under Christ will prove as much for a single Presbyter or Presbyterian And it is already done by the subtle pen of John Bastwick in his Apologeticus as praesules Anglicanos which book is so strongly written both against Popish and Protestant Prelacy too that upon the grounds on which all Protestants go it can never be answered and upon the grounds Doctour Taylor here layes it is all of it in a manner confirmed and made good What a strange madnes is it for any one that he may seem to weaken another Church to overthrow his own Truth is here is no tye in England that any one will be held with The scriptur is in every mans bosom to make what he will of it Ancient canons customs and councels they slight as erroneous Their own constitutions and statutes they do not so much as heed What can be expected from hence but eternal dissention and wars Nay the minister to get his orders and benefice the bishop to enter into his See make a solemn protestation of obedience and subjection When they have got their ends they wipe their mouths and so far forget what they have done that they write and act presently as if they had never thought any such thing See here the form of consecration of byshops prescribed and used by our English Protestant Church In the name of God Amen I N. chosen byshop of the Church or See of N. do profess and promise all due reverence and obedience to the archbyshop and to the Metropolit an Church of N. and to their successours So help me God through Jesus Christ Where reverence subjection and obedience is due on one side there must needs be autority power and jurisdiction on the other And that man who hath One set over him with such an authority under Christ cannot be immediately under Christ himself and if he affirm he is so then ipso facto doth he reject and rebel against that autority which in words he acknowledged This is Dr. Taylors case who teaches here that byshops are successours of the Apostles and that ther was no superiority amongst the Apostles that by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another that Christ made no head of byshops that beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepherd and byshop of souls c. What is this but to reject all obedience and loyalty solemnly vowed and promised and to rebell against all the laws and constitutions of his own Church and finally which is wors than all the rest to give an example to disaffected ministers of doing the like But how does he prove all this very copiously both by reasons of his own and autorities of other men Only the mishap is those signifie nothing at all for him these very much against him But what are his reasons Byshops are the Apostles successours and ther was no superiour amongst the Apostles Mr. Bastwick and such as he will tell you Sir that priest minister and byshop were but several synonomous words for one and the same thing upon divers respects so that it is to be feared your Disswader hath proved too much here and hath spoken against himself but if he hath not proved too much he hath proved nothing I am sure there was a superiority amongst the Apostles and shall demonstrate it by and by as well as I can In the mean time how prove you ther was none Christ sent all his apostles with the same whole power his father sent him Good Sir our Lord sayes indeed as my father sent me so do I send you giving them a legal commission from him as himself had from God his eternal Father But that he sent them every one with the same whole power that is so to teach and govern that they should be subject to no one amongst them these are your Disswaders words cast in by fraud and fallacy and no autority evangelical and therfor prove nothing Nay if Christ had so sent his Apostles every one with the whole power of governing in himself then had he changed his fathers commission For he was sent himself to be one head and governour and yet he had then constituted many But how can you dream good Doctour that Christ sent his apostles each one with all his whole power he had received from God since the very chiefest of his power which is to confer grace upon the ministerial acts of his words and
they heed not at all however your Disswader imagines any natural similitude in any of their pictures If they be so made as to raise the fansie to thoughts above and the love and vertues that may bring us thither they care not whether for example Saint Bennet were a man just of that complexion or Christ their Redeemer of those direct features the limner has given him They come not into their Churches nor do they cast their eyes upon their pictures for any such end And if God the Father be represented to their eyes as he is to their ears when he is called Father I see no harm in it If we may use such a form of words when we speak to God as this world we live in may afford our ears why may not the eyes have such an answerable form too But this is a busines which your Disswader if he were a Catholik might well propound in the next general Councel and do otherwise in the mean time if so he please in his own Diocess For neither books nor picturs can be used in any Diocess but what the Ordinary of the place allows And the Byshop still guides himself by the general doctrin and discipline the faith and custom the tradition and laws of the Church in the whole mannagement of his care And when these do not clearly descend to any particular which he is to deal with he uses therin his own discretion going that way if he do well that he findes comes nearest to the rule as temporal superiours also do in their affairs O but the Roman Church with much scandal and against nature and the reason of mankind in their mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels picture the holy Trinity with three noses and four eyes and three faces in a knot And do they so I have seen I think as many Catholik countreys and mass-books and breviaries portuises and manuels as your Disswader ever did and yet I never saw any such picture therin all my life He has been it seems an earnest pryer into the front and faces of books But did he not mistake troâ—… you and take some fortune-book written in old letters for a mass-book and thence conclude that all breviaries and mass-books portuises and manuels were stored with such â—…gures However it were the picture was to blame For three noses and three faces ought to have more than four eyes And if ther were but four eyes I cannot see how ther should be three whole faces although ther were there three noses in it But this is as good stuff and as true and as pertinent too as any other part of this his book which he calls a Disswasive from Popery § 10. Which is against Papal authority Sayes that the Popes universal byshoprick is another novelty though not so ridiculous yet as dangerous as any other And a novelty it is for Christ left his Church in the hands of the Apostles without any superiority of one above another And in the Councel of Jerusalem James and not Peter gave the decisive sentence Christ sent all his Apostles with the same whole power as his Father sent him Therfor S. Paul bid the byshops of Miletum feed the whole flock And well said S. Cyprian that the Apostles were all the same that S. Peter was And this equality of power must descend to all byshops who succeed the Apostles in their ordinary power as embassadours for Christ So then by the law of Christ one byshop is not superiour to another Christ made no head of byshops Beyond the byshop is no step till you rest in the great shepheard and byshop of souls Under him every byshop is supream in spirituals and in all power which to any byshop is given by Christ And that this was ever beleeved in ancient times is proved by Pope Eleutherius his epistle to the byshops of France by S. Ambrose S. Cyprian Pope Symmachus S. Denyse Ignace Gelasius Jerom Fulgentius and even Pope Gregory the great Wherfor S. Paul expressy sayes that Christ appointed in his Church first Apostles but not S. Peter first Nor did Peter ever rule but by common councel as S. Chrysostom witnesses And it is even confest by som of the Romish party that the succession is not tyed to Rome as Cusanus Soto Driedo Canus and Segovius Nor was any thing known therof in the primitive times when the byshops of Asia and Africa opposed Pope Victor and Pope Stephen and all byshops treated with the Roman byshop as with a brother not superiour and a whole general Councel gave to the byshop of C. P. equal right and preheminence with the byshop of Rome Finally Christ gave no commandment to obey the byshop of Rome and probably never intended any such thing A man would surely think Sir that this nail is knocked in to the head What could be said more But to be brief with you If all the other sections of this your Disswasive have said nothing this I may say speaks somthing wors than nothing For his reasons are senceles his testimonies either impertinent or manifestly against himself and his whole discours contrary to the laws and constitutions of our English Protestant Church To begin with the last whether you look upon the statutes and acts of Parliament wherby our English Church and government were first settled in England upon the reformation in the dayes of Edward the sixth and afterwards ratified or the articles canons and constitutions that were agreed upon by the byshops and clergy and confirmed both by King Edward Queen Elizabeth King James and our good King Charles we shall clearly see that our English Protestant Church and government is Monarchical and that byshops are as much subjected to their Arch byshops as Ministers to Byshops and Arch-byshops in like manner to the King in whom the Episcopal power is radical and inherent and in whom is the fulness of ecclesiastical authority and from whom byshops do receiv their place authority power and jurisdiction And that Parson Vicar or other Doctour who shall write or speak contrary to this by the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical made in the time of our late good King Charles he is to be suspended and by the Canons and constitutions ecclesiastical made and confirmed in the Reign of King James he is excommunicated ipso facto and by the laws of Queen Elizabeth and King Edward to be further punished How comes it then that this your disswading Doctour utterly dissolves all this frame of government under pretence of talking against papal power as contrary to the mind and will of Christ which will and mind is notwithstanding most resolutely asserted by the constitutions and laws of this our very English Church and Kingdom which rejected indeed the Roman seat and person but retained still the power and ordination of Church-government which finally rested now no longer in any Roman byshop but in our own princely monarch If any will but take the pains to look upon our constitutions
almost from the very beginning of the Church This is not a novelty then As for Papal Superiority the Protestant Centuriators acknowledg That in the fift age of the Church above a thousand years ago the Roman Byshops applyed themselves to establish dominion over other Churches and That they usurped to themselves right of granting priviledges and ornaments to other Archbyshops and That they confirmed Archbyshops in their Sees and That they deposed and excommunicated some and absolved others That they arrogated power to themselves of citing other Archbyshops to declare their caus before them That against a byshop appealing to the Apostolick See nothing should be determined but what the byshop of Rome censured That they appointed their legates in remote Provinces challenging autority to hear and determin all uprising controversies especially in questions of faith That they took upon them power of appointing general councels and to preside therein either by themselves or their deputies rejecting for unlawful those Synods that were called without their authority They also adde in the same century That Roman Byshops had flatterers in those times who affirmed that without permission of the Roman byshop none might undertake the person of a judge Nay forgetting themselves they averre in the same century Collat. 775. That antiquity had attributed the principality of Priesthood to the Roman byshop above all I could alledg also the like confession of Beza Mr. Whitgift and Cartwright but those eminent Protestant Centuriators may serv for all who testifie further in that fifth century That Victor called the Roman Church the head of all Churches That Turbius Asturiensis flattered Pope Leo and acknowledged his superiority That sometimes byshops condemned in Synods appealed to the See of Rome as did say they Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople in the Councel of Ephesus and that Councels also requested to have their acts confirmed by the byshop of Rome And so indeed did not only Flavianus appeal to Pope Leo but Talida Patriarch of Alexandria deposed by the Emperour Zeno appealed also to Pope Simplicius S. Athanasius to Pope Julius c. So did the Councel of Chalcedon request to be confirmed by Pope Leo the Councel of Carthage by Pope Innocent the Councel of Ephesus by Pope Celestin c. The like superiority of the Roman byshop not only over the neighbour Churches and Byshops of Italy but over remote provinces and the greatest Archbyshops and Patriarks of the world is acknowledged by Protestants to have been practised also before that in the fourth age when the Church first lift up her head by favour of Constantine the great and appeared openly in the world In this age say the Centuriators the mystery of iniquity was not idle And they say also that then the byshop of Rome challenged by ecclesiastical canon the disallowing of those Synods whereat they were absent That Theodoret a greek father who lived about the latter end of this age deposed by the Councel of Ephesus was restored to his byshoprick by Pope Leo unto whom he had made his appeal and that S. Chrysostom appealed likewise to Pope Innocentius who thereupon decreed his adversary Theophilus to be excommunicated and deposed That the famous and ancient Councel of Sardis consisting of above 300. byshops assembled from Spain France Italy Sardinia Greece Egypt Thebais Lybia Palestin Arabia and sundry other places of the world and wherat sundry fathers of the Nicen Councel were present decreed appeals to the byshop of Rome for which fact the Centuriators blame the said councel as do also Osiander Calvin Peter Martyr and others And lastly that wheras the Arrians had expelled Athanasius byshop of Alexandria Paulus byshop of Constantinople and other Catholick byshops of the East and brought their accusation to Julius then byshop of Rome that he might ratifie what they had done he the said byshop summoned Athanasius according to the canons and when he had heard all sides speak he restored Athanasius and his fellow byshops to their own place fretus ecclesiae Romanae praerogativa as the Centurists there speak In the age before this when raging persecution obscured both the government and most of the written monuments of that time yet want there not monuments of the Popes power in confirming deposing restoring byshops Then it was that S. Cyprian as himself testifies moved Pope Stephen by his letters to depose Martianus from his byshoprick and appoint another in his place and he tells us likewise in his fourth epistle how Basilides went to Rome hoping to beguile Pope Stephen then ignorant of the whole matter so to procure himself to be restored to his byshoprick from which he had been justly saith S. Cyprian deposed In this age the foresaid learned Centuriators reprove Pope Stephen for his undertaking to threaten excommunication to Helenus and Firmiltanus and all others throughout Cilicia Cappadocia and Asia for rebaptizing hereticks they reprove also as became Protestants to do both S. Cyprian and Tertullian in this point Tertullian for saying that the keyes were committed to S. Peter and the Church built on him S. Cyprian for affirming the Church to be built upon S. Peter and one chair founded by our Lords voice upon the rock for calling Peters chair the principal Church from whence Priestly unity ariseth and for saying that there ought to be one byshop in the Catholik Church and that the Roman Church ought to be acknowledged of all other for the mother and root of the Catholik Church In the second age the next after the apostles wherof fewer monuments remain yet be there some testimonies of this superiority acknowledged even by Protestants Pope Victor is owned even by our Mr. Whitgift in his defence to be a godly byshop and martyr and the Church in his time in great purity not being long after the apostles times and yet Amandus Polonus a Protestant Professour at Basil sayes in his theological thesis of the same Pope Victor That he shewed a Papal mind and arrogancy and Mr. Spark in his answer against John Albines thinks him somewhat Pope-like to have exceeded his bounds when he took upon him to excommunicate the byshops of the East and Whitaker charges him with exercising jurisdiction upon other Churches So that these three Protestants discerned a papal power even in this second pure age of the Church although they liked it not But the Protestant Centuriators do much except against a saying of S. Irenaeus who lived in this age next after the apostles and might well remember the apostles own lively preachings as Hamelmannus a Protestant writer in his book of traditions speaks both of Irenaeus and Polycarp recorded in the third chapter of his third book Ad hanc enim ecclesiam Romanam propter potentiorem principalit atem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam It is necessary that every other Church saith Irenaeus comply with the Roman by reason of her greater principality First becaus he sayes it is necessary secondly that every Church thirdly for
villifie the Roman faith and Church which is indeed the comm on road of all her adversaries I shall speak more fully if I have time by and by Now I hasten to his text which I shall give and my own judgment of it very briefly § 1. Which is about Novelties in general Sayes that the Protestant hath the word of God and Gospel and Apostles writings and if need be the four first general Councels and cannot be therfore doubted to be Apostolical but the Roman Church cannot so much as pretend that all her Religion is primitive since she pretends a power of making new articles of faith for Turrecremata Triumphus Ancorano and Panormitan affirm she can do it And this power Pope Leo the tenth challenged when he condemned Luther for denying him to have it To further this their pretended power the Papists corrupt and alter the Fathers works insomuch that Saurius the correctour of the Press at Lions complained to Junius that he was forced to blot out many sayings of St. Ambrose which had been in a former edition printed there For this care of purging Catholik writers Sixtus Senesis commends Pope Pius Nay they correct the very Indexes made by Printers as those of Probens and Chevallonius Thus the Doctour begins his book and I cannot but commend his wit For he wisely assumes that to himself which is the very one great busines wherin every particular controversie sticks and which if it were once agreeed on would put an end to all controversies that either now are or ever shall be in the world For they all com at length to this question which of the many Professours of Christianity now so much divided in their wayes have the Gospel and word of God on their side in this that and the other particular We saith Dr. Taylor we Protestants have the word of God we have the Gospel of Christ we have the Apostles writings with us and for us and therfor our Religion is for certain both ancient primitive and Apostolical This is Sir a very good consequence That Religion must needs be ancient which hath God for his Author that must be a primitive Christianity which Christ founded and what the Apostles writings confirm must needs be Apostolical faith But is it proved here by the Doctour that Protestants and not Catholiks have the word of God and of Christ and of his Apostles on their side No it is all supposed and his whole endeavour is to tell us that the religion which issued from God and Christ and his holy Apostles must needs be Apostolical primitive and ancient He supposes Protestancy as distinct from Catholik faith to have com all of it from those divine hands which is the only thing to be proved and declares at large that a religion which came from such hands must needs be ancient and primitive which is a thing no man can ever doubt It is certain and manifestly known that Protestants received both Law and Gospel and Apostles writings from the hands of Roman Catholiks who had kept and canonized and lived by those rules fifteen hundred years before Protestancy rose up in the world and all the whole hundred years since The only question is about the sence and mind of that holy writ in the many particular points now controverted in the world He has the law that has the mind and purpos and meaning of the law not he that hath the form of words without it This is the great business and the very extract and quintessence of all controversies which your quick Doctour assumes as granted on his side without any more ado We saith he we Protestants have the Law and Gospel and Apostles writings and the old Councels too if need be and therfor is not the ancientness of our Religion to be doubted But the Papists what of them the Papists Religion cannot so much as be pretended to be Apostolical old or primitive Why so Have not they the law and Gospel and Apostolical writings He does not plainly say they have not but he hopes his reader will think so What then of the Papists They saith he can make new Articles and therfor cannot their Religion be antient Sir although they could make new articles so long as they do not their Religion may be old still for all that A man may live in an old house although he be able to build a new one And this seems indeed to be the case here For the Disswader in confirmation of his speech brings in although unjustly the testimony of som Catholik Doctours who should say The Church can make new Articles but not one that sayes she has made any That I may yet go further although the Church should make new obliging Articles so long as these do not contrary the former but declare them more amply in such and such circumstances they annull not but rather confirm and explicate the old ones Is not our Law the same old Law of England and we the same polity our fore-fathers were although the King and Parliament upon occasion of new disorders make new acts and statutes continually But let us go on yet one step more The Roman Church does plead Sir whatever your Disswader would have you think that her religion is Catholik Apostolik and primitive becaus all her Councels by which that Church is governed have openly and continually declared when they came together to decide any affair which had raised new disturbance in the Christian world that they must firmly adhere to that which is Primitive to that which is Apostolical to that which is Catholik to that which has been delivered and received from fore-fathers And by that rule they decided the difference How then can this Church pretend to make new Articles Does your Doctour bring any General Councel which is the loud voice of that Church or any Tradition which is the Churches still voice to speak it No not any at all But this he ought to have done if he would prove that Church to pretend any such power What then Wy Turrecramata and som other doctours sayes she can do it But Sir if some one or other clergy-man should think that the Church can make new articles does it therfor follow that the Church it self does pretend any such power Surely the voice of one or two Ministers here in England cannot in reason be thought the voice of our whole Protestant Church especially when they speak against the tenour of her doctrin and practice But your Disswader has been many years picking in cobweb holes and obscure writings that he might where he could find any half sentence apt to be wrested from the common judgment of Catholik Religion mark that out for Popery to the end it may be thought either naught or new This is the chief ingredient of your Disswaders Policy Catholik Doctours Sir though they may have written many other most excellent catholik and pious things yet through humane infirmity in this and that particular may
by little and little according as themselvs increas all the whole frame of ancient religion Secondly it may be gathered by this that Christ our Lord instituted a monarchical government of his Church ruled so long as he lived by one and therfor must that government ever remain He set it up to remain For surely he did not set it up to be pulled down again Thirdly becaus there is no power on earth to change it What God has constituted man cannot undo lawfully I mean he cannot Now we have no such body of Christians in England that remain under one who is general pastour over all the Christian flock in the world or do so much as pretend it save only the few Roman Catholiks that are yet here left alive by the strange providence of that God unto whose universal Church they have still adhered notwithstanding the greatest trials that ever poor Christians were put to Neither Quaker Anabaptist or Independent Presbyterian or Prelate-Protestant do so much as pretend to any such thing but they all oppose it And as they do not pretend to belong to any general body that hath a visible head overseeing the whole flock of Christ throughout the world so neither is any of their Church-governments monarchical in their respective place if we may beleev themselvs I know our English Protestant Church was first appointed in the dayes of King Edward and Queen Elizabeth to be respectively monarchical that is to say within the precincts of this Kingdom the hierarchy ending in the Kings majesty who is doubtles the supream head and governour both of the Protestant Church and the temporal or civil state in all these his three Kingdoms But indeed and truth none of them acknowledg it For they do not any of them expect as they ought all of them to do a full decisive sentence from the Kings Majesties lips in all their controversies or doubts of faith nor will they acquiesce in his judgment which is a strange mad refractorines in our nation and contrary to our own principles The Independents last tribunal is in the light of his own breast The Presbyterian will not look beyond his Presbyteral Consistory And the Prelate-Protestant writer which I most marvel at ends all in the byshops allowing no autority power or jurisdiction to their Archbyshops but only an order and decent precedency for manners sake which in effect is wholly to dissolve the constituted frame of Church-government in this land They speak not indeed of the Kings majesty for fear I suppose of the rod God hath put into his hands But it is not hard to gather both by their words and actions what they think Whitby of late wrote a book against Dean Cressy and there he sayes expesly that an Arch-byshop hath a decent precedency but no authority and that his Grace of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction and that the Kings Majesty is not the root of Episcopal jurisdiction here in England And yet he was approved and praised even by our Protestant byshops Do they not see that à pari nay à fortiori the same be affirmed of our byshops that they have no autority and that they have but a decent precedeney over Presbyters and that they are not the root of ecclesiastical jurisdiction With what a strange blindnes are our eyes possest Nay this great Disswader an eminent man among Prelate-Protestants here teaches publickly that byshops are all supream under Christ So that this our Church-government by byshops can be no other but Aristocracy the Presbyterians a Democracy and the rest a plain Anarchy every man thinking and acting what is good in his own eyes And none of these who are all fallen from the general flock and general pastour heed unto effect any one thing that may restrain them either statutes canons laws constitutions or ought els But God blesses his true Church with a true obedience Thus I have given you Sir my reason why I think ther is and must be one general pastour over all the whole flock of Christians Pray ponder it well Brief I am in it becaus it is beyond my general design which is only to shew that Doctour Taylors Disswasive from Popery is insignificant I am now come to the testimonies your Disswader cites for himself which I told you before are above half of them impertinent and the rest if he had not fraudulently maimed them flatly against himself As for the first sort your Disswader imagining in his head that the Apostles had no superiour which is the grand falsity on which all his whole discours runs brings all those authors who either say that byshops are the successours of the Apostles or that they had received the keyes of heaven or that they are not to be contemned and the like for witnesses of his opinion as Irenaeus Cyprian Ambrose Anacletus Clemens Hieronimus Gregorius and various others All this is impertinent But the other autorities had they not been curtaild and perverted by him had openly and plainly spoken that Catholik truth which he here opposes namely that the Apostles had a superiour and that all the whole Christian flock have and ought to have one general pastour and that he ever hitherto hath sate since S. Peters death in the Roman See I know it would be worth my labour to set down all those testimonies by him here cited at large as they lye in those Catholik Fathers and Divines as apt at one and the same time to convince this his whole section of falsity and the Catholik doctrin to be no novelty as he sayes it is But becaus this is already done by the above-named Catholik Gentlemen who with a greater patience than I am master of turned over those many ancient authours I will content my self with only the first of them In the whole new testament saith your Disswader ther is no act or sign of superiority or that one apostle exercised power over another but to them whom Christ sent he in common intrusted the Church of God according to that excellent saying of S. Cyprian the other apostles are the same that S. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power c. This then is the excellent saying of S. Cyprian The other apostles are the same that St. Peter was indowed with an equal fellowship of honour and power And he cites it out of his epistle de unit Ecclesiae ad Novatian But did S. Cyprian either say or mean by that saying so much of it as is S. Cyprians that ther was no superiority among the apostles or that the Church of God was intrusted to them in common Nay does not S Cyprian use those words in a discours wherin he endeavours industriously to declare that there was a superiority among the Apostles in which as in a cone of unity they were all united although they were all alike in power and commission of administring Sacraments If it be so what shall we think of this Disswader and of his