not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
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.
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei◠not being so sensible of 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
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
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
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
that there was a Hierarchy undâ—… the Old Testament whence this Conclusion is necessary that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful If I were a Papist and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God Priest and People were subject whence this Conclusion is necessary that or single person be Head of the Universal Church is not in its self simplicâ—ter unlawful This Author is in a great Mistake if he imagine that 〈◊〉 say that Episcopacy is simpliciter and in it self unlawful we think that Christ might have set up Bishops yea a Pope with such limited Power 〈◊〉 his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church if so it had seemed good to Him And if He had 〈◊〉 done we should cheerfully have submitted to the one or the other wherefore our Question is not what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution but what He hath appointed as the way how He will haâ—… His Church governed The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent essential Powâ—… of the Apostles which he maketh to be perpetual from the extrinsick aâ—… extraordinary Priviledges and Advantages of that Power sutable to the fiâ—… Plantations of Christianity which he maintaineth to be Transitory and 〈◊〉 have ceased when they died § 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts nor Infallibility nor in their immedâ—… Call nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection and hâ—… proveth of each of these that others beside the Apostles had these Priviledges These things are asserted Dictatorie but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions It is not any where told us in the Word what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office and what is accidental or extrinsick to it and therefore we must be very Waâ—…e in determining so positively in this Matter It might be expected that this Gentleman who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right requireth of them plain Proofs else they must be lookt upon as Impostors p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy but here we are disappointed He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these preaching Power with Administration of the Sacraments Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church and that with Rule over all Churches an immediate Call extraordinary Gifts Infallibility to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles and none else are Apostles and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle which agree to Apostles omni soli semper and consequently they complexly taken are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office for we know not the Essences of things but by their first and essential Properties how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own § 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others on both sides about the Matter of the Apostolate or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it which yet is not his but is borrowed from the Papists But I first observe that Christs twelve Disciples who are by way of Eminency called Apostles arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power by degrees they were first called to be Believers and afterward were sent forth as Preachers Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him for some time in neither of these Degrees had they any Church Power except that of Preaching and Baptizing they were no Church Rulers for there was as yet no Gospel Church to be ruled but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church at last our Lord after his Resurrection gave them their Apostolick Commission by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office and sent them out both with Authority to Teach gather and setle and to govern Churches and their complete Ordination or solemn setting them apart for that Office by which also they were furnished for the Discharge of it above what they had been before was when the Spirit was poured out on them on the day of Pentecost they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18 10 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission as may be gathered from Act 1 4 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true others beside the Twelve got some Drops of that heavenly Shower but they had not the same Commission with them and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them nor fit them for Apostolick Work Another thing that I here observe is that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner though the Word is sometime used at large yet it is applyed to them so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself in the Inscriptions of his Epistles but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1 2. Now our enquiry is wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had who by way of Eminence were called Apostles or what are the Characteâ— that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers If we can arrive at any Light in this it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles as some plead or their Successors as others imagine § 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word but p. 210. he telleth us that the Twelve were called Apostles from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ and that our Lord made use of the word Sending as applied to them in the proper and peculiar sense And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same that he maintaineth that 〈◊〉 Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples Whitaker against Bellarm de Pontif Romanâ— who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter not in his extraordinary but his
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
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
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
was the Appointer of the first of them but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known after the Apostles and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted this Argument had been weak and the Hereticks might have insulted A. I deny that either he or the Hereticks could have any such advantage because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another they had no occasion to consider that in this Debate further than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church where there were more it was enough to confound the Hereticks that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days and they could tell them by whom What followeth p. 126 127. is a Repetition of the same thing about which I shall trouble him no more let him tell it over again as oft as he will He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church we know there are Worthy Men in that Church but we never thought them all infallible § 31. His third Enquiry is Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients in an Affair of this Consequence he saith no doubt we may and ought I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction and of some Doubting and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive without clearing the State of the Question And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case because our Author seemeth in pursuing this his Enquiry to confound two different Questions one is whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days Another is about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government as he wordeth it p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church whome some Men will call Bishops another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished Some of them lived in or near to the Apostolick times others of them some Ages after the Credibility of the former caeteris paribus is far greater than that of the later Because they had better causam scientiae and because tho Tradition without Writing may at first and under the best advantages soon and easily be corrupted yet by length of time and passing through many hands it is more apt to be depraved and that even without design For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients some of them are Spurious and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted and interpolated tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear others of them are Dubious so that it is sub judice whether they be credible Testimonies or not A second Distinction is of the things about which we debate our Author indeed doth distinguish in the Progress of the Debate between Matters of Fact and Matters of Opinion or Principle of which afterward I distinguish things on which our Faith or our Duty doth depend from these things that we are not so concerned in being merely Historical Passages or Debates about Natural or Politick Things in Matters of Fact of the later sort we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians and regard them at least some of them as Men of Learning yet so as not to believe their Histories nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason for the former sort of things I look on their Testimony as insufficient to perswade the Mind or clear the Conscience Scripture not the Fathers must be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Practice Distinction third These things that we Debate about are either determined in Scripture or not if not much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men who had much of the Mind of God in many things yet as was said before we must not blindly follow them over the Belly of Sense or Reason If they be Scripture light must be our Guide not the Opinion of the Fathers Listinction fourth The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous or they are Divided in the later case we cannot follow them but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded In the former their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice and may readily byass the Mind yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered or we must guess at them from dark Hints As the one sort can no way command our Faith so neither the other is to be received implicitly § 32. Out of these Distinctions this State of the present Question resulteth whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted My Antagonist is for the Affirmative I am for the negative for which I give these Reasons 1. We have no concurrent nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition and Unanimity about it If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point we shall quit this Argument Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head few of them have have written on it directly and of purpose and what they have said is but indirectly without considering the State of our Controversie which I am perswaded was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have written nothing many of the Writings of that time are perished there are different Opinions in this Debate among them whose Writings we have which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of for this last the rest are certain enough I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head is obscure and hard to be understood their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time which was plain enough to them who then lived but not so to us who know not their Idioms nor the Customs that they relate to as then known things they also used words in a far different sense than we do As Merit Pennance Bishop and such like It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture and Reason than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine and Spurious the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith or Practice
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
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
rule of our Religion either in their Historical or other Writings We give that Deference to the Scripture alone Again we impute no such Apostacie to the first and best Saints but to them who at some distance Succeeded them as hath been declared and we know that in after Ages even among them who go under the name of the Fathers other things were Changed as well as Church Government § 44. That our Reformers from Popery whom he calleth the first Presbyterians p. 149. did not plead a Jus Divinum is no Argument against us for few of his Party to this day plead for a Divine Right to be on their side as he and some few others do And himself and his Complices made no noise with it when the Oath of Supremacy and the Test were in Fashion our Reformers did not disowne it and they had not the Occasion and may be not the Light to assert it that after-times had Whereas it is palpable that Interest maketh some of his Side to change their Note If Beza wrote smoothly to the English Episcopal Clergy and some more freely to Mr. Knox and Mr. Melvil I know no blame in that piece of Civility unless he can say that Beza ceded in many of his Principles to please the English Church which cannot be alledged His imputing Force and Violence to us and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us we pass as angry and empty Words but no Arguments we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be such whether they be for us or against us but build not our Faith on any of them except such as are contained in the Scriptures of Truth And here he bringeth in p. 150. the Controversie about Ignatius's Epistles and imputeth to Dally and others that they reject them on no other ground but because they owne Episcopacy It is not fair dealing to impute such Prevarication to a Person of Monsieur Daillies Worth after he is laid in the Grave He will not pretend p. 156. to debate the matter about the Authority of these Epistles but p. 150. and what follow runneth out in a high Commendation of Doctor Pearson on that Subject and many confident Assertions that what he hath said cannot be Answered I shall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author But am not convinced by his Arguments I am sure there is not that Evidence nor Certainty in them that is sufficient for us to build on in a Matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in as is the Government appointed by Christ in his Church He telleth us Monsieur L'Arroque attempted to Answer the Bishop of Chester but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party and his Collections are Answered by Nourry The truth is L'Arroque was prevailed upon by some of the Episcopal Party as witnesseth the Translator of L' Arroques Historie on the Eucharist in his Life p. 5. by some specious Arguments from the Unseasonableness of Debates among Protestants to desist from that Work and it never was perfected therefore it might be the more easily answered and we cannot judge what Esteem it would have obtained it seems they dreaded the Strength of it Whether we ever were able to bring one plausible Argument for that Cause the Reader must judge we will not in this stand to his Decision which he confidently maketh p. 141. he declineth ibid. renewing the Debate about these Epistles wherefore I hope I may be excused if I do so too And he asserteth that their Cause loseth nothing by their being laid aside as I also affirm that our Cause may be maintained if they be allowed to be really what he would have them to be Some Citations out of them I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examined And if he had thought fit to produce moe it is like they might be found to do no hurt to our Cause Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius he might have received what should satisfie about it A Distinction between Bishop that is Moderator and Presbyter and Deacon we owne as well as these Acts do which is all he mentioneth as making for him in these Acts. He citeth Wal. Messal p. 153. asserting that these Epistles were written in the beginning or middle of the second Century this is but the Guess of the Learned Salmasius but our Author doth not tell us that Salmasius in the same place setteth forth that they could not be written by Ignatius from some Absurdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them This Gentleman mistaketh when he saith he that wrote thom could not represent Ecclesiastical Policy different from what it was in the days of Ignatius that is to say he could not mistake He should have proved this by demonstrating that that Person tho he knoweth not who he was had the Gift of Inerrability and if he ascribe that to a Person whos 's other Characters he knoweth not he might as well say that no Writer of that Age could misapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former Is it not possible that this Person might be another Diotrephes who while there was some Tendency to a Declension from Parity did zealously forward it and run a little before the soberer and better Men of that time and that his Zeal for the Opinion he had taken up might make him misapprehend or misrepresent what was the Opinion of the true Ignatius it is a Dream that it followeth from the Concession or Guess of Salmasias that that Author gave 〈◊〉 a true Idea of the Ecclesiastical Policy of the beginning of the second Century and another that he must represent Church Policy as those in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writings so visionaire to use his own word as this is For could not this unknown Person differ in the Apprehension of this Matter from most yea from all his Contemporaries and it is strange that our Author should suppose that this personate Ignatius was a Martyr or a Bishop as he doth p. 154. He pleadeth next for the Epistles of Ignatius from the Diligence and Authority of Eusebius and saith that he hardly could be imposed upon in an Affair of this Consequence A. This is to beg the Question to say that the Church was in this imposed upon he should prove that the Churches then thought these Epistles to be written by Ignatius for Eusebius I think few who are vers'd in Antiquity will lay so much weight on his Historical Authority as this Author doth Himself giveth ground to suspect some things that he wrote as I shewed before and others have observed yet more ground for it It is a pleasant Argument the Church was careful to gather up some hard Bones of Ignatius that the Lyons had left Ergo they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind
for it was not used either for its Advantage or disadvantage but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church however it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments Our Author now p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for about the Principles of our Reformers with respect to Church Government proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into But as an Introduction to this he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation Their weakness he exposeth in two things one is that they went on this Principle that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion what else was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture if it was i◠fashion in the Popish Church was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as 〈◊〉 Corruption as having been abused as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry Here is a false representation of our Reformers and that in three things 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men as on other Grounds so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition and having been so used but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it whether it were of greater or lesser Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice 3. They always were willing to receive what could be by good consequence proved by Scripture though it were not positively and expresly Commanded I advise my Adversarie if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own by speaking what is not Truth For the Principle it self duly stated according to what I have said I am willing to Debate it with him but that is not his business but rather to expose it by Invectives The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak is they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie to be Imployed still for the Churches use I think this Debate is little to our purpose and therefore I wave it § 24. His next Attempt is to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland after the publick Establishment of the Reformation and that this was Episcopacy And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History in which it is hard for any Man to follow him rejecting what ever disliketh him and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation not sparing Spotswood himself when he doth not please him only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript out of which he alters adds and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church whence that Manuscript came what Authority it hath whither it be his own or any other Mans he is not pleased to tell us He calleth it his Manuscript whether he would have us take him for the Author or for the Owner of it I cannot determine nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account I have the present use of a Manuscript which as I am credibly informed is the very individual Copy that he had which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow Whether any other Copies of it be extant I am uncertain It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive and other things relating to Church Affairs I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it for the former it will be evident to them who without Byass consider the following Passages Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone but they with the Ministers and Elders are to expone to the Kirk the State of the Kirk among them and note Offences that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly so also p. 8. and almost every where This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents to transport Ministers but with this express Limitation that it be done in the Synod and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry it is said this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops as others pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk Where even the Name of Bishops as then used seemeth to be disliked and their Prelation disowned and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed at their Entry by Learned Men of the Kirk such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office and Power is disowned they for the present not always were to do that Work also that their Power is derived from the Assembly not Divine Institution is plainly insinuated Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk Ibid. Bishops Abbots c. warned by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell a Divorced Adulterer On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction The Manuscript giveth a very
one of these Articles it is desired that Qualified Ministers might be provided for vacant Bishopricks This proveth no more but that the major part of this Assembly thought fit that seing Men bearing the Name of Bishops for little more they had were for an Interim tollerated in the Church their Places should neither be vacant nor filled with insufficient Persons All this may well consist with a Dislike of that Lordly Power of Bishops that some were Aspiring to and that my Antagonist pleadeth for § 27. Our Author thinks he hath now done his Work and proved that Prelacy was privatly and publickly liked from the beginning of the Reformation it seems he hath argued himself into a Belief of it such is the Efficacy of Prejudice which few else will be perswaded of He thinketh his further Work needless and I think it had been more for his Credit to let it alone it is to prove that Presbytery met with Opposition and I could seldom observe that any good Design was carried on but Satan raged against it and found Instruments against it his former Historical Discourse he justly calleth Nauseous p. 216. But what followeth is much more so and yet worse for he falleth to downright Railing against Master Andrew Melvil in not only a nausebus Gingling Strain of Words but with such Unmanly Bitterness as a tender Conscienced Christian would abhor yea a Person of common Morality would be ashamed of and is only fit for the Scolding Women that have lost all Shame The foull Misrepresentation of Matters of Fact which have some Semblance of Truth in them that this Narrative aboundeth with I leave to the History that I hope may appear ere long to correct them I am no further concerned than with what is Argumentative of which I can find nothing here for we deny not that there was then as now an Episcopal Party who were loath to let go their hoped for or enjoyed Church Preferments That after Master Melvil appeared was the first time that any appeared for Presbytery in Scotland or against Episcopacy is a daring Assertion after which we may expect whatever he shall think to be for his Interest considering what hath been already adduced out of the Book of Discipline One who readeth this his Historical Discourse may easily perceive what Shifts he is put to for proving the Regent Mortons Change from Episcopacy to favour Presbytery and to prove his Intentions in some of his Actings and that by a long Train of Arguments To prove that England though Episcopal did endeavour to promote Presbytery in Scotland To prove the Ignorance of the Clergy of Scotland at that time To prove Beza to be ignorant of the Government and Constitution of the ancient Church p. 248. and that not out of his own Book which it seems he had not read but out of his Adversary Saravia and indeed he proveth Beza's Ignorance by such Instances as will serve for any Presbyterian and conclude them all to be Ignoramus's which I know is this Authors Opinion oftner than once or twice expressed I pass with a transient Observation his bitter Sarcasm against Days of Solemn Fasting and Humiliation often appointed by Presbyterians p. 254. It had been good his own Party had used them oftner and that they and we had improved them better I take notice also of his making so very great a Difference between the Meetings of Ministers and Elders for Exercises that is for Interpretation of Scripture and Presbyteries which were set up on account whereof he representeth it as a great deal of Ignorance in one who affirmed that the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed in the year 1572. I deny not but that there was a Difference between these two Sorts of Meetings as there is between a Child and a full grown Man viz. The Meetings for Exercise or Presbyteries call them what ye will did at first meddle with fewer Acts of Church Power than afterward yet they Acted with Authority For the Ministers and Elders met to interpret Scripture I hope the Elders were not Interpreters by publick Teacâ—…ng as well as the Ministers the People no doubt were also present at these Exercises as Hearers but the Elders are mentioned as Constituent Members of a Meeting wherein the People had no Share which must be an Authoritative Meeting King James the sixth was far from his Opinion about these Meetings who in the Conference at Hampton-Court 1603. in the second days Conference p. 78 79. when Doctor Reynolds moved that the Clergy might meet once every three Weeks for Prophesying as Bishop Grindal and other Bishops desired of her late Majesty the King being stirred at this said that they aimed at Scottish Presbytery He looketh on it as ridiculous that G. R. had reckoned that Presbyteries were from the beginning and fancieth that he hath no other ground for so saying but that Calderwood had said that the Kirk of Scotland had four sorts of Assemblies ever since the beginning of which this must needs be one But I can tell him of other Grounds on which he might reckon this Meeting a Presbytery one is the General Assembly 1579. as the Manuscript he so often citeth hath it p. 95. did expresly determine that these Meetings were Presbyteries another is what is above said and a third is that even in times of Episcopacie in Scotland these Meetings were called the Exercise and yet they pretended to Presbyterial Power in them though it was in Subordination to the Bishop That Calderwood sayeth that Presbytries succeeded to these Meetings importeth no more but that Presbytries were after set up with more Power and Freedom than they then had under Superintendents or Bishops When he cannot contradict Matter of fact with respect to the prevailing of Presbytrie he falleth to down right railing at the Assemblie which condemned Prelacie for boldness folly iniquitie preposterous Zeal if more Reproaches had then occurred to his Fancie it is like we should have had them it is neither good Manners nor a token of a good Cause thus to fall from Reasoning to Scolding I leave him now after he hath again mistaken the Question to please himself with re-counting his Exploits and to tell the World what he hath made appear in not a few pages After which he bringeth two Witnesses for Confirming what he had so long insisted on The first of them is an Author with whom I am not acquainted but seemeth to be of his own Sentiments So that what he sayeth of the Opposition made to Presbyterie in Scotland is no more to us than what A. M. D. D. himself hath said especially seing we have not the Reasons but the bare Assertion of that Author The other is King James the sixth to whose Testimonie brought also by the Author of the Ten Questions I did then Oppose and still do his own Explication of what he sayeth in an after Edition of his Basilicon doron that he
meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland by saying and that frequently that no Error could get footing there in Scotland while Kirk Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies stood in their Force He concludeth his Second Enquiry with making a great Improvement against us as he thinketh of our saying that the Bishops set up in that he calleth his second Model had no more Power than Superintendents whence he Argueth Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power but the Assembly at Dundee 1580 Condemned Episcopacie and they Condemned also Superintendencie whence it followeth that they and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this not only forsook but condemned the Principles of our Reformers This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand But the Answer is plain and easie and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed That Assemblie did and the Presbyterians do condemn Superindendencie as what ought not to continue in the Church nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time in an extraordinarie Exigent And we affirm which our Author hath not yet disproved that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church § 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is whether Prelacie and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People ever since the Reformation He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true this Question will soon be dispatched for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed He might if so it had pleased him saved the labour of this tedious Debate in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said unless we could which is impossible have the Vote by Pole of all the Individuals of the Nation and that in all the Times and Changes since the Reformation The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs he may for me abound in his own sense I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians yea of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest â—…minencie for Vertue Understanding and Rouk and yet not Presbyterian that Presbyterie was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie I judge they mistake but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt I would have him also consider that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie and Establish Presbyterie the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow and countenance by their Authority this Government of the Church but we think it standeth on a surer bottom than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth which Grounds I have laid down in this Work if he can Beat us from these we shall become his willing Proselyts and quit though we will not Revile it as he doth this Act of Parliament as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State or of the Church or was more designed to ridicule or to refute Presbyterie that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done but we are in utrumque parati to despise his Mocking and to Answer his Material Arguments though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done about Matters that be remote from the main Question § 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576 and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had Beza also and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church Ans. I believe so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence it was no small Mercie and Matter of Joy that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church when as many as were needed could not be had and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem yet it is no good Argument the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful therefore they inclined to have them or Bishops perpetuated in the Church Another great Argument is even in after times and the more advanced State of Presbyterie when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London for their forwardness in that way yet all things went peaceably in Scotland as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie and their Inclination to Presbyterie seing the Nation have these years past been in Peace though he and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be That Episcopacie prevailed 1610 Proveth no more for the one side than the prevailing of Paritie 1592 and again 1690 Proveth for the other side Yea submitting to Episcopacie so far as to sit in Synods and Presbyteries with a Bishop was no Argument of Approving it in the case of the Church that then was when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie and Bishops thrust in on them It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority and were called again only by the Bishops Authority He Chargeth Calderwood and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie that he had said that it was Statute in Parliament 1565 that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth
Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
obstante sacrorum canonum Authoritas laudabilis approbata consuetudo Ecclesiâ— servavit servat et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandalâ— est introducta rationaliter quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie postea a confecrantibus sub utraque a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur c. Also the Council of Trent Ses 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds yet they make a Law against it which cannot be changed but by the Church it self Let the intelligent Reader judge whether here be not a harmonie of Principles in this Matter of the Churches Power between these two Anti-Christian Councils and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ more than that of Man whether it be not more rational to say that seing it is evident that some Rules about the Passover which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness were afterward not observed by the Church and even by Christ himself who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force were appointed but for that present time and that the â—hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution and not from any Power that the Church pretended to to Alter what GOD had Instituted § 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is the Jews used a postcoenium of Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb This Christ not only complyed with but he adopted it into his own Religion and gave it a high Signification and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant c. here is another piece of his Divinitie which I confess is not so singular as the former for some pretenders to be Antiquaries and great Criticks have in this trode the way before him Answer If we should yield what they here demand as to Matter of Fact viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine after eating the Paschal Lamb and that Christ did the like will any rational Man say that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover For 1. Can they prove that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom or that he had any regard to it may not we do the same Action that another doth yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person or is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution Again if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah and their being utterly rejected of God for so doing for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie nor after it while the Maccabees lived Now can any Man think that Christ who had reproved their Religious Washings and other Ceremonies would be so fond of these which stood on the same bottom with them I further Answer that this Tradition of the Postcâ—nium is a groundless fancie I find no such Custom among the Jews of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium or two parts or Services in the Paschal Supper And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae p. 167. who out of Maimonides giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it Lightfoot also and Grotius give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi Addison also in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie describeth that Feast as Celebrated by them but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them but on the contrarie I find two things that they agree in which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine and Christ imitating of it The 1. Is the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups and Morsels they took so did not our Lord he Blessed the Meat that they eat no doubt and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions which were no fewer than Eight or Nine beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture which Reading they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and other Composers of their own and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites he must prove it by good Arguments and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these Authors give of the Passover is that they begin with a Cup then they take the quantitie of Olive of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bitter Herbs and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast then they eat what each one listeth and after some other Observations they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before and after they may eat nothing that Night here is no concluding with Bread and Wine for a Postcaenium Yea Capellus who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth for he telleth us that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive whence it clearly followeth that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium consisting of the same Materials If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations as he phraseth it their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog Judaic cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover and all the Rites of it hath these Words p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest Judaeos â—estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis vel Dei praecepto sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones â—â—lebrare quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta § 19. His next Work is to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days he had said it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church and this I called raving the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End To this he Answereth two things
to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed and his Answers refuted § 5. of this Section § 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth p. 185. He had in his Apologie required that we should tell when they began to be Observed and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles It was told him this is Iniquum Postulatum and the Consequence is naught Both because of the Defectiveness of History and they came in by insensible degrees Next it was shewed from the silence of Scripture and of the History the first Ageâ— that Christmass for of that was the Question was not Observed for 300 years after Christ which was Conâ—â—rmed by Easter being much noticed but it not and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem and ancient Histories cited by them also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it all this he thought fit to overlook only he Examineth the Assertion which he doth falsifie by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter And laboureth to prove out of Origen and some others that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not for if they were then used and injoyned by the Church scripture silence of them is enough to us and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them I searched no further but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it But now when I have further considered that Matter I â—â—nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame he first citeth Origen contra Celâ— mentioning the Christiaâ— Festivities but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work where this Passage may be found that it might be Examined The like Omission in another about a Word of Augustin he agregeth at great length p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths which are not forbidden Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place Col. 2. 15. also of Easter that in and before Origins days was observed and contended about His other Citation Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find though I lookt over that Homilie May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated as most of the Writings of the Fathers have His next Author is Hippolitus as he is Cited by Photius all his Proof out Hippolitus is he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam and a Conjecture that himself layeth no weight on it is NIAC is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus the rest of the Line being defaced The Answer to all this is easie 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie if he had it 2. Photius who lived â—n the Ninth Centurie may be rejected by an Argument Ad Hominem which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories concerning our Conversion from Heathenism p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theopâ—aniam cannot prove his Point unless that he can Prove that that Word from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation or GOD manifeâ—â— in the flesh which is the proper Import of it but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery which was its current Signification when Photius wrot For his Niac it is so wide and groundless and a strained Conjecture that few wisâ— Men will be fond of mentioning it much less of making an Argument of it he supplieth it I know not by what Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles the Authority of which we cannot own unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum I denie not that in Process of time they did degenerate into Holy Days such as he pleadeth for and becoming so Numerous they became a Burden to the Church and were diâ—used till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized but at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them made after the ordinarie Service of the Church and that Age and some that followed were so respectful to the Martyrs for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges whence it may be Inferred that from these Commemorations to other Holy Days is no good Consequence He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie It is no consequence the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres who Succeeded the Apostles Ergo they could not forget the Apostles themselves if they understand such a way of Commemoration the Reason I have already given § 21. He Inferreth p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed because Easter and Pentecost were so The Consequence will not hold and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost the Feast of Weeks may be added but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own He Answereth an Objection that was brought that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth there was no need to determine that Question and all Christians he excepteth some Presbyterians are agreed that this Determination was not Neâ—essarie and that Christians in different Nations make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live they Commemorate the Mystery but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact He sayeth the Vindicator left this Consideration alâ—ogether untouched In this he is in the Wrong and is Guilty of what he blameth another for There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is all which he hath left untouched They are it was never heard of that the Birth day of any Person was kept but on the Day on which the Person was Born That if this Determination be needless the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration which none ever affirmed It was also told him that others particularly Master Hooker pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers whereas no more was intended but that Master Hookers Arguments which are lookt on as the strongest on his side are inconsistent with his Notion while he
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
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
Contentions of Priests and Bishops Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author p. 27. maketh an Observation that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord in Solâ— vero Ecclesia Dei pro qua Christus est mortuus in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde opulenter â—ffudit maximum dissidium vehementem multorum tum inter ipsos tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obsâ—rvari quod horrendissimum est ipsos Ecclesiae prâ—sides in tanto Animi Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare gregem ipsius absque ullâ— commiseratione perturbare ut ipsis nunc si unquam prodeuntibuâ— florentibus iniquis impleatur illud Apostoli ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes ut abstraâ—ant post se discipulos The Learned Owen of Apostacie p. 500. observeth that the Scandaloâ—â— Divisions among Christians especially among their Leaders was the first â—tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen § 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality whether it were Injunctions Reproofs or Censures The Breach of this Unitie was when any one or moe of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said much more when they did that by themselves which should have been done by the whole as when Foelicissimus and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage absolved some of the Lapsed neglecting Cyprian the Bishop or Praeses and the Body of the Presbyters which Cyprian did Highly and Justly Resent Or when they or any of the People refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth I insist no further on it for it is the same Thing as to Church Unity whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop if that be the right Government of the Church or against the Synod Presbyterie Classical or Congregational if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed Yea it is the same Breach of Unity to set up another Bishop beside the true Bishop of the Church or a new Synod or Presbyterie beside these which one was before a Member of or Subject to yea or to gather a Church and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish beside what was orderly there settled Wherfore the last sort of Unity or Schism is that which belongeth to a particular Congregational Church This Unity if we take Schiâ—m in a large Sense is broken by Diversitie either of Opinions or Affections among the Members of the Church when they Disagreee and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion At Corinth there was such a Schism they came together and yet the Apostle saith there were Divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them But Schisms in the Church were of old and now are taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion either by withdrawing only or by setting up another Religious Society also This the Fathers Expressed sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop or withdrawing from him that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie So it is sometimes Expressed by them but even when the Presbyterie or Church is not named it is so to be understood and the Bishop is so often Named because he was in these times the constant Praeses of their Meetings and even this Praelation though without sole Jurisdiction into which it did at last Issue began early to be too much taken Notice of as I have more fully shewed else-where § 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often yea ordinarilie thus understood by the Ancients Next that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism but allowed it to be done in some Cases and for some Causes For the former Cyprian in many Places condemneth this as Schism Ep. 40. § 4. Edit 1593. Deus unus est Christus unus una Ecclesia Catâ—edra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata aliud Altare constitui aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum Altare unum Sacerdotium non potest Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterium est impium est quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur ut Dispositio Divina violetur Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church also Ep. 55. § 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata quam unde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him and the Church What he saith of one Priest and one Judge cannot be meant that the Presbyters were no Priests for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar likewise Ep. 64. § 4. Hâ— sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra Pacem Christi Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought Ep. 69. § 7. he calleth the Church Plebs Sacerdoti unita Pastori suo Grex adhaerens and Ep. 38. § 1. saith of Schismaticks â—um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere id est a Pastore oves Filios a Parente separare Christi Membra dissipare And de Unitate Eccles. § 10. he saith of them Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt so also Ignat. ad Mag nes p. 32. Edit Vossii quarto 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conveened not firmly that is it would not hold in Law according to the Command and Ep. ad Smyrn p. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth any thing viz. in Religious Matters without the Knowledge of the Bishop that is in a Parish without the Pastor or in a Presbyterie without them orderlie met with their Praeses he serveth the Devil The second thing above-mentioned is to shew that there were some Causes for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop or the Church that they were Members of I find but three expressie mentioned 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith as in
a Religious Conversation but differed from the Church without cause in matters of lesser moment The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies acknowledged to be such but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these which they could not do without wounding their Conscience If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church on on frivolous pretences as he supposeth p. 222 he gaineth what he contendeth for but he findeth it easier to suppose this than to Prove it It was said by his Antagonist that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors which Presbyterians do not the Bishops being none of our Pastors He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians in their Erecting Altar against Altar Answer 1. That is not all that we plead for as is clear from what hath been said I have shewed § 8. Cases in which even lawful Pastors may be forsaken and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them But I say 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule And I am willing that Matter be Determined 1. By the strength of Argument if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to we must yield 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church which was positive plain and unanimous in this that the People should chuse their own Bishop and other Church-Officers see Instances Enquirie into the Constitution c. of the Primiiive Church c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog Test veritat p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation in any Man to a People on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical and without their own Consent This is our case the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government the Magistrat not the Church made a Change and set Men over the People to be their Bishops whose Office they could not own and whose Persons they had no concern in I Question whether the Primitive Church I mean the first Ages would have counted it Schism to disown such and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors who had been called by them setled by Church Authority among them and laboured among them to their Comfort and Edification His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris is contrarie to Petavius rationar tempor lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him his Assertion p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church is so false that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it If he understand it of Preaching Deacons he should have said so and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church § 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks is from the Doctrine of Cyprian of which he is so confident that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator not a Diocesan to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings If I had read much more than either he or I have I should not so often nor so superciliously vilisie others If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now undertaketh to refute Which Book I have Answered with such reading as I could attain both of Cyprian and other ancient Writers in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written before I saw it I am not willing to Transcribe it being the most part of that Book He may read it if he thinketh fit and if he or any other will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age I shall be willing to be Informed by him His Triumphant Conclusion p. 225. evanisheth into smoak if what hath been said be duly Considered He begineth another Debate about Preaching Moralitie which he passeth in a Word overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head While it was told him that not all the Clergy but he and such as he was so blamed Also that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured but Applauded and lookt on as necessarie but what we Quarelled was that some do only Preach Moralitie and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit by which they should obey the Law acceptably and the Righteousness of CHRIST on account of which they and their Works that are moraly Good should be accepted and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed to shew his Mistakes in that Matter to all which he maketh no Return but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print nor heard him and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it but much more occasion was given for so thinking from a large Discourse in his Book that I was then Refuting Vindicating their way of Preaching in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST and the influence of his Spirit by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing as he hath done the Third time an Error of the Press which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author this I say sheweth the Mans temper I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious than it will on the Person whom he would Defame SECTION XI Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed whether by Bishops or the Pastors of the Church acting in Parity We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way in this Matter because of the Silence and Defectiveness of the History of these times and therefore it is a Mis-representation when he saith that we hold that they were Presbyterians if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense as made up of Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies we suppose they had a Government in that Church and that it was Managed by Church Officers and directed by the Word of GOD as they then understood it for this we can bring no other Proof but that they were Christians and we owe them that Charity having
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
alone will lead Men to Worship the DEITY but that Worship will not be such as even this Author will think sutable to Gospel Purity but will have worse Mixtures than those that we Contend about He concludeth that the Reverence we owe to GOD must needs bring along with it these outward Significations of respect that are made Decent by Custom and Authority to whose Decision alone GOD left these exterior Rituals of Worship Thus he still endeavoureth to lurk under ambiguous Expressions we confess the Decision of some exterior Rituals in Worship is left to civil Custom and others to Divine Authority but that the Decision of any Rituals in Worship is left to Church Custom where the Thing hath no Decencie but in Religion or to Humane Authority this is what we Question and he should Prove He speaketh p. 153. of Rites in the Worship of GOD among the Jews that were only Significations of Reverence and Uniformity which were still retained as they were transmitted to them by Patriarchal Custom and Traditions though only founded on Humane Appointment But he hath not thought fit to give us any one Instance of such Rites If he mean Religious Ceremonies that is Actions peculiar to Worship I think he can give no Instance of such in the Jewish Church before its great Apostacie except these that were Instituted by GOD and taught in the Law of Moses § 5. He cometh next p. 154. to renew the Arguments he had managed in his Apology p. 155. c. and were Answered Def. of Vindic. p. 38. He telleth us of a General Medium he had used that there are several significant Ceremonies mentioned in and alluded to in the Scripture which were Practised in the Worship of GOD under the Patriarchal Jewish and Christian AEconomie which had no other than Humane Appointment The first Instance he giveth is Discalceation Exod. 13. 5. He had in his Apology joyned with this looking to our Feet when we go to the House of GOD Eccies 5. 1. But he hath now wisely left out this last and Insisteth only on Discalccation What was Objected here with some freedom that was bad Logick he representeth as reflecting on Mr. Mede who discourseth of that Observation among the Eastern-Nations I have as high Esteem of Mr. Medes Learning as he hath and have said nothing that can import the Contrarie The Answer given to this Instance was this was Commanded of GOD and so is no Argument for Observing what is brought into the Worship of GOD merely by the Authority of Man All the Reply that he bringeth is that this Command was no new Institution of a Ceremonie whereas he saith what GOD said to Moses was only an Advertisement to Observe a Custom that he knew to be used in the Eastern-Nations so that had Moses put off his Shoes before that Advertisement he had done nothing amiss and so this is a strong Confirmation of Ceremonies that express our Reverence though founded on Humane Appointment Here I remark 1. Whether this was a new Institution of a Ceremonie or not is not to our Purpose Moses had express Divine Warrant for what he did if he can shew the like for our Ceremonies we shall Observe them The LORD might Enjoyn what he would either for that time or for perpetual Observation either what was used among the Nations or what was not so used Let us see an Approbation of any of our Ceremonies that is Paralel to this and we shall lay our Hand on our Mouth 2. It is evldent that this was a Civil Custom and made expressive of Reverence by that Civil Custom and therefore the LORD is not here either Instituting or Approving a Religious Ceremonie but requiring to express profound Reverence in the Ordinarie way and that on such an Extraordinarie Occasion Corn. a lapide saith Minus enim audacter curiose accesserat Moses That this was a Civil Custom and had its Signification not from Man's Authority Appropriating it to GOD'S Worship which is the Foundation of the Ceremonies we Debate about is clear from Mr Mede and what my Antagonist bringeth out of him Also the same Learned School-Man I mean A Lapide saith his ritus a mancipiis descendit qui nudis pedibus incedebant in signum subjectionis and therefore he Paraphraseth that Text Exod. 3. 5. ut totus in Dei jus obsequium transeas It is Observed by Ainsworth on the same Text that this was a Civil Sign of transferring our Right to another Deut. 25. 9. Ruth 4. 7. It was also by Civil Custom an Expression of Sorrow 2 Sam. 15. 30. Isai. 20. 2 4. Ezek 24. 17 23. Now if he can shew that the Ceremonies have by Civil Custom such aptitude to Signifie what we ought to express in the Worship of GOD we shall not Oppose them It is 3. Evident from his own Words p. 55. where to my Question why do not they Observe it if it be a fit Ceremonie to express our â—everence in Worship he Answereth what is so Expressive in one Age or Countrey may be not so in another Surely this Change can only come from Civll Custom what is peculiar to Religion is the same every where If then this Action was brougâ—t into Religion by the Significancie and Aptitude it had been got by Civil Custom it is no Praecedent for such Ceremonies as that cannot be Pleaded for § 6. Another Instance he had brought was Sackcloth and Asheâ— as signifying grief and sorrow in their Solemn Humiliation To these 2 Things were Answered The One Why do not the Prelatists use these This he Rejecteth as unparalelled Nonsense because if they were still in use in our Countrey who would refuse them that was not resolved to be singular A. I should be none of these singular Persons If they had now Significancie by civil Custom I should be willing that they should be used in Religion when Humiliation and Sorrow were Solemnly to be exprest but when they want that I think our Brethren do well not to use them in Religion Yet I must say still that if they were Religious Ceremonies of Old that is peculiar to Religion they should be still used without any Dependence on the civil Custom of our Time I see not what Nonsense is in this If he did not look on them as Religious Ceremonies but only as used in Religion from their Signification that they had by Civil use the Nonsense was in bringing this as an Instance of Religious Ceremonies of Humane Appointment for they had no Authority but from Men therefore they never were nor now should be Religious Ceremonies His next Instance is as he saith ad hominem Lifting up the right hand to Heaven in Swearing the Covenant It was Answered that this â—ite not only hath Warrant from Scripture Example but is the Civil Custom of the Nation the like cannot be said of the Controverted Ceremonies His Reply is a Ceremonie being mentioned in Scripture maketh it not only allowable but
sheweth that it was in it self before Lawful and decent And it is Lawful to us on the same Reasons that made it Lawful to them who first Practised it In Pursuance of this his Reply he allegeth that we hereby Grant that many such Usages are alluded to in Scripture which are merely of Humane Appointment and yet Deny their Lawfulness which is to make all Men that Lived before us to be Sottishly Superstitious To this Purpose he Discourseth p. 158. 159. Let it be Considered that we do not make bare Allusion made in Scripture to any Usage to be a sufficient Proof of its Lawfulness for some were Alluded to that were very far from being Lawful Instances may be given of putting the Branch to the Nose kissing the Hand or kissing the Images that they worshiped which and many more were Practised by Idolaters Our Opinion in this Matter is that what Rites are mentioned in Scripture as used in the Worship of the True GOD by His People and are not any where Condemned we ought to look on as Lawful and Approved of GOD that is as they then were used Now some of these Rites were of Divine Institution as all the Jewish Ceremonies Enjoyned by Moses these were then Lawful but now are not so because they are Abrogated by CHRIST also all these Instituted by CHRIST are still Lawful Others of them are Natural Expressions of the Acting of the Mind such as Sighing lifting the â—…yes c. these are always Lawful others of them were Civil Customs which by Use acquired a Significancie and fitness to express our Affections that we should have in Religious Worship such as Sackcloth renting our Cloaths Incurvation c. these are certainly Lawful to be used in Worship when and where they have that Significancie by the Force of Civil Custom but in Times and Places where that Significancie is not the Ground of it being ceased I see not how they can be Esteemed Lawful having then and there no Use or Significancie in GOD'S Worship but what they have from Man's will which ought not to Regulate GOD'S Worship Our Author Mistaketh when he saith that we think some ceremonies Lawful which are mentioned or alluded to in Scripture though they had no other Original than Humane Appointment this we Disown for none of these Three ways by which Rites get their Significancie which 〈◊〉 have now mentioâ—…ed can be justly called Humane Appointment Civil Custom is that which cometh nearest to it but yet Differeth far from it for Humane Appointment is an Act of Authority i. e. a Law or Injunction or Declaration of the Will of one or more Men expresly Concluding that so it shall be Custom is a Tacite Consent of People whether Great or Small whether Placed in Authority or not in using such an Action or Word for such an End or Signification I shall not Debate what Men in Authority may do toward putting a Civil Signification on Words and Actions and making them Current in Civil Selemnities but 〈◊〉 Maintain that they cannot give a Religious Signification or Use to any Word or Action or Gesture that is they cannot Appoint it to be used so in Religion when it hath no Aptitude for that Use or Significancie from its Common Use in other things for this were to Dispose of the External Worship of GOD at their will § 7. For the Rite of Lifting up the Hand so often mentioned in Scripture as Practised by good Men by good Angels yea by God Himself speaking of Him after the Manner of Men that it had its Original from Humane Appointment is simply denyed We have no Footsteps of such a Law Antecedent to the Practice of it either in Sacred or other Records I may with Confidence conclude that this Usage had its Original if not from Nature as Lifting up of the Eyes to Heaven yet from an Universal Custom and that of all or many Nations It is true other Rites were also used in Swearing but none of them so frequently mentioned as this Wherefore it can be no Precedent for nor give any Countenance to Ceremonies peculiar to the Worship of God brought into it by the Authority and Appointment of Men alone It is hence evident that we are not guilty of counting all them Sottishly Superstitious who used such Rites and that even in Religion tho we think Humane Religious Ceremonies unlawful Our Author p. 159. is pleased to make himself Merry with the Distinction I have used of Civil Rites which he with little Accuracy of Speech calleth Civil Ceremonies and Religious Ceremonies that the one may be used in Religion without Divine Institution the other not so He calleth it a Metaphysical Distinction and new Phylosophy and Co-aeval with Presbytery in its last Figure These Sarcasms are the Tokens of his Surprize and Admiration not of his being much Conversant with their Writings who Treat of this Subject Let us hear his Thundering Arguments after these silly Squib If the Civil Authority can introduce a â—iâ—nificant Ceremony into the Worship of God why may nâ—t the Ecclesiastick Authority do it A. He will not understand what we say we deny that Civil Authority can introduce a Significant Ceremony into the Worship of God tho Civil Custom may make a Rite sit to be there used If the Magistrat should appoint any Habite or Gesture to be used in Gods Worship to signifie either Gods Will toward us or our Duty to Him which hath no such Signification nor Use but by the Law or Will of the Magistrat we should disowne such a Religious Ceremony as much in that Case as if it were appointed by Church Authority But it is a quite other Case when an Action or Gesture hath got a Signification by long and general Use in Mens other Actions so as that they are thereby made significant of what we are to express in Worship This may be cleared by a parallel Instance Words which have got their Signification by Use in other Things may be well used in Religion yet it doth not thence follow that the Magistrate may enjoyn Words to be used in our Worshipping of God which have no Signification but from his Will for if this were allowed the Magistrate might not only enjoyn Latine Service to be used among a People that understand not that Language but might enjoyn Words that now signifie Error or Blasphemy and give them an Orthodox Signification which I hope our Brethren will not affirm If Men may enjoyn a Surplice because white Garments in some Ages and Places were used commonly to signifie Purity or Gladness why may he not enjoyn the Language to be used in Religion that our Ancestors used many Hundreds of Years ago tho it may be now neither used nor understood it would come in Time to be as Significant to us and as Religious as now the Surplice is where it hath been long used He Mistaketh or Misinterpreteth the Vindicator when he saith that he alloweth of Civil Ceremonies in
the Worship of God he owneth no such Ceremonies if we speak properly what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony it is a Civil Rite and may well be used in Religion he repeateth also his former Mistake as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion but not Church Authority our Opinion in which I have made plain to them who will understand what we say I have also Answered his Question how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent while a Religious Ceremony appropriated to Religion if it be of Humane Appointment whether by the Authority of Church or State is not so I deny what he so confidently asserteth p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing is of Humane Appointment neither is his Proof of it sufficient viz. that it hath no Divine Institution for what is brought in and gets its Use and Significany by Civil Custom is a Middle between these 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies with which he filleth several Pages with a nauseous saying the same thing in Words little different The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church which he insinuateth as an Argument cannot justifie it if it be appropriated to Religion and had no Divine Original We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath whether it came in by Civil Custom or Ecclesiastick Authority Let them who use it Answer such Doubts or rather let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature from Civil Custom or from Divine Institution if it be destitute of all these he should prove not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it It is absurd to say that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction are under that Reduplication to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament when enjoyned by Law it is not the Civil Authority but Rites being used in Civil Actions and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom that giveth them that Denomination § 8. He Starteth a Scruple p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said nor any where else that I know but in his Imagination It is If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions and another in Religious Worship Quaeritur Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship A. No. Because its â—awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities tho in a different Signification If he find any Body asserting that let him call such Persons Absurd Ridiculous Foolish c. at his Pleasure as he very freely calleth us on that Imaginary Account but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us I shall give him no Epithet but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries that might Fright us into Silence as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God little and idle frivolous Impertinencies And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain I never met with it before and I have seen few that are of less weight It is that the Apostle Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. To strengthen this Argument he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews and by Christians that it is founded on no Divine Institution but on the Practice of the Jewish Church and thence derived to Christians and was never established by any other Authority but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical He telleth us this Custom was so known that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking of their Circumcision but not one Word of Immersion He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions That Scripture Example for it is but the Consequence of itâ— being Pracâ—ised and supposeth it At last to make all sure he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools with which this Soaring Eagle thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted that is to put his Argument into â—â—gical â—orm and â—igure thus a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Divâ—… Institution and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self But the Ceremony of Immersion in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution and yet alluded to by Saint Paul is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church Ergo such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God founded on no Divine Institution is in it self lawful I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument than he hath framed it If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising I should observe that he flyeth so high as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form for all his pretending to it for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism only he hath altered the Word putting such a Significant Ceremony for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul other Informalities in it I pass it is below him to mind them Aquila non captat Muscas For a more material Answer I first deny the Major as thus universally proposed Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness as I have proved § 6. Next I deny the Minor I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution which I prove 1. Because it is here mentioned as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism which Ordinance Christ had appointed it were a strange â—ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism and not told them who were to Administer it what He meant by it or what they should do Next Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution tho we be not obliged to that Exactness yet I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded every one knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to Dip or Plunge in Water and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing or â—insing as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be
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.
hitherto been performed we regard little his Railing Accusations that he â—â—lleth his Pages with Most of what he here Loadeth the Presbyterians with may be evidently and with good Reason Retorted on himself and his Party For Instance he saith when we represent the Deity as one that is pleaâ—ed with the imaginary Notions that we Groundlesly entertain of Things this is Superstition that Poysons the Soul and all its Faculties Now whether Presbyterians or Prelatists be more guilty of this let the Reader Judge The one think that God is pleased with nothing as Worship but what He hath Prescribed in His Word And that He hateth Will-Worship and all Notions about that which have no Foundation in Scripture The other think God is pleased with a great many Things that Men have have Devised for Adorning His Worship and for an Order and Decency that they imagine to be such but the Lord hath never declared it to be such Whether of the two entertain these Groundless Notions of the Deity which are the Superstition that Poysoneth the Soul and all its Faculties Another Instance to say that such a thing is forbidden of God only because we forbid it our selves is to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men but to regulate our Actions in themselves indifferent according to the Prudent Determination of our Superiours cannot fall under that Censure Let us see whether we or his own Party be thus guilty We disowne that we say of any one thing that it is forbidden of God because we forbid it if we say of any thing that God hath forbidden it and do not prove that it is so we refuse not to bear the Blame of such Impiety but it is manifest that his Party use somethings as if God had enjoyned them when they cannot prove that it is so but only the Church hath enjoyned them they Command People to obey to Use their Ceremonies they Urge them with Rigour they do more severely Censure the Neglect of them than they Punish Breaking of Gods plain Commands And yet they cannot shew nor do they pretend to any other Warrant for them but the Authority of the Church which he calleth the Prudent Determination of our Superiors It were needless as well as endless to take notice of all the Fantastick Notions that he expresseth about Superstition and his Ungrounded Suppositions that the Presbyterians are of these Sentiments in which he placeth it what is said may give a sufficient Taste of his Way of Refuting his Adversaries only I cannot pass that p. 29â— he insinuateth that the Presbyterians esteem the Means more than the End and separate the Ecclesiastical Laws from their Subordination and Relation to the Laws of God It must be a strange Degree of Prejudice that could seduce him into such Distorted Notions Do we esteem the Means more than the End because we would have the End Edification carried on by Means that God hath Appointed and that He hath Promised a Blessing to rather than by Means of Mans Devising which have no Promise of a Blesâ—ing or Success It is not only Conscience of Pleasing God but Concern for that End that maketh us so Careful that the Means we use be Approved of God Or do we separate Ecclesiastical Laws from their Relation and Subserviency to the Laws of God we are so far from it that we owne no Ecclesiastical Laws which are without the Relation of Dependency on the Law of â—od or without due Subordination to it and it is on this Head that we reject the Church Laws that enjoyn Humane Ceremonics peculiar to the Worship of God because the Church hath no Warrant to make such Laws if he say that she hath let us see it and because these Laws are not Subordinate but rather Co-ordinate to the Laws of God setting up the Churches Institutions beside his That the Negative Scrupulosity that he mentioneth from Coloss. 2. 21 22 23. is a great Evil we doubt not and if he will call it Superstition we will not contend about Words tho the Reason of that Denomination is doubtful the Will-Worship that is mentioned being rather to be referred to the Worshipping of Angels spoken of v. 18. which is there and also in Conjunction with this Will-Worship called Humility that is a vain Shew of it But nothing of this maketh for his Purpose unless he can prove that our Scruples about the Ceremonies are wholly Ground lâ—ss as these Scruples were and as the rest of the Abstincâ—ces are that he mentioneth wherefore all that he at great length Discourseth on this Head is wholly impertinent If he can prove the Ceremonies to be Excellent and Useful as he insinuateth p. 297. our Cause canâ—ot stand before him § 18. He undertaketh to prove our Scruples to be more dangerous than these in that the Scruples there mentioned had a Shew of Wisdom but the Presbyterian Scruples have more dangerous Consequences in that they coâ—demn those Solemnities of Religion which have a direct Tendency to promote Religion in all its most Excellent Branches The import of this Ratiocination is the Way of the Ceremonialists is right Ergo the Presbyterians are to be condemned All this is purely Begging of the Question We deny any such Tendency to be in the Ceremonies and cannot be perswaded of what he saith by his Confident Asseverations and Big Words If I could find any thing in his following Pages that is worth Answering and hath not been already Answered for he repeateth ad nauseam I should consider it The Persons that he knew who were so Fearful and Superstitious that they would not Break up a Letter on Sunday we do not approve nor do our Scruples Countenance such Misapprehensions if we meet with any such for I know none of them but rather observe that an undue Liberty is taken generally on the Lords Day we shall endeavour to instruct them better He telleth us p. 302. the fifth or sixth time that Superstition leadeth to Atheism and addeth that by the Power of Prejudice and Faction it maketh a Man Despise the Omniscience of God and to Venture upon the most Daring Impieties Tho I will not be an Advocat for Superstition nor for Ignorant or Groundless Scrupulosity yet this his Assertion I cannot understand for it is the Apprehension of Gods Omniscience that maketh these Poor Souls who dare not Break up a Letter on the Lords Day to Fear where no Fear is and it is want of all Scrupling even where there is just Ground that maketh People Venture on the most Daring Impieties it is because they are Stout Hearted not because they are Fearful Hearted And how Faction cometh in to make up the Scene I cannot see but that Presbyterians whom he hath concluded to be Factious must be the Persons to be thus Loaded His Probative Instance of what he had said is yet less Accountable It is that the Covenanters when they in their full Career against the ancient Constitutions of Church and State thus
Iâ—cumbred with the Affairs of Humane Life putteth them out of Case for attaining the Knowledge that we Debate about What he further hath under this Head is made up of Harsh Words and bitter Censures not to be Answered that the Catechism was only designed as the Badge of a Partie as if the Prelatists met at Westminster designed a Shibboleth for the Scots Presbyterians to be distinguished by this is wise talk he calleth it such Words as Monks and ill natured Zealots pitched upon it is nothing else but to lift up a Banner for Faction Ignorance and Superstition They the People are Taught by their Leaders to baule against the Ancient Methods of the Christian Church and that which they set up in Oposition to it leads them naturally to Pride and Enthusiasm Let any Man whose Tongue is under any Restraint from the aw of GOD or regard to Man tell us how this can be applied to the Catechism More stuffe of this Stamp he hath which I am wearie to Transcribe He saith this Charge may be fairly managed against the Catechism in general as well as against this Question And I am Confident all such Attempts may receive a full and plain Answer He is pleased also to Reproach the Homilies of the Presbyterians so in Contempt he calleth their Preaching of the Gospel with the same strain he must mean unintelligiblness from which he falleth into a new Fit of calling his Opposites by what ill Names he pleaseth Such an Indefinite Charge as this is not to be Answered but by Denying it and I am sure he can never Prove it the Stories collected or devised by his Friend the Author of the Presbyterian Bloquence are not Probative where Sense or Reason or Candor have place no not among his own Party who know the Presbyterians § 21. His next Charge against us is a Repetition of what he brought and I Answered before that the Scripture is not Read in Publick and this he saith is pursuant to the Design of keeping the People in the Dark He saith the Canonical Scriptures as well as the Apocryphal a double Grievance in his eyes are laid aside from publick use which he calleth a bold stroke of Atheism and Enthusiasm But wise Men will think that there is far more of Atheism in such a Bold Publick Unlimited Assirming of what is an Evidence of having no regard to Truth If there were any thing Argumentative as the whole is most Abusive and destitute of Truth in his Harangue that he seteth off these Falsehoods with I should be at the pains to give them a fair Answer see what is said of this § 14. He next p. 317. Quarrelleth with our Ruling Elders which he Introduceth with a Falsehood that is palpably such viz. that we have put away Deacons as well as Bishops the World knoweth the contrarie and if this Author do not know it he is very unfit to talk of the Presbyterians who is such a Stranger to their Way and Constitution We have Deacons whose Work it is to take Care of the Poor according to Apostolick appointment It is true our Deacons are not allowed to Preach and Baptize as these who in the Episcopal Church go under that Name for we find no Warrant for giving them that Power except it be immediately and extraordinarily given them by the LORD as it was to some not to all of the Primitive Deacons It is also true that in some places the Office and Work of Ruling â—lder and of Deacon is in the same Person which hath Warrant from the Word but that we have no Deacons is said without any Semblance of Truth Tho he knoweth that that Controversie about Ruling Elders who have no Preaching Power hath been much agitated between his Partie and us and his Antagonist whose Writing he never failleth to Oppose when he thinketh he can hath Written on that Subject yet he is pleased here to content himself with setting his Nigrum theta on this our Oppinion without endeavouring to Refute it except he will call it an Argument that he saith it is a Sacrilegious Usurpation on the Ecclesiastical Authority He hath Two Quarrels with them One is that they are not set apart by Imposition of hands I have no other Answer to this but that some among our selves are unsatisfied with this but they are Solemnly and Pubickly set apart for their Work and taken Engaged to it and therefore that want doth not Nullifie the Office That such an Office should be in the Church by CHRIST'S Institution I hold tho I will not undertake to justifie the Practice of our own or other Churches in some things concerning these Elders His other Fault that he findeth with them is that the Preachers encroach so on them that they never suffer them whose sole Office is Government to interpose in the most Essential Points of Jurisdiction viz. the Solemn and Authoritative Imposition of hands Administration of Sacraments and Absolution of Pâ—netents This Objection amounteth to no more but this Ruling Elders by Divine appointment have a Share in the Government of the Church for curbing of sin for they are Inspectores morum populi Ergo they have also all the Authority that CHRIST hath given to the Pastors of the Flock such Reasoning is not only in it self weak and fallacious but it doth ill suâ—e the Principles of this Author do not his Party at their own hand give some part of Church Authority to their Deacons as Preaching and Baptizing and withhold from them all the rest of it why then may not we with much more reason allow that CHRIST hath given part of Church Power to these Elders and yet not the whole of it But I consider his Objection more particularly the first Power mentioned by him as denyed them is Imposition of Hands on the Pastors of the Church If he can Prove that any other than Pastors have that Power by Divine Warrant he shall gain this Point Neither is it consistent with Reason that Imposition of Hands by which the Authority for dispensing the Word and Sacraments is conveyed should be done by them who have not that Power themselves for nemo dat quod non habeâ— The next is Administration of Sacraments This is not due to them because they are not the Pastors of the Church and because they are only Rulers of the Church whereas this Administration is no part of Government The 3d. is Absolving of Paenitents to which he might have Added excommunication and other Church Censures A. This belongeth to the Government of the Church they have a Hand in it nor is it done without them for both Censures and taking off Censures are Decreed in the Consistorie where they sit and vote only the Pronouncing or Executing of these Sentences in the publick Congregation is the Work of the Pastor both because publick Administration of CHRIST'S Ordinances are in his hand and because these Administrations are intermixed or conjoyned with the Word and publick Prayer
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
upon in some places more and in some less though we see no cause to think that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith that no further Prelation is here hinted at than that of any Minister of the Gospel or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio for every Minister may be called Pontifex and Parens anime as the Dialect then was and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority as all the Priests had it is a Similitude and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos Clericos caâ—… be drawn to no more but this that in his time there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction though I deny not but that some were then aiming at iâ—… His Citation out of Ep. 54 Hieron I find not he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his That he saith there Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum cannot prove his point for the same may be said of all Presbyters and Jerome saith so expresly of them Ep. ad Ocean as I cited § 3 they succeed to the Apostles in that part of Church power that is competent to them and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince or Governour is also inconcludent for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum Episcopi saith he Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos Apostolicos viros quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur meritum All that he can draw from this is that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time which is not denyed but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other He had been telling Paulinus how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way and instanceth the Roman Captains Philosophers Poets Orators and this he applieth to Church men that they also should follow the best Examples it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense that Bishops should imitate the Apostles and Presbyters the Apostolick men especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops His exors ab omnibus eminens potestas he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation that I know not where to find it and therefore shall say nothing of it To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth which duely considered let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with § 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80 seq to vindicate Augustine that he was no Presbyterian And pray who ever said he was one That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time only we bring his Authority to prove that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression as himself calleth it containing insolent Contempt of and Reproach against the Presbyterians calling all that have written beside Blondel and Salmasius the little Bouffoons of the Party he must here understand the London Ministers the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus Rutherford Didoclavius Gersom Bucer and many others If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons this Book and many others like it might furnish them plentiful Matter He chargeth them with Impiety p 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men their Opinions Dreams saith they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge and other Passions imputeth Impudence and Irreligion to them on account of this their Opinion And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine Apostolical received without Interruption and that by the Universal Church That Scepticism will by natural Consequence pull down things more sacred than the outward Hedge of Government If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words there can be no standing before him He had been wiser if he had asserted less and proved more and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind it may be his success had been no less I will not contest with him in Railling nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est I freely yield to my Antagonist that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation and I add that this was needful considering the higher Character in the common estimation of that Age that Augustine sustained above Jerome a Presbyter and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level in respect of Dignity as then it was esteemed but I place the force of our Argument on these two the one is Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome even according to the Sentiment of that Age but what was secundum honorum vocabula he had a higher Title he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction that he a Bishop had above Jerome a Presbyter which had been much more pertinent and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth The other is that even that superior Honour he doth not derive from Divine Institution or Apostolical Tradition or constant Practice from the beginning but from the Custome of the Church that then that is in that Age prevailed § 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians mistake his meaning and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church He endeavoureth then to prove that by usus Ecclesiae Augustine meant no other thing than the universal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning and that this Notion is very