Fast one Day to wit before Easter some two others 40 hours but yet still they retained Peace the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith and in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they maintained Peace and none was cast out for that Difference Among Cyprians Epistles one from Firmilian sheweth the same thing iâ— plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum nominum varietate diversa fiunt nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae â—ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est § 4. It is also very plain that the Fathers I mean of the first Ages did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same Opinion about all points of Doctrine but did bear with one another and maintained Peace even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths yea when some of them would impose their Opinions on others and Censure them who Differed from them they were by the rest dealt with not as Maintainers but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church Justin. Martyr dialog cum Tryphon speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites if they did it out of weakness and did not impose on other Christians sayeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we must receive them and Communicate with them as of the same Mind or Affections with us and as Brethren And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account Firmilian in the Ep. above cited hath these Words on this occasion quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore honore servabant Irenae lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren propter modicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt dividunt quantum in ipsis est interficiunt pacem loquentes bellum operantes vere liquantes culicem camelum transglutientes § 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal Charging such as Apostats from the Church and breakers of her Peace who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential and Fundamental or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths Irenae lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit Colon 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion hath these Words hanc igitur praedicationem hanc â—â—dem adepta Ecclesia quamvis dispersa in universo mundo diligenter conservat aâ— si in una eademque domo habitaret ac similiter iis fidem habet ac si unam animam unumque idem cor haberet atque unâ— consensu hoc praedicat docet ac tradit ac si uno ore praedita esset Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum una tamen eadem est vis traditionis nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt nec quae in Hispania neque in Galliis neque in Oriente neque in AEgypto neque in Lybia aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt sed quemadmodum Sol Creatura Dei unus idem est in universo Mundo ita praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt Eusseb Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae condemning Tatianus the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae and saying of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church or a breaking her Unitie The same Historian lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating how long the Church remained a Virgin Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets and what the LORD himself taught and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth Rome and Jerusalem and then sheweth how Heresies arose whose Authors he calleth false Christs false Prophets and false Apostles and of them he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they divided the Unity of the Church by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD and against his CHRIST Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose but these may be sufficient I do not Question but that there might be other things which might be called Schism even with respect to the universal Church as if any should bring in Idolatrous or Superstitious Worship contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils and should set up Societies in opposition not only to one or few but to all the Societies of Christians or all the Soundest of them But of the first we hear little of the first Ages neither could the second be because they had no general Councils nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward for the Third we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks who were Noted for their Heresie and their Schism little spoken of as being the Consequent of the other so it was with the Novatian Schism § 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all or most Churches and so on the Catholick Church yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches either which were united by the Bond of one Government a Provincial or lesser Synod being made up of them or only living in the vicinitie of one another or having frequent occasion of Correspondence they who were not under any uniting Bonds but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence mutual Assistance as occasion offered acquainting one another with their Affairs so far as it was of any Advantage admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion with them on occasion refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches as were by them Excommunicated and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned or refused especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church or denied to such Sojourners if they desired it or when one Church shewed Rage Furie and Bitterness against another because of what they differed about Instances of this are many the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage came to that Height that they would not Communicate together one of them Anathematized the other and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe and these of Africk did concern themselves in it Eusebiâ—â— cited Catal. Test verit p. 26. ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the
need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn when he p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation He Answered p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested This is far below what he had before said that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion c. and this Expression he Apoâ—ogizeth for ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion and that it was meant that they are very useful for it as the Exercises of Religion must be performed sometimes with Ordâ—r Uniformity and Society I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that Aâ—â—ertion Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense or not I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature We have the Mercat fallen very low from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty and Beeing of Religion first to this that inward Religion may do well enough without them next that they are not necessary but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion And then that External Religion needeth them only sometimes Further that it may subsist always without them but it will not in that Case be so Orderly as were needful Yet again it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion that they are any way useful so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed only these Churches are not like their Neighbours And lastly Religion Internal and External may have both its Beeing and Beauty in particular Persons though they observe no Holy Days only it is useful that if they think fit to go to Church and to Worship God in Society on these Days that they should observe them If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words it will tend much to Compromise our Differences He taketh it amiss that it was said that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass and this he disowneth The Ground of that Inference was for it was not charged on him further than that it followeth from his Principles that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion are in the Way to Hell yea though they understand it of External Religion which they are capable to Practise what can we think of the State of Presbyterians who do not yea will not and think they ought not observe the Holy Days if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments can have any Degree of Charity to them with respect to their Salvation unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion SECTION X. Of Schism THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism as one of the New Opinions the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this he taketh from one Person who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians neither did ever Write of Schism of set Purpose or fully but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us by Answering their Arguments However I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author or to yield to the Force of Argument if there be any thing which cannot be Defended My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general without which we may wrangle but not Dispute It hath been an ancient Practice and is frequent in later Times and in ours for different Parties to brand one another and that with fierey Zeal with the odious Name of Schismaticks without considering or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism but did more shew that there were Schisms among them and that they were Angry one with another and hold â—urth some particular Causes of these Heats than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism Some modern Authors have Written more disâ—inctly of it yet the particular Cause they were concerned for hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet Irenic p. 108. that the word Schism though it sound harsh it being often taken in an ill sense as it importeth a separation from a Church is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil according to the Ground Reasons Ends and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism the Formalitie of it must be â—etcht from the Grounds on which that is built He citeth also another Author Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are Two Theological Scarcrows with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion use to fright away such as making Enquirie into it are readie to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious § 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers and others about the Nature of Schism it is needful to premise a few things 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie and therefore there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie yea where there need be no Unitie or where there can be no Unitie Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is it is needful to Consider what Unitie should and must be amongh Churches and among Christians There are several sorts of Unitie that we cannot have with all Churches as local Communion some that we need not have as Identitie of Rites some that we ought not to have with some Churches as Communion in false Doctrine or impure Worship 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered or in all the sorts of Churches In the Catholick Church visible and invisible in all the Combinations of Churâ—hes among themselves National provincial classical and in particular Comgregatious It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with and câ—eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie so that it is not
Church As in the Case of Felicissimus who quarreled with Cyprians Promotion and several others who made Schisms because they could not be made Bishops Again he argueth we cannot be said to be Members of a particular Church or to hold Communion with it if we do not joyn in their Worship as it is established among them This is easily Answered by a plain Distinction unless we joyn in their established Worship as to the greatest and chief Acts of it conceditur as to all the parts of it even to the least negatur I may joyn with a Church in the Word and Sacraments and yet if they have a Holy Day or two beside the Sabbath may forbear yea I may without this be a Member of that Church if they will suffer me which all the Reformed Churches do except the Episcopal Church of England I shewed before that the Ancients did not place the Unity of the Church in an Uniformity in these Punctilio's so they who owne them do reckon them and the Modern Churches mostly are of the same Sentiments and Practice In Confirmation of this his Argument he hath these Words p. 214 215. Since he forbears the Practice of these things he disliketh why may he not be said to hold Communion with all visible Churches on Earth And instanceth not only in the Churches of France but in the Roman Church This is an Absurdity beyond what he is aware of for some Churches we are obliged wholly to flee from because of Fundamental Errors Idolatry and horrid Corruptions of all Ordinances so we sepâ—rate totally from the Church of Rome so the Orthodox of old refused to Communicate with or be Members of the Arian Churches yet they did not shun Communion with some Churches that differed from them in small Matters as I have shewed above § 4. of this Section And the Learned Stillingfleet as I have observed already alloweth of a Partial Noncommunion where Communion is not totally cast off What he saith of our no more coming near a Liturgy than we would Sacrifice our Children in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom these I say are not the Words of Truth and Soberness nor have they so much of Argument in them as of unreasonable Sarcasm and are not to be regarded Cannot one dislike a greater and lesser Evil unless his Aversion to both be equal § 11. He falleth next on the Doxologie p. 216. and doth insinuate without any Shadow of Truth or Candor that we turn out the Episcopal Clergy for presuming to retain it in Publicâ— Worship all Scotland knoweth the contrary We do not use it but we never laid such Weight on using it as to forbear all Communion with a Congregation where it is used I called it a Humane Composure He saith the Matter of it is Orthodox and Unquestionable Ergo it is no Humane Composure non sequitur I said there is no Warrant for constant Use of it He saith there is as good Warrant for it as there is for Extemporary Prayer in Publick Worship This is false we read of no Praying by a Book or set Form but the Spirits Help not that of the Book is the Help we must look for not only as to the Manner but the Matter of our Prayers what we should Pray for Rom. 8. 26. But I insist not on this he confesseth it to be a Digression and but toucheth it slightly I judge it a very impertinent Digression but I behoved to follow as he leadeth for I think neither Ancient nor Modern Divines will call them Schismaticks who cordially joyn with the Church where they live in all of her Worship except this and it seems he hath little Ground to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks that he bringeth in this to help out his Proof against us It is false also that all the Churches abroad have Humane Ceremonies so twisted with their Solemn Worship that Presbyterians cannot joyn with them We have often and do when occasion serveth very cordially and to our Edification joyned with them and yet partake in none of these nor is so much of these among them as he would make us believe Another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks is p. 215. If the present Presbyterians had lived a hunder and fifty years before the Council of Nice there was then a necessity by their Principles to separate from the Unity of the Church because all the things they scruple were then practised It was Answered that the Hierarchy was not then in the Church this he taketh no notice of nor shall I for we have already Debated it sufficiently Neither do we make the Beeing of the Hierarchy the Ground of Separation but that Ministers at least must owne it or have no Communion with their Church But he telleth us of a great many other things that were then used as Anniversary Days Significant Ceremonies the Sign of the Cross c. And beseecheth me to read some of the ancient Monuments of the Church I thank him for his good Advice I have followed it in some degree though I cannot Brag of my Reading nor Vilifie others as if their Reading were short of mine before he gave it and shall yet further as I can and though I find that some of these crept early into the Church and yet may be not so early as he imagineth I do not find that the ancient Church placed her Unity in these things and I think by the small Reading that I have attained I have proved the contrary and therefore if we had then lived we might have been counted no Schismaticks I further Answer the Ancients placed Schism with respect to the Universal Church in her Heterodoxy not in different Rites and therefore we maintain Unity with the Fathers while we believe as they did for that Unity that should be in a particular Church we are not capable of it but with that Church where we converse not with that which was 1600 or 1700 years ago therefore it is improper to say we are Schismaticks because of what we would have been in that possible Case that never was § 12. His third Consideration to prove us Schismaticks is that our Predecessors condemned the same Practices as Schismatical the Answer to this was given this Argument was used by him before and I Answered it before He saith I leave him to Guess where it was brought and Answered and truly I thought it was an easie Guess being but in the end of the former page viz. 33. If he had read heedfully what he undertaketh to refute he could not have been at a Loss here It was there told him that as the former Presbyterians did not separate from the Episcopal Church so nor did all of them of late and they who did were driven away by the Apostacy of his Party from the way that they had engaged in and that by forcible changing of the Church Government without her Consent or any Means used to satisfie the Consciences of them who scrupled I add
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
the same Office in the Church and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose if one had the Empire of the whole World and lost that and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom I think his Office is not what it was Beside if we should yield all that he here alledges it were no loss to our cause for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle but that complexly and in conjunction with others as is above shewed Another Consideration that he hath is the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection but some travelled further than others yet this did not change their rectoral Power or Jurisdiction no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power to narrower Limites make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church the Rules of Order and the multitude of Converts which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence I reply to this 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by and it is observable how naturally and frequently this learned Author and some others of his Gang do shew their Byass to that side If nothing but Order and Circumstances and not Divine Institution do confine Bishops to their Sees whether larger or less extended and every one of them have actu primo as may be deduced from this Doctrine universal Jurisdiction why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them and the rest be subject to him Some think that this belongeth to good Order though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo to the Universal Church yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ as every Apostle had they have not that Commission go teach all Nations this was the peculiar work of Apostles to travel and plant Churches the work of Bishops if such an Office be in the Church is to stay at home and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these the World was the Province of each of them though by mutual Consent or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost who guided their Motions as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7 9 10. they went into several places of the World yet so as they observed not that Division very critically for we find them meeting sometimes and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence and Agreement of them among themselves alone but it is Gods Appointment though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular be a work of men for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church but he hath set them over their particular Flocks Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them and must give account of them and not of the Souls in all Churches § 8. His Notion p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot I know is to be found in Eusebius Dorotheas and Nicephorus and some others of the Ancients and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them as this Author doth neither shall I be at pains to disprove it it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet Iren p. 232. seq by eight Arguments that this Author will not easily answer and particularly he sheweth that Acts 1. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth p. 103. Another thing I observe is p. 104. that he saith neither the Apostles nor their immediat Successors were so confined to particular Sees but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole as far as was possible and as Christian charity did require or allow notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches and by their Travels and he concludeth that the confinement to a particular See doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood but from the Rules of Prudence Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and canonical Constitutions I first take notice that this is still beside the Purpose for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ We say that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church there are other things wherein they differ as hath been shewed 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another is denyed and he can never prove it The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited It is true some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem but that is with respect to his Residence not to the confinement of his Authority he was determined to stay there as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World not in Pilgrimage but on many other Occasions that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church Euseb lib 2. c 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus say he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem but this they take out of Egesippus as themselves confess a most Fabulous Writer and both of them relate out of him several things concerning the same James that all do look on as idle Dreams 3. It is also without warrant that he asserteth that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees more than the Apostles were If he understand of the Evangelists we shall debate the case afterward If of ordinary Pastors of the Church I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches which were not furnished with Pastors or otherways had need of their help so do Ministers at this day and ought to do and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles or their Travels which he mentioneth but that they had universal Jurisdiction as every one of the Apostles had we deny and he hath brought no Proof of it 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood if one Pastor could feed Christs Flock more were
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not
but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors and by them to the People and indeed it is certain that the Word may be so taken and if we should yield this to our Brethren it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument unless they can prove that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters tho addressed to them by the Praeses Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction The third Opinion to which I most incline is that Angel is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o◠Collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters so that to the Angel is in our Phrase to the Moderator and remanent Brethren In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England in this matter they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Beda Haymo and many others saith Owen of Ordination C. 2. p. 35. § 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken next that it mu◠be so understood For the former it is usual in the Scripture and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it in Types and Visions and th◠most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile every one knoweth to put the Singular Number for the Plural or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place Th◠Ram Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia 〈◊〉 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome is calle◠Antichrist the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition The Antichristian Church consisting of Priests and People is called a Beast the Whore So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns and her Deliverers four Carpenters Zech. 1. 18 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number thou shalt do so and so hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude that there is no Absurdity nor is any Violence done to the Text if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church or the Colledge of Presbyters My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood for which I bring these Arguments 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule or Jurisdiction but Gods Messenger to the People as also Rev 1. 16 20. These Angels are called Stars which importeth their Teaching or holding forth Light to the People both which are common to the Presbyters seing then he doth not use a word of Authority whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters but of Embassy and giving Light whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop but for Teaching Presbyters It were a strange thing if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church would design him by that which is common to him with many others and not by that which is peculiar to himself It doth also strengthen this Argument that both in the Old and New Testament they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them are called Angels Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety are called the Angel of the Lord Psal 34 7. § 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery that Rev 1 20 our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision speaketh twice of the seven Churches but shunneth calling the Angels seven he saith not the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches but the Angels of the seven Churches as by the seven Spirits Rev 1 4 and 3 1 is meant the Spirit of God sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches so here the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches tho they were not one only for every Church but more Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20 28 and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3. that there were more Presbyters or Bishops at Ephesus than one If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel he could not mean a single person It cannot be denyed that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20 28 are they whom Christ here calleth Angel the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick or under the Star they cannot be a part of the Candlestick for they give Light as the Candlestick doth not but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth they must then be comprehended under the Star and consequently under the Angel whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons So that we may conclude that as by Candlestick i◠understood the Collective Body of People so by Star or Angel is understood a Body of Church Officers and not a single Bishop Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person as at Ephesus the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick that is Unchurching that People can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop if the rest of the Elders and People were free and this we must say unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person but a Community The same may be said of several other Churches would the Lord spu◠out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed as that which is meant by Angel to whom the Epistle is addressed as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison can that be Expounded some of thee Bishop of Smyrna or some of your Pastors and People and unto you I say 〈◊〉
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
that a great Change there was by compareing the Practice and some Canons of Cent. 5 6 7. c. with the Apostolick Writings 2. We think there is no impossibilitie in such a Change as I have acknowledged considering the corruption of Men yea the sinful infirmities of good Men some of whom may be apt to Usurp and others to overlook evils that are not easily observable in their Progress And considering how suddenly Changes to the worse have fallen out in the Church see Moses Praeâ—ictiâ— Deut. 31. 27 28 29. see also Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent Apostacies of Israel after the death of their good Kings made this so evident that it can never be denied nor ought to be wondered at 3. This Change did not come suddenly nor all at once and therefore was not so obvious to everie ones Observation that it was not complained of by any we cannot say not having the compleat and distinct Records of the first Ages farre less can it be affirmed that it was not observed by some who might Lament it in Secret but for Peace sake and because the things they had to Complain of were dark and doubtful and but small and almost insensible Declensions from what had been before they would make little noise with their dissatisfactions It is well known that thus Degeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of the Church and I wish it be not at this Day Verie often a well Reformed Church doth thus degenerate whose Maladie is like latent Diseases which are little observed till they be past Remedy § 43. I adde 4. The true Account of this Change of the Church is given by way of Praediction by our Lord himself on the Parable of the Tares of the field Matth. 13. 24. c. this with other Corruptions grew while the Guids of the Church slept which case in some degree or other is incident to the best of Men and as in process of time the Ministers of the Church grew more remisse this evil had the more advantage to grow Of this I have Discoursed else-where Rational Def. of non conformitie I shall now attend my Antagonist endeavouring to Run down this apprehension of things with many hard Words which amount to no more but this that it was impossible to be brought about because of the observablenss and suddeness of the Change and the Faithfulness of the Guids of the Church that then were set over her All which is already Answered His ingeminating his Question about the possibility of this Change P. 142. his saying that this cannot be imagined if we believe the other parts of Evangelical History are but words that evanish into nothing on supposition of the Account that I have given of it for we deny that the Evangelical History whether Sacred or Humane giveth us Account of such a constitution of Episcopacy as he imagineth in the first Ages That no Historian took Notice of it though it was most memorable p. 143. is still his rotten Hypothesis that this Change should have been made suddenly and all at once and I adde the History of the time of the Rise and Progress of this is defective and uncertain as I have shewed Sect. 32. We do not say that it was Agreed upon by some ambitious Ecclesiasticks as he P. 144. such Men might carrie it on in their several places without Consultation Nature and a corrupt Heart prompting them to it and the World and Satan tempting them yea it might in some degree be promoted by better Men than these unawares taking that for their Due which was not so for its being submitted to tamely which he mentioneth ibid. that was not to be wondered at because of the Humility of some and minding other work for the Peoples Edification leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it and their not observing this Change which by in insensible Degrees made its Progress so in the dark § 44. He p. 145 c. draweth some absurd Consequences by which he laboureth to load our Assertion that the Apostolick Government of Paritie was in after Ages changed into Prelacie The 1. is that they who were marked for the Sacred Function by the Lord Christ after some Experience Judged it necessary to Change Parity for Prelacy 2. That this Change was brought about not in any of the ordinary Methods by which things of that nature are transacted among Mankind but instantly and in a miraculous manner 3. That the immediate Successors of the Apostles were all Presbyterians this we hold but that these Presbyterians most of them Martyrs for Christianitie preferred Prelacy to Paritie 4. That in their Opinion there was no other Remedie againstSchism and Confusion He saith these Conclusions are evident and necessarie if their the Presbyterians Hypothesis be allowed Such Consequences from our Opinion we utterly deny and Challenge him to Prove their Dependance on it The judicious Reader will easily see that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit that we hold that this Change was made suddenly openly and all at once if he find us Maintaing that let him load our Opinion with as many absurd Consequences as he can devise And we neglect his triumphant Repetition of his continual Cant p. 145 146. about the Universal Consent of the Christian Church and its being received without Contradiction But to establish this last Notion he telleth us that none before Aerius opposed Episcopacy of whom and his Actings he taketh the liberty to give such Account as he thought sit for his design that his Motive was Ambition and missing of a Bishoprick was dull had no Parts This in this learned Authors opinion must needs be the native Consequent of his being a Presbyterian for he reckoneth them all such I have given a more true account of Aerius § 16. of § 6. Established on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendeth to which is none but his own He needed not to spend a whole page to tell us what he meaneth by the Impossibility that he ascribeth to the Change we speak of let him understand it as he will we are not concerned who have given account of that Change which maketh it both possible and easie to be understood p. 148. He hath another Argument if it be different from what he hath said before we must not say that the primitive Church immediately Succeeding the Apostles so soon Apostatized from their Original Establishment else we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine and what is Suppositions in the whole frame of our Religion This he enforceth by telling us they might Change other things and if the first and best Christians were not to be trusted in matter of Fact they are less to be trusted in matter of Opinion Here we have yet more plainly expressed the Popish Principle that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith we do not so Trust the first and best Churches except the Apostles as to make them the
but never received into Holy Orders by any thing that appeareth whence I infer that in the Opinion of that time a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop which our Brethren use to plead for I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry they amount to no more but that there were but few Ministers and many Reformers were Lay Men to all which I Answer this sheweth that Presbyters and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had It was far otherwise in England where the State carried on the Reformation whereas in Scotland the greatest both in State and Church opposed it as long and as much as they could and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth did rather comply with the Reformation than actively promote it notwithstanding of all which it is unbecoming a Protestant to call our Reformation violent and disorderly as he doth p. 7. out of Spotswood § 3. The second Enquiry is Whether the Scots Reformers what ever were their Characters were of the present Presbyterian Principles whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment and try his Critical Skill on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle In which it is not my Province to interpose I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry if it be granted that Parity and not Prelacy was the Church Government that they chused If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren it will make more against themselves than against us for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity but they chused this and rejected that notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it under Popery We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity that they shewed so much Zeal for it as they did though they had not that Light about it that after times afforded It is certain that that Dispute which had so long by the Tyranny of the Bishops been buried and forgotten except among the Church in the Wilderness which few knew of the Waldenses could not at first be so fully understood as by further Enquiries it came to be Notwithstanding it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini though they did not much insist on the Debate about that for in the Book of Policy Chap. 1. they have these words this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirk gathered not to a single Bishop and hath ground in the Word of God to be put in Execution by them unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk by lawful Calling is committed Here it is plain that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government and chap. 2. There is this Article and to take away all occasion of Tyranny he that is God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with equality of Power every one according to their Function And after there are four ordinary Functions or Offices in the Kirk the Office of the Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elder and the Deacon Where it is evident that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right § 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie for if it were yielded it doth not hurt our Cause And his Arguments are verbose tedious and insignificant I shall only point at them and the Answers that may be made to them There is p. 9. c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe the Popes Supremacy was Debated but not Prelacy Ans. nihil sequitur our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists He doth falsly assert p. 10. that Churches when they are Reformed set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State as in Geneva which was a Common-wealth they set up Paritie For who readeth Calvins Writings may see that they built on another Foundation even Divine Institution and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary Paritie was in the Church and Monarchy in the State He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government he will soon see on whose side the impudence is He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful If Christ hath instituted a Form as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form inconsistent with that to be absolutely or simply unlawful He telleth us ibid. that Beza saith that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable if duely bounded by the pure canons of the ancient Church and I say the same for then it would be no more but a Presidencie which doth not destroy Paritie He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church which is not our Debate If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal no more are we unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us His second Proof is our Reformers had no peculiar Motives or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy nor interest to determine them to Paritie nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments seing most of them except England set up the same Government Thirdly He argueth thus none of the Confessors or Martyers or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection have given that as their Opinion And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times but what is that to the Order p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops against Presbyters as well as Bishops p. 19. And he hath a long Debate with some of our Historians about the Opinion of John
Diligence to the next Assemblie which last our Author overlooketh 16. His Translating of Ministers is no more but that his Consent or that of the whole Church must be had to a Transportation it was then necessarie when there was no Presbyteries to Judge of such Matters 17. He greatly mistaketh when he saith that the Assemblie Enacteth that Ministers for the General Assemblie should be brought with the Superintendents c. which he will have to be Nominating them and he alloweth the rest of the Synod but a Consent whereas Spotsw p. 219. words it such as the Superintendents shall choose in their Diocesan Synods If he could choose them by himself there needed no Synod for this end that Expression can signifie no less than the Synods suffrage in the Election My Lord Glaâ—… Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick 18. He held Diocesan Synods because he was their Moderator 19. They might appoint Fasts is their bounds but with Advice of the Ministers 20. Modifying of Stipendâ— is no Spiritual Power and therefore impertinently here brought in 21. Appeals was made to him and his Synodal Convention here is no sole Jurisdiction 22. His power of Fineing is no Spiritual Power 23. Determining Cases of Conscience and otheir Questions was never committed to him alone but in the Synod and to them Yea Questions so determined were to be reported to the General Assemblie next ensewing so that Manuscript that he so often Citeth p. 14. 24. To judge of Divorces is a civil Power and not to our purpose 25. It is clear by his own Relation that the Injunction of Pennance as he calleth it is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod 26. Restoring of Criminals or Absolution did the same way belong to him 27. Notifying Criminals to the Magistrat is no part of Jurisdiction 28. Excommunication was not to be done by his sole Authority but by his Advice 29. His Power over Colleges And 30. His Licensing of Booke both of them Depend on the Civil Power and are not to our present purpose These short Notes may shew how little cause there is for his Triumph with which he concludeth this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives They prove a Disparity between him and other Ministers I confess which the Church in that her State thought necessarie for a time but on the other hand it is evident that some of them Prove as much Disparitie from and inconsistencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocesan Bishop which our Brethren plead for as belonging to him Jure Divino § 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dissipat the Mist wherewith the Paritie Men are so very earnest to darken the Prelatical Power of the Superintendents he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions The 1. Is it was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office but was Temporary and for the then Necessities of the Church For this he Citeth Calderwuod and Petrie asserting this with whom I do cordially joyn Against this he thus reasoneth p. 142. whether it was Temporary or not it was Prelacy and this is all that I am concerned for And to Fortiâ—e this he taketh in by force a Similitude from the Presbyterians making Address to King James a rare but useless piece of Wit Ans. If he be concerned for no more than this we are agreed And he yieldeth that our Reformers were not Episcopal but Presbyterian who in a case of extream Necessity gave for a time more Power to one Minister than another but made them all equal assoon as that Necessity was over It is such an Argument as if there were but one Congregation with their Minister and Elders in an Island they manage Church Discipline by themselves but assoon as they encrease and there are moe People and church Officers and more Congregations they set up a Presbyterie to which all the Congregations and their Pastors are Subordinate will any say that they are Independents because they were forced to Act Independentlie at first there is as little reason to conclude that our Reformers were Episcopal though they were forced to use a kind of Prelacie for a time Beside that I have above shewed some considerable Differences between the Prelacie of Superintendents and that of Bishops which our Brethren plead for § 13. His second Undertaking is to shew that we have no sufficient Ground in the Records of these times for pretending that the Office of Superintendents was designed to be Temporal To prove his Assertion he saith he hath seen no more insisted on to make out this but a Phrase in the first Head of the Book of Discipline at this time He transcribeth the whole Passage out of Petrie Cent. 16. p. 218. and so must I what was their the Superintendents Office saith he appears by the first Book of Discipline wherein it is written thus we consider that if the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us should be appointed to several places there to make continual Residence that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine which should be not only the occasion of great Murmure but also dangerous to the Salvation of many and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient at this time that from the whole Number of Godly and learned Men now presently in this Realm be selected ten or twelve for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks to set Order and appoint Ministers as the former Prescribed to wit the former Head to the Countries that shall be appointed to their Care where none are now Afterward it is added these must not be suffered to live as their idle Bishops have done neither must they remain where they gladly would but they must be Preachers themselves and such as may not make long Residence in one place till the Kirks be Planted and provided of Ministers c. To this our Author replyeth by giving us a Sense of his own of these Words in the first Book of Discipline viz. that because there were then so few Qualified for the Office of Superintendencie the Ten or Twelve were by far too few for the whole Kingdom yet at that time they thought it expedient to Establish no more and though when the Church should be sufficiently Provided with Ministers it will be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them for their continual Residence yet in that Juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling into their Districts to Preach and Plant Churches Before I Examine what he saith to Prove this to be the true Gloss of that Passage I shall Prove it to be contrarie to and inconsistent with the Passage it self And 1. There is nothing in that Discourse that doth so much as insinuate the scarcitie of Men fit to be Superintendents but of Ministers fit to Preach to the People they no way hint that this Setlement
therefrom concerning Preaching the Word Correction of Manners or Administration of the Sacrament If I should Confess that I find not these Words in the Act which Calderwood citeth yet our Author should not have so much Advantage against him or G. R. either as he Boasteth of unless he will Condemn his Darling Historian Spotswood also who sayeth p. 214. that the matter of Policy and Jurifdiction of the Church was refeered to the consideration of certain Lords delegated by the Estates there is as little of this in the Act that he Citeth as there is of what Calderwood had mentioned whence these two Historians had their vouchers for what they say it seems my Antagonist cannot tell nor could I till I met with an old Edition of King James the siâ—ths Acts of Parliament Printed by John Ross at Edinburgh 1575. Where Parliament 1569 Act 12 the Words are expresly set down It seems his Party dreaded the Force of this Citation and have taken care to stifle it For in Edition Edinburgh 1682 called the little Acts of Parliament that Act being the 12th Chapter Parliament 1567 is wholly left out That Superintendencie was then in the Church is no Argument that Prelacie was settled in the Church as what was intended should continue but they were then intending another sort of Jurisdiction as the event did shew What he so critically carpeth at p. 293. about a Citation out of Leslyes Historie is pure quibling it was not denied that Popish Bishops sat in Parliament but rather acknowledged yet Lesly was cited to shew that it did not long continue so If there be any material Change in that Citation from the Authors Words let the Reader judge after all the frivolous Critticism he hath made The Reader may observe how exact a Historian this Man is who hussily Bantereth others with defectiveness that way for he telleth us that Meeting of which Lesly sayeth that the Ecclesiasticks were Excluded was not a Parliament but at most a Privy Council Lesly supposeth it to be a Meeting that had the Legistative Power which I thought had been in the King and Parliament and that they made such a Law as was the Fountain of all the Heresies i. e. the Protestant Religion and other evils that followed That he calleth it Concilium is nothing contrarie to what I say seing Parliaments are often so called in Latine § 30. For his fourth Enquirie he manageth his Answer to it with such undecent Reflection both on the Church and on the State that I judge others are meeter to deal with him about these things than I or any in my capacity and the Matter as himself confesseth not being capable of Argument nor any publick Deed being extant except the Act of Parliament which he so petulantly exposeth by which it might be Determined I see no ground here for Debate but our Affirmation and his Denial and I know he will lay no more weight on the one than we lay on the other For what he is at a great deal of pains about to refute what G. R. and another who writ the farther Vindication had said very transiently and without intending a laborious Paper combate about a Matter so remote from the vitals of our Controversie with the Episcopalians I say all that Rapsodie that he hath written on this Head I am content to refer it to the judicious and unbyassed Reader to consider whether our Cause or this Authors Reputation as a Wise Man and one exercised in matters of solid Reason or Learning do more Suffer by it it is Truth and the Ordiances of Christ that I am set for the Defence of not Men my self nor others unless it were in Matters that may reflect blame on the Cause that I own Wherefore I shall wholly pass over this Enquirie if any one who hath more leasure than I have or is more inclined toward Eristick jangle will take him to Task and deal with him at his own Weapon he may do it I say not this as either being convinced by his Reasons or seeing them to be Unanswerable I am still in the Opinion I was in before concerning the Inclinations of the People of Scotland especially the Soberer sort of them and these of the best Lives with respect to Episcopacie and Presbyterie Only this I confess that I believe there was never a time since the Reformation in Scotland arrived at any degree of Consistence or Stabilitie wherein the Inclinations of the Generalitie of the People were less cocerned about any thing of Religion either the more Essential or the less Substantial part of it on the one side or on the other so Fatal impressions the Flood-gates of all manner of Profanness and Looseness that had broken out in the late Times under Prelacie had made on the Minds of Men and to such height Irreligiousness arrived Yet I Affirm that the real Respect that Men had to Religion in any of the concernments of it were rather on the Presbyterian than on the Episcopal side I shall say less of his fifth Enquirie for I freely confess that neither the Inclinations of the People for Presbyterie nor Episcopacy being a Grievance to the Nation nor our being Reformed by Presbyters if all this were true evident and certain none of these nor all of them in conjunction could by themselves infer that Prelacie should be Abolished nor I am confident did the Parliament ever intend to have them so considered Wherefore if my Antagonist or any for him can prove that Prelacie is the Ordinance of Christ for the Gospel Church we shall part with all these Arguments for its Abolition and shall cordially own it but if that cannot be done as I am sure it cannot and if these Propositions be true they afford an Argument for the Abolition of Prelacie that he will never be able to Answer And I shall dismiss this Enquirie and indeed this whole Book after I have Noted a few things without insisting on Debates out on a Discourse that he beginneth afresh p. 333. about the Principles of our Reformers he pleadeth for their fallabilitie he is not for all they held or did we say the same of both Only I take Notice that here he overthroweth the Argument that he had so much insisted upon against us that our Reformers were not exactly for the whole of our Way Though I do not pretend to Defend all the Principles that were held by our Reformers yet many of these which he blameth them for might easily be Defended if it were not to Digresse from our present Controversie about Church Government The Reproaches that he casteth on Master Knox deserve Correction I wish some may undertake it His Challenge to us p. 344. to shew wherein they have deserted the Reformers so far as they Agreed with the Primitive Church or what is an Approach toward Poperie I say Episcopacie is an Instance of both but this being the Matter of our main Debate the Decision must depend on that He undertaketh
only Schism to depart fâ—om a Church without just cause that we have been joyned to but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without Sin the former may be called a â—ositive this a negative Separation 4. Schism may be also called Positive or negative in another Sense the former when a Partie in a Church doth not joyn with the Church yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church whereof they were Members the later when they set up such a distinct Societie there may be just Causes for both The first When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to because of some Corruption that I must partake of if I joyn but I partake with some other more pure Societie The second When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin nor can they have the occasion of a Societie where they might joyn they must either live without Ordinances or set up another Religious Societie on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches 5. There may be a partial Separation when one Ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot joyn in it and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion and a total Separation when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service unless we joyn in all or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous The former by most wise and sober Men is not reckoned such a Schism as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account but the Author I now Debate with aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism as also do many of â—is Partizans driving many Consciencious and good Men from them for the sake of some Usages which themselves count indifferent and the others apprehend to be unlawful 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters especially when Managed with heat and animosities may be called Schiâ—m according to the import of the Word yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism they are not to be so reputed unless some kind of separation or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another follow upon them Diversitie of Opinion and of Affection are sinful evils but it is diversitie of Religious Practice following on these that maketh ChurchiSchism 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other and often neither side is wholly innocent they who have cause to separate may manage their Good cause by evil Methods and in a way that is not wholly Commendable now to know on which side the blame of the Schism â—ieth we must not always conclude that they are in the fault 1. Who are the fewer Number otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful Nor 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers themselves being in Possession of Church Authority for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis Nor 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority and hath the Law on its side not only because it is the Gospel not the Law of the Land that is the Rule of our Religion and Church Practice but also because that is variable and by that Rule they who were the sound Partie one year may be Schismaticks the other without any Change in their Principles or Practice which is absurd Wherefore the blame of Schism in that case lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide or who though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause every thing that we may justly blame not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church Hence it plainly followeth that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is there is the Church and they who have most of these are the soundest Church § 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism and where the Blame of it lieth I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church about Schism it is evident that they did Oppose it and set forth its Sinfulness and sad Consequences with a great deal of Zeal and that justly for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side or the other but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order of the inward and outward Practice of Religion and of Mens Souls and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians that they think well of Schism that is truely such or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard and Fatal Effects of it nay our Principle is that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church yea that nothing can Warrant or Excuse it but the Necessity of shuning Sin It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks as also of Heretick and that often proceeded from a true though mistaken Zeal for lovely Truth and beautiful Unity at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities that they as all Men are were Subject to Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Father 's called several Practices Schism and shewed a great dislike of them all As 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church as Schism and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed under this Head which I shall not now mention it being my Work at present only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about and blameth People for as Schismaticks and Sectaries which they laid no such stress on They bare with one another though they Dissered in Rites and several Customs They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent but maintained Peace and Concord notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus reproving Victor of Rome where Usurpation and imposing on others early began for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind and yet they did lovingly Communicate together The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some think they should
for using the Words and if he can shew us a Command for using them we shall Obey it He saith it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples If he mean that the Words should be Recited we desiderate the Proof nor do we find that any of the Apostles in their Publick Administrations so used it It is true the Presbyterians formerly used it and if they should do so still I should not Reclaim but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it gave the first Occasion for disusing it It is an unaccountable Fancy that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism this is the general â—â—nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable and groundless in it self there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be so Common Observation and Experience sheweth that the Atheism that we all should Lament is no more visible nor common among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms than among them who are fond of them I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows p. 290 291. but that the Author was when he Wrote these Things in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion to see his beloved Forms neglected Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People and the Humour of Schism hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore whereas it is evident and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of Lâ—ndonderry that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations and People is made more acquained with them than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture I cannot Answer for their Practice and we make the People understand the Reading as Ezra did Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland but Men who had no Authority nor were Teachers in the Church were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation He next blameth us under the same Epithets of Madness Dreams Humour of Schism that when Children are Bâ—ptized the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated and this because they are not made to repeat the Creed I first ask him what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Crâ—â—d which they cannot understand by our Conduct seing some of them understand it not and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own from Socinianism Poperie Antinomianism and several other gross Errors Next I Answer that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into but pains is taken so far as Ministers can to make them understand that Faith and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it and it is told them what Faith we mean by designing it from the Scripture the great Rule of it and the Confession of Faith of this Church drawn out of the Scripture If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a â—ovenanâ—â—r which he would have us believe tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things we give no ground for such a Thought but endeavour to present things otherwise to them § 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known for in Scotland even among his own Party the contrarie is well known But all this Noise is because we have no stinted Liturgie without which we follow the same Rules both Divine and Humane as I shewed before we all teach the same Truths and Administer the same Ordinances and in the same manner except that we use not the same Words wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie as he injuriously Asserteth His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied It may be some of them did so either from insufficiency or lazieness but I am sure neither the greatest nor the best part of them did so but what ever be in that both on his side and on ours they who did not tie themselves to the same Words at all times managed their Work with as much plainess gravity and coherence of their Words and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts His calling Praying without a set Form Rambling and Ascribing to it no Order nor Dependence but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits I neglect as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture or Reason against him whom he Opposeth in this but to Rail at him And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon I shall wave it too Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie out of one of his Epistles which he so Citeth as no Man shall find it unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used which I have not had he named the Epistle by its Number or the Person to whom Addressed I might have found it by some pains I oppose Calvine to Calvine he said of the English Liturgie and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument even in this Debate that he waveth The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator A. This is provided against by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted by setting the Word and the Acts of the Church before them as their Rule and Directorie and by Watching over them and Correcting them for mismanagement These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising without any Warrant or Footstep of it in the Scripture Another of his Arguments every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance A.
acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy and that in his presence he being then with the Apostle Also from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus From his telling them that they should see his Face no more Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them but laying it on the Elders but I shall not enlarge on these § 15. He alledgeth with the same Confidence and as little Strength of Argument that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus in Crete And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea that Titus we say the same of Timothy was an Evangelist which he very discretly more suo calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists 〈◊〉 Saith he It is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who were called Evangelists A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists The word is divers ways used in Holy Write neither do we argue from the Name that either he or Timothy to whom this Name is expresly applyed 2 Tim. 4. 5. were Evangelists but we argue from their Work and Circumstances together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church in the beginning of Christianity There are others beside them whom we can prove to have been Evangelists who may be get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture Next he argueth the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon What if all this were yielded what gaineth he by it Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him tho he were no Bishop and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist what we design is that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop seing he was an Evangelist who hath all that power that Titus is said to have Beside Saravia who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath de Ministr Evang. grad C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae Prophetae Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri ita Titi Timothei qui Presbyteri Episcopi erant major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops if then Titus was an Evangelist is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist or a Bishop to a Presbyter or he to a Deacon unless some of these were degraded for some fault Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop Further he describeth an Evangelist out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it at least were not converted by it Eusebius is not by him fairly cited C. 33. not 37. he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles as his own words bear therefore they did not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists that is saith he they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations as Apollo did after Paul 1 Cor. 3. 6. also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted or any way to preach the Gospel His at last is his own addition to Eusebius not the words of that Historian It is evident then that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels and on that account be called an Evangelist in a large sense as may also every on that preaches the Gospel but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church distinguished from Apostles Prophets Pastors Teachers c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about that it is more than insinuated He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist which is a Truth but very impertinent to his purpose because Daniel did the Work of the King who was no King but much lower than a King a very wise Consequence indeed That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm or ordain he affirmeth p. 112. which is both false he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise For the power of Confirmation we know none had it there being no such Ordinance in our Authors sense in the Apostolick Church It is also wide from this purpose for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be sent elsewhere on another Errand and yet both be Evangelists That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists is true in the large sense as before but not in the strick sense neither is this to our present purpose for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists in the Primitive Times were Bishops But what followeth is wholly false that any Bishop or Presbyter who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times If it were so every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct â—…m all other Church Officers for there were whom the Scripture doth particularly call Evangelists Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished § 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops and not Evangelists I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist whence it will appear plainly that Timothy and Titus were such and that there is no ground from what is said of them in