in former times Presbytery continued only Bishops were superinduced therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations till driven from them but at the last Settling of Episcopacy Presbytery was razed so far as Men could and what Shew of it was left stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to it being an owning of a Power in the Church which they are convinced is unlawful His fourth Argument is No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History to whom that Name is more agreeable than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Answer to this the Donatists were mentioned as Schismaticks more justly reputed such than the Scots Presbyterians can be And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance to whom I confess what was said agreeth more directly viz. That they separated because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists in many Circumstances that do no way concern the present Purpose and in which are some Mistakes as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records as that Lapse of Memory is ascribing somewhat to the Donatists which agreeth better to the Novatians and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks they both had the same Rise Donatus in Africk and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome together with one of the same Name who upon Discontent came from Carthage to Rome and joyned with him in making a Schism both of them were as they thought disobliged by the Election of a Bishop the one that Caeciliaenus was Elected who as he alledged was ordained by a Traditor yea was a Traditor himself that is in time of Persecution had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt the other that Cornelius was made Bishop both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church than the rest of the Pastors had the one that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy through their Communion with them who had been Traditors the other that they who so had fallen or otherwise in time of Persecution were not to be admitted to Church Communion again nor get Absolution though he nor his Followers did not deny that they might obtain Mercy from God upon true Repentance the contrary of which some impute to them both of the Sects were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Puritans both of them separated from all the Churches of the World and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour especially the Donatists and among them the Circumcelliones who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them Both of these Schisms spread far and wide It is observed by some that there were of both sorts Men of strict Lives Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith of the Donatists Cresconius said they confessed the same Jesus born dead and risen again they had the same Religion and the same Sacraments and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head but about the Body not about Christ but about his Church Augustin de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith they were agreed in the Creed in Baptism and other Sacraments of our Lord also Ep. 162. he telleth us that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome and his Brethren â—ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Caeâ—ilianus had ordained which Condescendence is also evident from Collat 1. Carthag Art 16. apud Optat. Milevit p. 45. 6. Edit Paris 1631. § 13. Our Author tells us that we ought to have named Schiâ—maticks in the Primitive Church whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians which I shall shew in these Three things 1. They had no good nor sufficient Ground to separate we declare that we will never separate because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion as the Novations did nor because some Ministers and People are not so innocent as they should be as the Donatists did we condemn their Schism as much as he doth What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact as was made appear First By some Judges appointed by the Emperour to try the matter next by a Synod held at Arles And lastly by the Emperour after a full Hearing of the Matter and if it had been true it was no just ground of Separation though it had been a great Grievance The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all because the Church was not culpable in such Admission which they did unreasonably blâ—me Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable What we dislike is an usurped Power set up in the Chuch and humane Ceremonies imposed on us and our owning of these formally in Words or materially in our Practice is made a condition of our Communion with the Church It is true if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable and that what we dislike is Warrantable he may blame us for none Complyance but what is the Question between him and us if we Scruple without cause the blame lieth on us if not the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things Wherefore the Determination of this Point who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present dependeth on the Question now under Debate about Episcopacie and Ceremonies 2. We always were willing to unite with them if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways which themselves confess to be indifferent I mean the Ceremonies and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie directly nor indirectly The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace It is not what they do that skareth us from them but what they will needs force us to do 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion as the Schismaticks of old did Who either of their Clergy or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate 4. We do not condemn their Church as no Church as the Donatists did to all beside themselves we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of which had to do with the Donatists that Church was willing to forbear them even in their most unreasonable Separation and to indulge such as were of
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
own it is that a Significant Rite in the Worship of God not founded upon Divine Institution is Superstitious Unlawful and Abominable and such as may Legitimate a Separation from any Church where it is enjoyned to preserve Order and Uniformity Against this I have two Objections 1. That we did never condemn all Significant Rites in Religion even tho they be not founded on Divine Institution Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite and we know no Divine Institution for it and yet we use it in the Worship of God viz. Prayer and several other Exercises and will separate from no Church because of it That a Minister Preach in a Decent Garb and not in a Fools Coat is a Significant Rite used in Religion not founded on Divine Institution yet we shall not separate for enjoyning that This loose and indistinct Way of Refuting an Adversary cannot Instruct nor Convince any Body I shall not Retaliate his Harsh Words by giving this Way the Epithet it deserveth They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Understanding use to distinguish three sorts of Modes of Mens Actions that are found in Religion viz. Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies Circumstances are Modifications of Actions as Time Place Person or a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Essence but is used with it relateth to it and is an Accident or Adjunct of it and it may be such either with respect to the Physical or Moral Beeing of the Action Circumstances use to be sorted in these Memorial Verses Quis quid ubi quibus auxiliis cur quomodo quando And forma figura locus tempus stirps patria nomen Circumstance is a Word of larger Extent than Rite and that than Ceremony a Rite is the Manner of going about any Action chiefly that which is Publick or Solemn confirmed by Law or Custom In a more large Sense it is taken for any Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action rather than to the Substance of it such Rites are used in Judicatures Marriages Burials Inaugurations c. some of them are Civil some Military c. and some also are Sacred when they are appropriated to Religion A Ceremony is a Sacred Rite the best Authors that I have seen whether Heathen or Christian Popish or Protestant agree in this that a Ceremony is peculiar to Religion however the Word be sometimes in common Speech more largely taken This applyed to our Purpose sheweth that our Author doth widely mistake when he representeth us as against Significant Humane Rites in Religion we oppose only these of them which are appropriated to Religion and so are Religious Rites or Ceremonies He cannot but know that there are many Actions used in Religion which are not Religious § 2. The second Thing that I Observe in his Representation of the Opinion of his Adverstaries is that they found separation on Ceremonies imposed to preserve Order and Unity It is no so Let them devise what Ceremonies they will which are not down-right Idolatry and impose them on the most plausible pretences they can think on yea let them use them as much as they will we do not think all this a sufficient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Members but if they impose on us Religious Rites or Sacred significant Ceremonies so as we cannot be suffered to Worship God with the Church unless we either approve them or use them this we think a just Cause of Separation seing such Complyance were our Personal Action and sinful in the sight of God And yet the Separation of them who thus scruple is rather a passive Separation than active they are driven away rather than run away Let us now hear what he hath to say in Defence of the Ceremonies the Question about which he hath so Stated He will not gather together all our Raveries but in a few Words Vindicate the Practice of all Churches c. Those are but Words He had done wisely if he had excepted the Apostolick Churches And tho I deny not but that some Ceremonies did early and unobservably creep into the Primitive Church and that through the Zeal of some Good Men who saw not the â—mportance nor bad Consequences of such Observations it may be made appear that some of the Ceremonies that they now observe had no such early Original and that some of these which were observed in the first Ages are laid aside by them Of the first Sort I instance Kneeling in the Act of receiving the LORD'S Supper the Cross in Baptism and some of the Holy Days of which before Of the other Sort I instance the Trinâ— Immersio in Baptism the Aagapae Baptising on Whitsunday or Dominica in albis rather than on any other Day the Osculum pacis all the Steps of the Catechumeni and Paenitentes before they could be received into Communion with the Church and many other things which one may find in Albaspin Observ. Ecclesiast which is Compendized by Keitembellius there are also not a few modern Churches who are not for the Cermonies as they are Pleaded for by Him and his Party If what I have said be Considered his first Argument proposed by way of Question admitteth of an easie Answer The Apostolick Church Worshiped GOD without Religious Ceremonies not Instituted by CHRIST and I hope he will own these as Societies of Men who are to be more Considered than others A sett of Arguments he next bringeth 1. The Light of Nature teacheth us to Worship GOD and all Men have Agreed in this that Solemn Wâ—rship of the DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society A. If he make the Consequence which he hath Suppressed to be Ergo we must have humane Religious significant Ceremonies we deny this Consequence as not having a shadow of Reason Again if this Argument have any weight humane Ceremonies must be necessarie And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worship but there is a Nullitie in it through want of such Ceremonies which looketh more like Raverie than any thing he can Charge us with 2. Saith he This publick Worship should be fixed and Established by the Wisdom and Authority of Competent Judges as to the Manner and Method Ans. 1. Are the Manner and Method of Worship Religious significant Ceremonies The Method is a Circumstance neither Rite nor Ceremonie for the Manner it is either some-what that is common to Religion and other Publick and Solemn Actions and it consisteth in some civil Rites therefore used in Worship because they have by Custom Obtained in other publick Solemnities this manner of Worship is not to be Determined by the Wisdom and Authority of any particular Judges but the Tacite Consent of the Nation bringeth it in by using it in all such Actions So in the Apostles time for a Man to Prophesie with his Head uncovered and to wear long Hair was
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
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
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
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
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
in Election of Principles and Rectors and in Auditing Colledge Accompts Ans. If this Argument had any Force it would prove that Apostles immediatlie sent by Christ must continue as long as Churches and Ministers because they were imployed to Erect the one and Ordain the other Yea he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance but that they were to Visit Churches and plant Ministers and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done and so they should for ever shut out in the Design of our Reformers not only Presbyteries but the Diocesan Bishops they were to do that Work in the present Exigence it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done § 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church It is taken from some Passages in Knox and the old Scots Liturgy about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents 1. The Necessity of them is asserted which I have answered before Next The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful not saith our Author so long as the present Exigence requireth The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution as well as the other he is said to be called of God and owned as a Minister of Christ they who will not submit to him are said to rebel against God and his Holy Ordinance In the Prayer after his â—…stallment is this Petition send unto this our Brother whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian c. Thus saith our Author our Reformers lookt on Superintendency whâ—… they composed this Form Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth to which he Knox p. 289. prefixeth this Inscription The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers at Edinburgh March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher also because in the Prayer Lothidn is mentioned which could not be in a general Form This Method John Knox at that time used It iâ— like it was usual to proceed in this Method to use these or the like Questions to Pray to that Purpose and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church it neither helpeth his Cause much nor hurteth ours 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery but it was an Application or Modification of the Ministerial Worâ— which at that time was necessary He will not say that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration beside that which maked him a Minister which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter 3. My main Answer is the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry whither he be to be a Superintendent or not and thâ—… it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversaâ—… layeth hold on in this Form of Election may fairly be understood witâ—… respect to the Persons Ministery to this Ministery he is called of Goâ—… with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ it is that which is called Gâ—… Holy Ordinance it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name anâ—… indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted goâ—… the Chief Charge of to be their Pastor Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance but whither it be such an Ordinance that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church which that present Exigence did force them upon by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution and a Superintendent too so far as that Office includeth the Ministry but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office it was of Man and not of God § 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument p. 150. which according to his wont of using the highest Confidence and biggest Words when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest he calleth Irrefragable It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them others for Increasing their Number and Placing them where none were before and that when the Church was of four years standing and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased One Petitioned that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed and that Superintendents Ministers and other needful Members should be Planted in their Places Whence he very wisely inferreth that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops This is mentioned by Spotswood but by none else as himself observeth Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing or all that he hath said but that the Churches found the necessity which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents not to be over in four years nor wholly in fourteen years though Qualified Men Increased yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church I look on the Increasing of their Number which must be a Lessening of their Districts not as tending to perpetuate them but on the contrary it was a reducing them by Degrees to the State of other Ministers by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes and so at last to one That they were needful Members of the Church at that time I doubt not but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops is a wild Fancy that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been and were to be Maintained by their Revenues He concludeth this head as is usual with him with Confident Rehearsing what he hath made evident The Judicious will judge
suppose also that there are so few Ministers that there cannot be Men got to supplie Places but such as are palpably insufficient for the Work here is a Dilemma either Gospel Ordinances must be neglected or unduely managed by these Men or on the other hand they who are Qualified must be set over these for a time to Preach now and then in their Places to Direct and injoyn them what is right to Plant the Places with Qualified Men when they can be got all which is supposed to be cross to the letter I do not say to the Meaning and Design of the Institution in the first Case the Church should sin in neglecting that which is the main Design of all Gospel Institutions viz. Edification and Saving of Souls therefore she doth not sin on the other hand by crossing the Letter of the Institution otherwise she should be under a Necessity of sining without her own fault bringing her under that Necessity 2. Although our LORD did forsee all the Cases and Circumstances in which his Church was to be unto the end of the World and could have fully Provided for them all by giving distinct Laws suted to every one of them yet infinite Wisdom thought fit to give Laws for regulating the ordinary cases of the Church leaving these that are rare and Extraordinary to be Managed according to the general Rules of Scripture and sound reason because distinct Laws for all possible Cases would have swelled the BIBLE to a bigness which would have made it less useful to us and of this it may be said as of a Case not unlike to it John 20. 30 31. The World could not have contained at least Men could not have Read and Retained the Contents of all the Books that should have been Written no doubt when GOD made the Law forbidding that the Shew Bread should be eaten by any but by the Priests he forsaw what case David and his Men would be in but he thought it not fit to provide for that Case by an Express Exception from the Law but left it to be Ordered by his more general Laws Even so it is in the Case that we Dispute about § 21. I shall now Answer his Reason brought against this yielding to Necessitie in cases of Divine Institution which is that if Necessitie can oblige Christians to forsake or to cross Institution in one Case why not in all Cases The Consequence that this his Question implyeth we simply Deny And I may Confidently say that himself in his cooler thoughts will be ashamed of it at least he will have few Men of Sense whether Learned or unlearned that will allow such a Consequence Farless that will Joyn wit him in what followeth viz. that crossing Institution when forced to it by the Law of Necessity what is it else than to open a door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostasie and to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidie and Villanie To clear this Matter and to still this Noise and that the Reader may understand this Debate about the Force of Necessitie better than this learned Author seemeth to do I shall shew when Necessitie may warrant an Action which without such Necessitie were unwarrantable and when not 1. It is not feigned or pretended Necessitie that can have this Force we are far from thinking that it is a sufficient Excuse when on hath done an evil thing to say there was Necessitie for it I could not shun it if our Reformers did but pretend Necessitie for setting up Superintendents or if we do but pretend it for them if my Antagonist can prove as he hath alleged that there was no Necessitie for it but that if they had been for Paritie they might have Promoted the Gospel without thus diverting from it for a time we shall quit this Argument GOD is Judge in that case whether the Necessitie be real or only pretended And in many cases Man may Judge and Punish them who break the Law and pretend Necessitie for their Action 2. It must be a Necessitie of GOD'S making not of our own bringing on as I hinted before If either a Church or a Person do sinfully bring themselves under a Necessitie of Transgressing the Law the sinful Cause maketh the Action sinful which is consequential to it 3. The Necessitie that we shelter our Actions under must not only be of the Means nor only of the End but of both I suppose a Man cannot save his Life his Libertie or Estate but by doing what is sinful or omitting what is a Moral and perpetual duty or is such hic et nunc Here is the Necessitie of Means but it cannot excuse him because there is no Necessitie of the End it is not necessarie that we should Live be at Libertie nor that we have Estates there is neither an absolute Necessitie of these nor comparative Necessitie none of them is so necessarie as it is to keep a good Conscience and to please GOD and shun sin Again suppose the End be necessarie V. Gr. to advance the Interest of Religion but this End may be attained to by means that do no way cross any of GOD'S Institutions to do what is cross to Institution in that case is no way Excusable For there is no necessitie of the Mean If my Antagonist can shew that either the End of setting up Superintendents was needless or that that could be attained without encroaching a little on Paritie for a time then shall we no more plead Necessitie for what they did but judge that they were not for Paritie in their Principles 4. We distinguish with respect to the Force of Necessitie between these Actions which are Moral from their Nature and these that are Moral only by Institution How far Necessitie may Warrant or not Warrant an Action against the Moral-Law I shall not now Dispute our present Debate not being concerned in that Question it is evident that there are some cases in which Necessitie even in such Actions hath place as Adam's Sons Marrieing their Sisters of which Lyra and Menochius in Gen. 4. 17. say Initio mundi necessè fuit Sorores Fratribus nubere And it is also certain that no Necessitie can dispense with some other Actions that are naturally Moral such as Blasphemy Lying c. but in Matters of Institution the LORD hath not so strictly bound his People nor made his Institutions to clash with the natural and indispensible Commands that he hath laid on them as is evident in David's case above-mentioned If Institution in some Circumstances that the LORD hath cast his People in do clash with the Moral Dutie of saving Life this Moral Dutie superceedeth the Obligation of Institution in that time and in that case much more when present Circumstances make Institution to clash with the great End of Institution as in the case in hand without dispensing with Paritie in this case the End of Church Government had been lost viz. the Edification of the Church and Promoting
short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews in March 6. it hath but little Assembly 1572. at Perth a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops Deans c. as scandalous Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed as well as others to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk in her Assemblies which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them And it is Enacted that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers that it was Enacted Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year In the beginning of that Assembly when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops Superintendents and other Ministers was mentioned John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion and Reasons that he and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy as he calleth it came to from 1571. to 1575 when we deny not there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government endeavoured by some Courtiers and Ambitious Church Men their Tools But from this time Presbytry began to Revive and gather Strength till at last it was fully setled For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock where they must ordinarily Labour Assembly 1576 p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick without the Kirk Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter and to Discharge him to Visit any more till he be Admitted by the Kirk Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names and called Brethren p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops Assembly 1578. held in June extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away And Commands all Bishops that now are to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication Assembly at Dundee July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason The whole Assembly in one Voice did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland to be unwarrantable in the Word of God and unlawful in it self and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God All Bishops are Charged to Dimit and to use no part of the Office of Pastors without new Admission by the Assembly Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean that the Government of Bishops as now in Scotland is wholly Condemned After which Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation For his false Citations out of the Manuscript I shall mention but two tho the Reader may observe many moe by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly unless he have Complaint to make or be Complained of or be Warned to it by the Superintendent whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents Commissioners and Ministers brought with them together with Commissioners of Shires Burghs and Universities And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention with Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod Whereas the Manuscript it is p. 10. saith that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction cause warn the Shires Towns and Parish Kirks to send their Commissioners to the Assembly declaring to them the Day and Place Here is nothing like what he Citeth and if it were so as he saith it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority than if it had been said it must be done by their Vote These things out of that Manuscript I have here cast together because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places § 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie than to make some short Remarks on it hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press from which we expect a full Account with more Truth and Candor than what is to be found in his Discourse 1. I deny not nor do I know any that ever denyed but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church that the first Endeavours of the Reformers for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery met with some Interruption and Opposition the Causes were evident the Covetousness of some Courtiers and other States Men and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy and they had some degree of effect but they were always opposed and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed as they wished but at last after much Wrestling Presbytery was settled in its Vigour in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions was needless Labour which I do not envy him the Pleasure of seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages with the same Author if I mistake not nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new save insolent Contempt and ill Words which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements 2. I observe that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that
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
Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion by Men and as a part of Gods Worship And another whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God merely as a piece of good Order and Policy The first the Papists are for the other most of our Prelatists owne though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter 6. The Question is not whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship that is when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation or for Thanksgiving and Rejoycing seing in that Case there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work but whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly and as it recurreth every Year The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year and other Days and exempteth it altogether and constantly from Civil Use the other doth not so the one maketh a Difference among Days the other maketh the Difference only in the Works or Dispensations of God which occasioneth such Work on that Day and not on another All that the Church doth in the one Case is whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work as it is expressed Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time which must be done in the other the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity Which the Lord hath not injoyned neither do we doubt but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship to wit while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth Weekly or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning 7. One Question is whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed or may be appointed by Man another whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints for some are for the great Days as they call them which respect Christ and our Redemption such as the Nativity Resurrection Ascension and some others who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints 8. It is a Question whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints as the Papists do and another whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days this last our Brethren are for though it will be hard to separate these two of which afterward § 3. I shall now set down our Opinion and wherein we differ from others And first we maintain that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him I do not expect that our Brethren will directly and expresly controvert this though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon Only I take notice that they who are most for observing other Holy Days do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day either in their Principle or their Practice 2. I assent that the Lord hath not instituted under the Gospel any other recurrent Holy Days nor enjoyned the Observation of them If any think otherwise they must prove what they affirm 3. The Church hath no Power to institute or injoy the Observation of any recurrent or Anniversary Holy Days for Religious Use without a special and present Occasion 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally for Religious Work are no further Holy than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment they have no Sanctity in themselves nor can Men impart it to them 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring either Ancient or Modern Churches or Persons who are for some of these Holy Days yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this nor look on these Days as indifferent things as some of them do 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches which our Author talketh so much of and blameth us for differing from them he may know that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them in this Matter than we are for they condemn the Saints Holy Days so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin in both the Epistles cited § 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith cap. 24. in Cor. Confess p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days in these Words Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur circumciditur moritur resurgit Christus Turretin Theolog. Elentic loc 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do I shall transcribe his Words after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits and should do it in the Word and Sacraments he addeth sed questio est an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi Deo sacri annuatim recurrentes a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint quod nos negamus he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others or a part of Gods Worship or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii Markius also Compend cap. 12. § 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed and himself so near to them as he would now make the World believe I do not pretend that they are generally wholly on our Side in this for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent in which we cannot assent to them But I know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them being recommended by the Church or of the Religion that is in this Observation as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do Our Brethren do also stand by themselves in their keeping of Saints Days and in the Number of their Holy Days which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews forthe Primitive Church at some Distance from the Apostolick Times may be they may have some Countenance there yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned and urged as they urge and impose them nor made such a Yoke to the People as may be gathered from Socrates histor Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am of Opinion that as many other things crept in by Custom in diverse places so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People from a certain private Custom and Observation in so much that as I said before not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man so much as one Rule of it it was observed not by Canon but of Custom and afterward he
the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
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
need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn when he p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation He Answered p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested This is far below what he had before said that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion c. and this Expression he Apoâ—ogizeth for ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion and that it was meant that they are very useful for it as the Exercises of Religion must be performed sometimes with Ordâ—r Uniformity and Society I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that Aâ—â—ertion Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense or not I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature We have the Mercat fallen very low from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty and Beeing of Religion first to this that inward Religion may do well enough without them next that they are not necessary but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion And then that External Religion needeth them only sometimes Further that it may subsist always without them but it will not in that Case be so Orderly as were needful Yet again it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion that they are any way useful so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed only these Churches are not like their Neighbours And lastly Religion Internal and External may have both its Beeing and Beauty in particular Persons though they observe no Holy Days only it is useful that if they think fit to go to Church and to Worship God in Society on these Days that they should observe them If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words it will tend much to Compromise our Differences He taketh it amiss that it was said that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass and this he disowneth The Ground of that Inference was for it was not charged on him further than that it followeth from his Principles that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion are in the Way to Hell yea though they understand it of External Religion which they are capable to Practise what can we think of the State of Presbyterians who do not yea will not and think they ought not observe the Holy Days if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments can have any Degree of Charity to them with respect to their Salvation unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion SECTION X. Of Schism THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism as one of the New Opinions the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this he taketh from one Person who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians neither did ever Write of Schism of set Purpose or fully but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us by Answering their Arguments However I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author or to yield to the Force of Argument if there be any thing which cannot be Defended My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general without which we may wrangle but not Dispute It hath been an ancient Practice and is frequent in later Times and in ours for different Parties to brand one another and that with fierey Zeal with the odious Name of Schismaticks without considering or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism but did more shew that there were Schisms among them and that they were Angry one with another and hold â—urth some particular Causes of these Heats than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism Some modern Authors have Written more disâ—inctly of it yet the particular Cause they were concerned for hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet Irenic p. 108. that the word Schism though it sound harsh it being often taken in an ill sense as it importeth a separation from a Church is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil according to the Ground Reasons Ends and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism the Formalitie of it must be â—etcht from the Grounds on which that is built He citeth also another Author Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are Two Theological Scarcrows with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion use to fright away such as making Enquirie into it are readie to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious § 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers and others about the Nature of Schism it is needful to premise a few things 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie and therefore there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie yea where there need be no Unitie or where there can be no Unitie Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is it is needful to Consider what Unitie should and must be amongh Churches and among Christians There are several sorts of Unitie that we cannot have with all Churches as local Communion some that we need not have as Identitie of Rites some that we ought not to have with some Churches as Communion in false Doctrine or impure Worship 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered or in all the sorts of Churches In the Catholick Church visible and invisible in all the Combinations of Churâ—hes among themselves National provincial classical and in particular Comgregatious It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with and câ—eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie so that it is not
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
That is so true that none is wise enough for it as the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 2. 6. And if so who is fit to Compose a Liturgie for others which all Men must be tyed to On this Consideration the Church ought to chuse the fitest Men she can get and when that is done both the weaker and stronger Sort should beware of leaning to their own Wit and Parts in that Great Work and should take the Word of GOD for their Directorie and Depend on the Spirit of GOD for His assistence and this is a better Remedy of the Evil feared than a stiâ—ted Liturgy is and hath more Countenance in the Scripture Rom. 8. 26. Another Argument Though a Minister should be very Wise yet at all times he is not in the same Temper and it is not reasonable that the Worship of GOD should be less decent when his Intellectuals are clouded than when he is in perfect health A. 1. If this Argument have any strength we must have a Form of Preaching as well as of Prayer and always tyed to it for a Disordered mind may make sad work there 2. Some have been out of Temper for Reading the Service as well as for Extemporary Prayer when their Brain hath been clouded and this hath as often hapened in the Reading Pue as in the Presbyterian Pulpit Wherefore we must have another Remedy against it in both than a Liturgie 3. I confess a lesser Degree of decency in the Worship of GOD than should be or hath been is never reasonable but how can it be prevented either in Praying Preaching or Reading as long as the Temper both of Mens Bodies and of their Minds are variable 4. If a Mans Intellectuals be at any time so clouded whether by a Hypochondriack Distemper or by Drinking too liberally or by any other Sickness as that it is probable to make the Worship of GOD to be unduely Managed that Man what ever have been his Wisdom or Abilities should not be suffered to Officiate at that time whether with or without the Book I am sure there was never any Church Ancient or Modern which appointed a Liturgie for such Men noâ— to countenance the Putting or Keeping such in the Sacred Fuâ—ction 5. There is another Cause of Worship being better or worse Managed at diverse times which our Author hath not thought on nor will his Liturgie serve for a Remedie of it that is the better or worse Frame of his Soul with respect to Heavenly things and the Degrees of the Presence and Aids of the Spirit of GOD therefore however unreasonable it be yet it is manifest that there is not the same measure of Decency and Spiritual Luster on the Worship of GOD at all times nor can there be a Remedie for this till we be better Men nor even then if the LORD for His own Holy ends withdraw his presence I know this will be slouted by some but the Apostle himself had his unusual Inlargements 2 Cor. 5. 11. and found it needful that the People should Pray for assistence to him Col. 4. 3. § 16. He bringeth yet another Reason the spiritual necessities of the People ought at all times to be â—qually Provided for A. 1. That is impossible for Man to do unless we can find unchangeable Men to be Ministers It is fair if they be always well and sometimes if they be tollerablly provided for 2. This is the improperest Reason that he could have fallen upon for it cutteth the Throat of his Cause because the Spiritul Necessities of the People are very various diverse People have diverse Necessities and the same Persons Needs may be far other or greater at one time than at another they know little of the Spiritual state of Souls who know not this now a â—â—intâ—d Liturgie can never reach these half so well as a Minister may do who hath the Gift of Prayer and who endeavoureth as much as may be to be acquainted with the Cases of the Peoples Souls Next he Pleadeth Uniformity for the use of a stinted Liturgie which is a weak Argument for Uniformity in Words and that is all that we can have by a Liturgie which can not be obtained without it is not so valuable If we all speak the same things what great Matters is it if they be exprest in diverse Words Again what Reason is there for the Necessity of Uniformity in Prayer more than in Preaching which yet our Brethren do not Enjoin That the Forms he mentioneth are the Tessera's if Uniformiâ—y is an absurd and groundless Assertion there was Uniformity in the Apostolick Church and is in our Churches without them If he deny this last let him shew what Dissormity is among us further than in Words which he cannot shew to be among his own Partie yea it is evident that such Discrepancie is in their Worship in one Church from another that he cannot Charge us with the like for the Cathedral Service and that in Countrey Churches are more unlike to one another than the Latter of them is to the Meetings of some Dissenters He next Argueth that a Lituâ—gie obviates Mens vâ—nting their own Conceits A. This is far more readily and frequently done in Preaching than in Prayer and therefore will either Prove that free Preaching without a Book should be Restrained or it Proveth nothing at all And indeed the way to prevent Inconveniency in both is not a Liturgie but to be careful that none but well Qualified Men be in the Ministry and Watchfully to look to the Administrations of them who are in that Office § 17. Our Author p. 295. seq Haleth in a Discourse by Head and â—ars without Occasion given or Coherence with what he was upon concerning Superstition wherein he taketh it for granted that his Way in all the Parts and Steps of it is right and ours wholly wrong and on this Begged Hypothesis he Declaimeth against the Presbyterians as the most Superstitious yea the most Atheistical Men in the World This is an easy Way of Running down any Adversary whatsoever Whether a Groundless Scrupulosity either in Matters of common Practice or in Matters of Worship be Superstition or not I know is controverted by some I shall not now enter into this Debate knowing that it issueth into a mere Logomachy Tho I think Superstition being a sort of false Worship or a Sin against the Worship of God in Strickness of Speech nothing should be called Superstition but that whereby People intend or pretend to Worship God Scruples about what is not Worship may be very Sinful because Unreasonable and Groundless and yet not be Worship nor Superstition If he can prove that our Scrupling the Holy Days Liturgy and Ceremonies is without all Ground and that these things are well Warranted and Approved of God and that there is no Sin in Using them we shall change our Opinion and submit to what Censure he shall put on us But while that is not done as I am sure it hath not
the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church or it is wholly insignificant 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary for the Evangelical AEconomie is first said without Book he used his Libertie nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern Next the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church as he could do of the Jewish Church 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons the Servants of the Church were inferior to Presbyters the Rulers of it and this he setteth forth by the Similitude not binding Pattern of the Levites being inferior to the Priests whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were and the Deacons what the Levites were but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters whom he had been proving to be the same and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons 5. If he can shew us that any 〈◊〉 the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish to a Christian Hierarchie 〈◊〉 to infer that they should be alike or that they infer any more from 〈◊〉 than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers we shall consider what they say § 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome he taketh notice p 74 75. That Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius in which the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters is frequently and plainly expressed And after when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval after the Apostles in which the Church was governed by 〈◊〉 Parity of Presbyters This is a strange way of reasoning Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles Ergo though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine All that Jerome saith is that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians another to the Magnesians c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote and that Jerome mentioneth or that they are not vitiated 〈◊〉 will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles whether they be spurious or legitimate whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr or by an other of that Name long after but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is in them frequently and plainly expressed When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done we shall consider them He bringeth another Evidence as he thinketh of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat 23. Quod fecerunt Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos Presbyteros ordinantes I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse of what he designed by that Expression but the words contain no Argument for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same Jerome might well say in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers whom we now distinguish by these Names What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason that this Constitution setting Bishops over Presbyters followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church because Jerome in Epistola â—…d Titum saith priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putaâ—…it esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony he must assert that Paul Apollos and Cephas 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs not Christs and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth which I hope he will not say It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men and after that Schism Bishops were set up which no man will say was in the Apostles time He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy p. 78 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places by the Apostles themselves The Answer is plain and easie the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches that â—…s Ministers who were to teach and rule them but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters â—…s the question and is not determined by this Argument § 12. He next citeth Jerome Epistola ad Nepotium Esto subjectus pontifici â—…o quasi animae parentem suscipe quod Aaron silios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse neverimus This Citation is lame between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth there is besides other things this Passage sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse non Dominos honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos Ut ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis honâ—… deferatur scitum est illud oratoris Domitii cur ego inquit te habeâ—… ut Principem cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem Then followeth quâ—… Aaron c. And he addeth unus Deus unum Templum unum etiam 〈◊〉 Ministerium and he citeth to this purpose 1 Pet. 5 2 3. and addeth pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time and not of what was the Apostles practice or what was Divine Institution and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose for our present Debate is whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution Next it is also manifest that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were theâ—… aspiring to not approving the way of that time We deny not the in that Age the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached
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
no cause to think otherwise of them and I think this will not be Contested between him and me All the Question that remaineth is whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power and Ruled in Parity or had Bishops set over them who had the Power of Ruling the Church the rest having only Power to Teach We are for their Equality of Power my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been even then in the Church of Scotland I do agree with him that this is questio facti and must be determined by Testimonie and that of Credible Witnesses who might know the Truth of what they Assert I have brought Credible History for what we say all which he Rejecteth as fabulous some of his Party particularly Spotswood bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland at that time without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth Which of us then go on the best grounds Our Author had in the Apology which I take to be his pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head First Vindic. Question 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology I Answered Deff of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me endeavour to Answer part of what was said as he had also done in the Apology overlooking what he thought not fit to touch I shall now Consider what he here saith omitting nothing that is Material He hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks Boetius and others or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan nor any Monk save Fordon who was far removed from his Age wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated nor Answered by any thing said in this or his former Book It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought as incompetent Witnesses was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation which he Answereth by shewing that it is the Establishing not Razing of History to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe This is to divert into another Question what was blamed in him was not that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive must be Competent but whether these adduced by me in the Debate were such I only Mark here not Examine being aside from our present Debate what he saith p. 230. that if History be Destroyed and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony he must mean Humane Testimony then the Authority of Revelation falleth and Atheism is Introduced at least boundless Sceptecilm and uncertainty Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony let it be Considered If the Vindicator said that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent he Pleaded that Buchanan Boetius Major Fordon Usher the Centuriators Baronius Beda and Prosper had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church and if none of these be Competent Witnesses our Historie is lost and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians who spake of our Affairs obiter § 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains from p. 231. to Prove that no History is to be Believed unless it be â—ttested by sufficient Witnesses who had occasion to know what they Affirm I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body so far as I know nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits I mean without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses which are thus incompetent for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Passages by Consequences drawn from Scripture in his Excellent Book Historia Patriarcharum Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work de Authoritate Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti to be of good use and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused I confess also that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius because not sufficiently Attested Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History a little more clearly than he hath done And 1. I observe that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined The contrarie of which I have already shewed viz. that it may be Determined in some cases by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact Next he saith ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate about our ancient Church-Government this is Questionable if it be not downright a Mistake it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time the Question is either whether they were Bishops or not we hold the Negative or if he Word it thus whether they were any more than Presbyters we say no or whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees or not we are still for the Negative wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative I further Object that in the end of the same page he insinuateth that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded We do not so with any thing of Moment far less with all things Yea we do not so in the Case now under Debate Another Remark I make on what he hath page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said â—o have happened it is to be lookt on as a Fable and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China This may suffer a little Correction and must not be taken as a Principle neither on his Authority nor Du Launy's more than a Storie of 200 years old can be 1. It is hard to fix a Period how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie especially if it be not about the Credenda of Religion If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old from a grave and wise Author whose veracity I do not Question I know not why the Addition of 50 or a 100 years more should make it incredible if it come from the same hand Wherefore this is too peremptorie a Decision there are on the other hand many cases in which Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than