Fast one Day to wit before Easter some two others 40 hours but yet still they retained Peace the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith and in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they maintained Peace and none was cast out for that Difference Among Cyprians Epistles one from Firmilian sheweth the same thing iâ— plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum nominum varietate diversa fiunt nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae â—ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est § 4. It is also very plain that the Fathers I mean of the first Ages did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same Opinion about all points of Doctrine but did bear with one another and maintained Peace even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths yea when some of them would impose their Opinions on others and Censure them who Differed from them they were by the rest dealt with not as Maintainers but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church Justin. Martyr dialog cum Tryphon speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites if they did it out of weakness and did not impose on other Christians sayeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we must receive them and Communicate with them as of the same Mind or Affections with us and as Brethren And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account Firmilian in the Ep. above cited hath these Words on this occasion quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore honore servabant Irenae lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren propter modicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt dividunt quantum in ipsis est interficiunt pacem loquentes bellum operantes vere liquantes culicem camelum transglutientes § 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal Charging such as Apostats from the Church and breakers of her Peace who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential and Fundamental or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths Irenae lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit Colon 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion hath these Words hanc igitur praedicationem hanc â—â—dem adepta Ecclesia quamvis dispersa in universo mundo diligenter conservat aâ— si in una eademque domo habitaret ac similiter iis fidem habet ac si unam animam unumque idem cor haberet atque unâ— consensu hoc praedicat docet ac tradit ac si uno ore praedita esset Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum una tamen eadem est vis traditionis nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt nec quae in Hispania neque in Galliis neque in Oriente neque in AEgypto neque in Lybia aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt sed quemadmodum Sol Creatura Dei unus idem est in universo Mundo ita praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt Eusseb Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae condemning Tatianus the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae and saying of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church or a breaking her Unitie The same Historian lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating how long the Church remained a Virgin Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets and what the LORD himself taught and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth Rome and Jerusalem and then sheweth how Heresies arose whose Authors he calleth false Christs false Prophets and false Apostles and of them he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they divided the Unity of the Church by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD and against his CHRIST Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose but these may be sufficient I do not Question but that there might be other things which might be called Schism even with respect to the universal Church as if any should bring in Idolatrous or Superstitious Worship contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils and should set up Societies in opposition not only to one or few but to all the Societies of Christians or all the Soundest of them But of the first we hear little of the first Ages neither could the second be because they had no general Councils nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward for the Third we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks who were Noted for their Heresie and their Schism little spoken of as being the Consequent of the other so it was with the Novatian Schism § 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all or most Churches and so on the Catholick Church yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches either which were united by the Bond of one Government a Provincial or lesser Synod being made up of them or only living in the vicinitie of one another or having frequent occasion of Correspondence they who were not under any uniting Bonds but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence mutual Assistance as occasion offered acquainting one another with their Affairs so far as it was of any Advantage admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion with them on occasion refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches as were by them Excommunicated and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned or refused especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church or denied to such Sojourners if they desired it or when one Church shewed Rage Furie and Bitterness against another because of what they differed about Instances of this are many the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage came to that Height that they would not Communicate together one of them Anathematized the other and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe and these of Africk did concern themselves in it Eusebiâ—â— cited Catal. Test verit p. 26. ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the
Church As in the Case of Felicissimus who quarreled with Cyprians Promotion and several others who made Schisms because they could not be made Bishops Again he argueth we cannot be said to be Members of a particular Church or to hold Communion with it if we do not joyn in their Worship as it is established among them This is easily Answered by a plain Distinction unless we joyn in their established Worship as to the greatest and chief Acts of it conceditur as to all the parts of it even to the least negatur I may joyn with a Church in the Word and Sacraments and yet if they have a Holy Day or two beside the Sabbath may forbear yea I may without this be a Member of that Church if they will suffer me which all the Reformed Churches do except the Episcopal Church of England I shewed before that the Ancients did not place the Unity of the Church in an Uniformity in these Punctilio's so they who owne them do reckon them and the Modern Churches mostly are of the same Sentiments and Practice In Confirmation of this his Argument he hath these Words p. 214 215. Since he forbears the Practice of these things he disliketh why may he not be said to hold Communion with all visible Churches on Earth And instanceth not only in the Churches of France but in the Roman Church This is an Absurdity beyond what he is aware of for some Churches we are obliged wholly to flee from because of Fundamental Errors Idolatry and horrid Corruptions of all Ordinances so we sepâ—rate totally from the Church of Rome so the Orthodox of old refused to Communicate with or be Members of the Arian Churches yet they did not shun Communion with some Churches that differed from them in small Matters as I have shewed above § 4. of this Section And the Learned Stillingfleet as I have observed already alloweth of a Partial Noncommunion where Communion is not totally cast off What he saith of our no more coming near a Liturgy than we would Sacrifice our Children in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom these I say are not the Words of Truth and Soberness nor have they so much of Argument in them as of unreasonable Sarcasm and are not to be regarded Cannot one dislike a greater and lesser Evil unless his Aversion to both be equal § 11. He falleth next on the Doxologie p. 216. and doth insinuate without any Shadow of Truth or Candor that we turn out the Episcopal Clergy for presuming to retain it in Publicâ— Worship all Scotland knoweth the contrary We do not use it but we never laid such Weight on using it as to forbear all Communion with a Congregation where it is used I called it a Humane Composure He saith the Matter of it is Orthodox and Unquestionable Ergo it is no Humane Composure non sequitur I said there is no Warrant for constant Use of it He saith there is as good Warrant for it as there is for Extemporary Prayer in Publick Worship This is false we read of no Praying by a Book or set Form but the Spirits Help not that of the Book is the Help we must look for not only as to the Manner but the Matter of our Prayers what we should Pray for Rom. 8. 26. But I insist not on this he confesseth it to be a Digression and but toucheth it slightly I judge it a very impertinent Digression but I behoved to follow as he leadeth for I think neither Ancient nor Modern Divines will call them Schismaticks who cordially joyn with the Church where they live in all of her Worship except this and it seems he hath little Ground to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks that he bringeth in this to help out his Proof against us It is false also that all the Churches abroad have Humane Ceremonies so twisted with their Solemn Worship that Presbyterians cannot joyn with them We have often and do when occasion serveth very cordially and to our Edification joyned with them and yet partake in none of these nor is so much of these among them as he would make us believe Another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks is p. 215. If the present Presbyterians had lived a hunder and fifty years before the Council of Nice there was then a necessity by their Principles to separate from the Unity of the Church because all the things they scruple were then practised It was Answered that the Hierarchy was not then in the Church this he taketh no notice of nor shall I for we have already Debated it sufficiently Neither do we make the Beeing of the Hierarchy the Ground of Separation but that Ministers at least must owne it or have no Communion with their Church But he telleth us of a great many other things that were then used as Anniversary Days Significant Ceremonies the Sign of the Cross c. And beseecheth me to read some of the ancient Monuments of the Church I thank him for his good Advice I have followed it in some degree though I cannot Brag of my Reading nor Vilifie others as if their Reading were short of mine before he gave it and shall yet further as I can and though I find that some of these crept early into the Church and yet may be not so early as he imagineth I do not find that the ancient Church placed her Unity in these things and I think by the small Reading that I have attained I have proved the contrary and therefore if we had then lived we might have been counted no Schismaticks I further Answer the Ancients placed Schism with respect to the Universal Church in her Heterodoxy not in different Rites and therefore we maintain Unity with the Fathers while we believe as they did for that Unity that should be in a particular Church we are not capable of it but with that Church where we converse not with that which was 1600 or 1700 years ago therefore it is improper to say we are Schismaticks because of what we would have been in that possible Case that never was § 12. His third Consideration to prove us Schismaticks is that our Predecessors condemned the same Practices as Schismatical the Answer to this was given this Argument was used by him before and I Answered it before He saith I leave him to Guess where it was brought and Answered and truly I thought it was an easie Guess being but in the end of the former page viz. 33. If he had read heedfully what he undertaketh to refute he could not have been at a Loss here It was there told him that as the former Presbyterians did not separate from the Episcopal Church so nor did all of them of late and they who did were driven away by the Apostacy of his Party from the way that they had engaged in and that by forcible changing of the Church Government without her Consent or any Means used to satisfie the Consciences of them who scrupled I add
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
Knox in this matter which meerly to save time I shall not concern my self in Ans. It being evident that in our first Setlement of Discipline our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie negative Arguments from the Writing or sayings of private Men are insignificant and it is less to the purpose to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said or Written any thing to the contrarie directly or indirectly For his Debate about John Knox I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing and against Christs Institution That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline is falsly supposed p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it of which after § 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount of what influence England had on our Reformation from Popery whence he inferreth that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England Here he undertaketh two things 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Policy of the Church For Ans. to this Argument it is wholly inconsequential if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned except the last about the Government and Policy of the Church and even that signifieth nothing unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy and not for Paritie and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things and shall consider his last Article and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it The Reader without my Animadversion will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey and fawning on another Nation This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England which he insisteth on from p. 7. it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy is less to his Question which is only about Government We never thought that our Reformers at first were all of the same Principle with us in all things I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church Yea themselves had afterward other thoughts of some things than they had at first as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first which afterward he rejected I observe further that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers his best ground for what he affirmeth is it is not to be imagined that they did so and so or it is to be presumed We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy that so it must be If I thought it worth the while I would Examine these Histories more narrowly But I could easily yield him all without prejudice to our Cause seing the Principles of our Reformers are better known by their publick Deeds than by the private Sayings or Practices of two or three of them and these not sufficiently attested These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies by which she had been burdened but that all or most of them were satisfied with their Government and Discipline is the Question and is not Proved by what he hath said It is least of all Concludent that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland which he laboureth to Prove p. 80. and it is unaccountable that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England that they were of the same Religon with us which he puteth in majusculis we say the same of them at this day and I hope they think not otherwise of us and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini If he can find a Contradiction here let him try his Skill to discover it It is an odd method that he useth p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy because it was natural for the English who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it And I Prove they were not for it because de facto they did not setle it but a way inconsistent with it Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent We do not find that the English made such a Demand and if they did not they acted like discreet Neighbours not to impose on their Brethren who had other sentiments of the Matter and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion And if they made such a Demand the Event shewed that it was not listned to For his Citation of Buchannan p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions who can hope to find the place I know not what Buchannan could mean by it but it is evident if the Scots did so subscribe they did not act accordinglie which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way It is nauseous to repeat with him so often the Godly Conjunction the Unity Peace and Christian Concord that was then made between England and Scotland and to set forth this as a Demonstration Yea a Set of Demonstrations that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate in the Face of Matter of Fact that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church § 6. He undertaketh p. 96. and forward to prove that at the Reformation the English Lyturgy was used in this Church If this should be granted it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also they wanted qualified Ministers so that there was need of some help to them in Praying and Instructing the People publikly and it may
for it was not used either for its Advantage or disadvantage but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church however it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments Our Author now p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for about the Principles of our Reformers with respect to Church Government proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into But as an Introduction to this he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation Their weakness he exposeth in two things one is that they went on this Principle that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion what else was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture if it was i◠fashion in the Popish Church was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as 〈◊〉 Corruption as having been abused as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry Here is a false representation of our Reformers and that in three things 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men as on other Grounds so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition and having been so used but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it whether it were of greater or lesser Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice 3. They always were willing to receive what could be by good consequence proved by Scripture though it were not positively and expresly Commanded I advise my Adversarie if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own by speaking what is not Truth For the Principle it self duly stated according to what I have said I am willing to Debate it with him but that is not his business but rather to expose it by Invectives The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak is they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie to be Imployed still for the Churches use I think this Debate is little to our purpose and therefore I wave it § 24. His next Attempt is to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland after the publick Establishment of the Reformation and that this was Episcopacy And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History in which it is hard for any Man to follow him rejecting what ever disliketh him and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation not sparing Spotswood himself when he doth not please him only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript out of which he alters adds and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church whence that Manuscript came what Authority it hath whither it be his own or any other Mans he is not pleased to tell us He calleth it his Manuscript whether he would have us take him for the Author or for the Owner of it I cannot determine nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account I have the present use of a Manuscript which as I am credibly informed is the very individual Copy that he had which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow Whether any other Copies of it be extant I am uncertain It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive and other things relating to Church Affairs I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it for the former it will be evident to them who without Byass consider the following Passages Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone but they with the Ministers and Elders are to expone to the Kirk the State of the Kirk among them and note Offences that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly so also p. 8. and almost every where This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents to transport Ministers but with this express Limitation that it be done in the Synod and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry it is said this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops as others pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk Where even the Name of Bishops as then used seemeth to be disliked and their Prelation disowned and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed at their Entry by Learned Men of the Kirk such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office and Power is disowned they for the present not always were to do that Work also that their Power is derived from the Assembly not Divine Institution is plainly insinuated Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk Ibid. Bishops Abbots c. warned by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell a Divorced Adulterer On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction The Manuscript giveth a very
taxeth some who count Fornication indifferent and contend about Holy Days as it were for Life and Death they despise the Commands of God and establish Canons of their own I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers and the Protestant Church of Scotland in her first State and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth p. 264 265. libro primo disciplinae cap. 1. Censetur Festa Nativitatis Circumcisionis Epiphaniae c. Apostolorum Martyrum B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur rogandus itaque Magistratus ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur excepto Articulo de diebus Festis porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae licet Festa illa celebrent a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant evidenter colligitur omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit quod Pastores quidam Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse Deo sacrum Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet nam inquit colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis Paschatis qua autem authoritate id faciant ipsi viderint This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition and we desire the like Forbearance from others if we cannot use them for which I shall now give some Reasons before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject § 4. Our first Reason is these Days were not instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor did they injoyn them to be instituted nor give Power or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward Ergo there is no sufficient Warrant for them And it cannot be rationally accounted for that either the Church should impose in the Matter of Religion especially or People should be obliged to submit to what hath no sufficient Warrant That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles is beyond doubt our Adversaries do not pretend that they were for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought and if it could be made appear the Case were changed for then they were not the Days that we Debate about That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution we must believe unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture or sufficient Consequence from Scripture or strong Reason if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact if it be Answered the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification and for Decency and Order and these Holy Days are such Ergo. I Reply it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace and of Edification and the Church must not devise new Means for that End but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient in the Way of outward Means And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing Beside that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual as is hinted Luke 16. 30 31. If Moses and the Prophets Gods Means cannot perswade one to believe the Preaching of one risen from the Dead a Mean that a Man contrived could not do it As for the Decency Order and Policy that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days these are a necessary or needless Decency c. If this last there can be no warrant for what may effect it if the first the former Argument recurreth that God by his own Institutions hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church Again if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary if it be alledged that the Holy Days are thus necessary either they must instruct this and shew us that Scripture or Nature hath made them necessary and that the Ordinances of God are undecent disorderly c. without them or the Church doth so determine because she will and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God If it be further Answered that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days as for appointing occasional Fasts or Thanksgivings Reply Not so For the Lord himself by his Providence calleth to these Exercises to be Solemnly gone about on such Occasions but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday in this Week or the next here is a Circumstance of Time which must be determined by Men Nature it self maketh it necessary supposing the Providential Call of God to the Work on that Occasion it is not so with the Holy Days there is no special Providence occurrent which calleth to these Solemnities at one time more than at another Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church and not of the other also Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture for all Times Places and Occurrences without Swelling it to a Huge and Burdensome and less Useful Bulk the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible it is actually done in the Old Testament and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament § 5. Our second Argument Either the Apostles had Warrant from God to institute these Days or not if they had not how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church who came after them had such Power granted by God Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous and Absurd Height yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say that the Bishops in that do what the
need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn when he p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation He Answered p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested This is far below what he had before said that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion c. and this Expression he Apoâ—ogizeth for ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion and that it was meant that they are very useful for it as the Exercises of Religion must be performed sometimes with Ordâ—r Uniformity and Society I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that Aâ—â—ertion Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense or not I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature We have the Mercat fallen very low from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty and Beeing of Religion first to this that inward Religion may do well enough without them next that they are not necessary but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion And then that External Religion needeth them only sometimes Further that it may subsist always without them but it will not in that Case be so Orderly as were needful Yet again it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion that they are any way useful so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed only these Churches are not like their Neighbours And lastly Religion Internal and External may have both its Beeing and Beauty in particular Persons though they observe no Holy Days only it is useful that if they think fit to go to Church and to Worship God in Society on these Days that they should observe them If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words it will tend much to Compromise our Differences He taketh it amiss that it was said that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass and this he disowneth The Ground of that Inference was for it was not charged on him further than that it followeth from his Principles that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion are in the Way to Hell yea though they understand it of External Religion which they are capable to Practise what can we think of the State of Presbyterians who do not yea will not and think they ought not observe the Holy Days if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments can have any Degree of Charity to them with respect to their Salvation unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion SECTION X. Of Schism THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism as one of the New Opinions the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this he taketh from one Person who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians neither did ever Write of Schism of set Purpose or fully but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us by Answering their Arguments However I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author or to yield to the Force of Argument if there be any thing which cannot be Defended My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general without which we may wrangle but not Dispute It hath been an ancient Practice and is frequent in later Times and in ours for different Parties to brand one another and that with fierey Zeal with the odious Name of Schismaticks without considering or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism but did more shew that there were Schisms among them and that they were Angry one with another and hold â—urth some particular Causes of these Heats than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism Some modern Authors have Written more disâ—inctly of it yet the particular Cause they were concerned for hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet Irenic p. 108. that the word Schism though it sound harsh it being often taken in an ill sense as it importeth a separation from a Church is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil according to the Ground Reasons Ends and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism the Formalitie of it must be â—etcht from the Grounds on which that is built He citeth also another Author Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are Two Theological Scarcrows with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion use to fright away such as making Enquirie into it are readie to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious § 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers and others about the Nature of Schism it is needful to premise a few things 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie and therefore there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie yea where there need be no Unitie or where there can be no Unitie Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is it is needful to Consider what Unitie should and must be amongh Churches and among Christians There are several sorts of Unitie that we cannot have with all Churches as local Communion some that we need not have as Identitie of Rites some that we ought not to have with some Churches as Communion in false Doctrine or impure Worship 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered or in all the sorts of Churches In the Catholick Church visible and invisible in all the Combinations of Churâ—hes among themselves National provincial classical and in particular Comgregatious It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with and câ—eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie so that it is not
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
the Case of Martialis and Basilides who Sacrificed to Idols Ep. Synodal apud Cyprian quae est 65. § 1 3 4. where after many Words to this Purpose are these Propter quod Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini Deum metuens a peccatore Praeposito separare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misâ—ere quando ipsa maxime habeat Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi A second Cause was Haeresie Irenae lib. 1. c. 13. Opportet longe fugere ab eis speaking of Haereticks Origen Homil. 7. in Ezek. alloweth one to separate from his Bishop Si habueris saith he occasionem Doctrinae pâ—ssimae aliena ab Ecclesia dogmata Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. telleth us that at Antioch many of the Clergy and People withdrew and set up private Assemblies when three Arrian Bishops Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were set over them And lib. 2. c. 24. that they did the like when Leontius who favoured the Arians was set up and that Flavianus and Diodorus took the Charge Vincent Lyrin adversus Haer. c. 16 relateth of Photinus Bishop of Sirmium a Man of great Abilities that when the People discerned his Error Quem anteâ— quasi Arietem Gregâ—s sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere coeperunt Thirdly The Scandalous and Wicked Life of a Bishop which the Words cited out of that Synodal Ep. in Cyprian a little above do plainly bear and Irenae lib. 4. c. 44. Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptatibus non praeponunt â—imorem Dei in cordibus suis sed contumeliis agunt reliquoâ— principalis confessionis tumorâ— elati sunt in absconsis agunt mala ab omnibus absistere opportet I shall not now determine whither this was sound Doctrine if it be understood of Peoples deserting their Pastor for his Personal Immoralities before the Sentence of a Church Judicatorie be interposed I only relate the Opinion of the Ancients Origen indeed saith Homil. 7. in Ezech. that they should not for his Scandal desert the Faith that he Preached But he speaketh nothing of their deserting his Ministrie nor contradicteth the rest whom I have cited § 9. I now come to consider what Apprehensions Modern Writers have had of Schism And here were a large Field to Expatiat in If I should Examine all or most of them so many have written on this Subject and so different their thoughts are of it Wherefore I chuse one whom I think my Antagonist will not except against the Learned Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic p. 109. The Sum of whose Discourse is all are bound to joyn into some Church Societie and being so joyned should continue in that Societie till his Communion with them becometh Sin Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church Communion and consequentlie warranteth Separation he supposeth that Corruption in the Essentials of the Constitution of the Church may warrant it but where there are Corruptions crept into a true Church yet remaining such he saith the Question is whither we may separate from such a Church for purer Administrations particularly whither we should separate from a Church because of Corruptions in the â—xercise of Discipline he determineth it that one may separate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice which are avowed and owning them is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church he alloweth in that Case not only Noncommunion but a total and positive Separation but he telleth us that where Soundness of Doctrine is retained but some Corruptions in Practice are tollerated but not imposed Separation is unlawful on that Account He saith thirdly where Doctrine is sound but some unlawful or suspected Practice is required to be owned and conformed to denying of such Conformitie and Communion with the Church in these things is lawful but positive Schism or erecting Altare contra Altare is not lawful These are Concessions of that profoundly Learned Writer Against which I have nothing to object but what I have elsewhere Debated with him viz. Where some unlawful or suspected Action is required to be done by Ministers or People and if the Church so imposing will not suffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances unless they will conform in these both they must do for keeping a good Conscience and he alloweth them a Negative and Partial Separation and the Church forceth them on a Positive and Total Separation what shall they do in that Case either they must live without Gospel Ordinances or they must set up Meetings wherein they must have them the former is unreasonable the latter is that Positive Separation which he condemneth I with he or any else would tell us what is to be done in that Case Let us then improve that general and indisputable Maxim that we ought not to joyn with any Church however commendable she be in many things when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is our Personal Sin and that other Truth which cannot be denyed that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacraments with the Church unless they will do that which is sinful or that they after their uttermost Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching apprehend to be sinful they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments and it will clearly follow that a positive Separation even from a true Church and setting up a Church in a Church is not only lawful but is a Dutie and the Sin of that Schism doth not ly on them who so leave the Church or are driven from her but on that Church which requireth such unlawful Terms of Communion and imposeth them with such Rigour § 10. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schism I proceed to Examine what my Adversarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyterians to be Schismaticks which he attempteth without making any Distinction among them though he knoweth there were different Practices among them with respect to joyning in Communion with the Episcopal Church He saith there is not a Church on Earth with which they can joyn in Communion without fear of being polluted It was Answered that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland France when the Protestants had their Assemblies there and Geneva c. It was not said by the Author whom he refuteth that we dislike several things in these Churches but by him and it was Answered we can communicate with a Church that is not so pure as we wish what we dislike we shun the Practice of it but do not for that refuse to communicate with the Church where it is found His Refutation of this is at this rate it will be hard to find Schismaticks in all the Records of the Church This is most false for some did cast off Communion totally with the Church and set up separate Meetings when they could blame no part of Church Practice but had Quarrels with the Persons that governed the
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
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
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
Severe He Answereth that he never found fault with our Discipline for its being strict but for being factiously Pragmatical and endlesly Inquisitive and from its having no Tendency to Edifie the Christian-Church or to Reclaim wicked People What can an unbyassed Reader understand by these Words but that the Man is angry and hateth the Presbyterians and their Way and would fain cast Dirt on them if he could find it These indefinite and gross Accusations must either be Proved that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Discipline of the Church and this must be in many Instances and many Ministers and Elders and all this well Attested or the Man who thus Writeth must pass for a Slanderer rather than a Disputant Our Discipline we Manage by the Rules of the Word and the Principles of sound Reason we do not Indulge Sin in these of our own Way nor medle with Things that are without our Line nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become such by being openly known and if Occasion be given for Enquirie and nothing be found we Desist and leave Secret Things to GOD to whom they belong for the Tendency of our Exercise of Discipline we are sure it is for Edification and we can make it appear that sometimes it is Blessed with Success and if it Irritate some or Harden others or have no Fruit on many we Lament it but are not to be blamed for it for the same Thing may be said of Preaching the Gospel and that in a Commendable manner I Deny not but that some are short of that Dexterity that others have and that there is Imperfection in the best of us and if they that blame us can say otherways of their own Church either they are strangly Deluded or the World is generally Deceived about their Way He commenceth a new Debate p. 283. about Non-resistance which he had raised Apolog. p. 20. and yet waved and of which very little was said Def. of Vindic. p. 16. he now resumeth the Debate and talketh more freely than before being behind the Curtain and not in Hazard of Censure I was then unwilling and am still more so to medle in that Matter both because it is a Controuerne that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity and Lawyers are sittest to Mannage it Also because it is not now between Prelatists and Presbyterians the Generality of both having of late years Agreed in what is Inconsistent with the Prelatical Doctrine that was Current some years ago § 13. Another of our new Opinions he will have to be p. 289. that they the Presbyterians abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD c. we have under this Head a parcel of the most False and Impudent Assertions in Matters of Fact and the most unjust Calumnies that ever the Press groaned under And it is a wonder that a Person pretending to Conscience or to Christianity could give such Scope to his Passion as to have no regard to Truth and indeed here is little or no Matter of Debate nor place for Vindication but by Denying what he Asserteth without any Attempt to give Evidence for what is Asserted I Deny not but that there may be found some few among the People that own Presbytery who through Ignorance and a mistaken Zeal run into some of these Excesses that he Taxeth but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us sine discrimine and I am sure the more Sober and Intelligent sort of Presbyterians abhorreth many of these things that he Chargeth them with He Asserteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what he saith it is a palpable Falshood For 1. We neither abhorre nor cast off the Form of Sound Words I mean the Scriptures of Truth recommended by the Apostle for us to hold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1. 13. nor do we abhorre or reject the Form of Baptizing and Administring the LORD'S Supper nor of Blessing the People at the Dismissing of the Assembly 2. Even some Forms that we Reject as needles and therefore unfit to be used in this state of the Church yet we do not abhor them such as Forms of Prayer we think they were both Lawful and necessarie when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Ministers yet we think they should now be laid aside when they are not so needed as a Man should not use Crutches when he is well Recovered from his Dameness 3. To say that we abhorre and reject Rules in the Worship of GOD is beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty We own and use the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him neither do we abhorre or reject the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule we have our Directorie and many Good Acts of General-Assemblies yea of Synods and Presbyteries in their respective Districts His next Assertion is shameles above measure that since the Revolution they Turn out the Episcopal Clergy out of their Livings if they retain any of the Ancient forms tho never so short Catholick or Orthodox Pray Sir when was this done by whom where or to whom none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on these Heads either by Church or State and none by the Church except for Ignorance Error in some Great Point of Faith supine negligence or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins or not It is true Uniformity even in these little Things is required of these who will Joyn with us be Received into Ministerial Communion and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us and much Tenderness and Forbearance hath been used even in these for some time but they who think not fit to Joyn with us are suffered to follow their Ministerial Work in their Parishes and Enjoy their Livings without such Uniformity with us as he Talketh of And if we had Required this or Turned them out it had been but an Imitating of the Practice of his own Party Whom do they Suffer to Enjoy Publick Livings who do not Conform to their Way to the Height § 14. He persists in his false Assertions while he saith the Episcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer Reading the Holy Scriptures in their Assemblies the Apostolick Creed and the Doxology This is far from any Semblance of Truth no such Prohibition was ever given He insisteth a little in Pleading for the Use of the LORD'S Prayer but taketh no Notice of the State of the Question about it as it hath been Proposed by his Antagonist His Business seemeth to be not so much to Convince as to Accuse It is False that we have Banished that Prayer We duely use it as a Directory and Pray according to it we Teach it to our Catchumâ—ni we do not Judge nor Blame any Man