Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
Reply but the words of Psalms 12. 3 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said with our tongue will we prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us and Psal. 120. 3 4. What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee O false tongue We can answer his Arguments and are willing to be Instructed by him and attacked that way But who can stand before this kind of Topicks I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure only by Division and Singularitie save this Author p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author But it is evident that the strain of both is the same I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate But I cannot overlook his suposing that we reject certain Ritualls and practises which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture and the uniform Belief of all Christians If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such we shall correct our Opinion about them § 8. He layeth some Foundations p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute which we cannot allow as first that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order and Discipline under which Head he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church It is to be lamented that even in Doctrine there was not that Unitie that was fit in the Primitive times we read of many Heresies early broached for Order it was not the same among all there were sad Schisms as well as Heresies and for Ritualls we find no General Rule they agreed in for Ordering them save the Word of GOD contained in the Scriptures For General Councills that medled most with these were later than the times we speak of And it is well known what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them such as the time of observing Easter Yea the first Churches had different Ritualls about which they made no Divisions but used Christian forbearance Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this which is C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi Iraeneus reproving Victor for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And at large sheweth that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were from uniformity in their Fasting Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat in the frequency of Communicating about the time and manner of Baptising about the time and degrees of publick penance placing the Altar or Communion Table c. It is evident then that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of They minded things of higher moment and greater necessity § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals they the Primitive Christians strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks This Assertion with respect to Rituals is wild and absurd not only because such Uniformity was not found nor much regarded among them as hath been shewed but also because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion could afford them no strength more than an Army is the stronger by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour It was their Unity in the Truths of God their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule and their Love and forbearance of one another in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ in these as the Means did their strength ly Yet another strange Position he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians which never hath yet been proved and affirmeth that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family His Supposition which p. 11. and often else where he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate is groundless as I hope will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition His Assertion is false and dangerous For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches where several of the Constitutions he talketh of were practised by some and neglected or despised by others as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio and many others 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God there were Debates in the primitive Churches and some differed from that which was generally held and yet they were not Excommunicated but dealt with by more soft Means and born with till the Lord should enlighten their Mind according to the Apostles direction Phil. 3. 15 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church but of few others to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing even in Rituals this is not the Spirit of the Gospel If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians his Assertion cannot be contradicted yet it may be Ridiculed for that is impossible for any who is a Christian to do but if he speak of what is commonly received this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine or Ceremony even though they Dissent never so modestly and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them § 10. What followeth doth surmount all that we have heard p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters must be received as the infallible Truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages from the Combinations of Hereticks And a little below The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors I make here two Observes before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted The former is that may be through oversight he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining or decisive Power about what must be received as the
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator who presided among them and did with the rest authoritatively Consult and Determine this we grant but it maketh nothing for him 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie I cannot well guess If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest that is what we hold If that he had a negative Vote so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent he ought not to call for Proof from us against that the Probation is to be expected from him who affirmeth it If that he determined by himself and the rest were but his Council this we deny also and he must prove it It is enough that we prove that others with the Bishop Moderator or Praeses did manage the Affairs of the Church for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient What followeth in several pages is to prove that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests so of the Bishops from the Presbyters This would indeed weaken our Argument if it had no more force than he giveth it If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons without distinguishing Bishops or Presbyters among themselves But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some but in all places where they are mentioned and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices Work Qualifications or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use make nothing against our Argument unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters they ascribe also a superior power to them which he often asserteth but never proveth We confess that after the Apostles age the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone nor had superior power to the rest I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author when he shall please to attempt this proof Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. where he engageth with another of our Arguments than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative wherewith his Discourse is interspersed § 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power upon all occasions with great Courage and Assurance What my last Antagonist brought for this end out of the Writing of that holy Martyr I have endeavoured to Answer with what success it is not mine to judge if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations or bring new ones I shall not decline the Debate with him That Polycarp as he hath it p. 32. distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters while he inscribeth his Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Who saith our Author if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren This reasoning I say is so remote from Concludencie that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it For first whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred as Polycarp being an older man than the rest or Praeses in the Meeting it is ridiculous to infer from this either Superiority or solitude of power 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle and the rest Assenters to it that might give occasion to his being named 3. Will any say that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie for N. Moderator and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named Such stuff is not worth refuteing P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension Apage nugas Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church like that of the Lords among the Gentiles Yea we deny not all preferment in the Church may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister or an Elder yea or a Deacon All which are Preferments if compared with the people and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction That Blondel Salmasius and Dally laboured to support this Argument as our Author represents it is falsly asserted p. 35. As is also that this Opinion about Parity was never heard of before the days of Aerius If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig whose Memory is venerable in the learned World must here also be lashed as ignorant of Divinity and of the Fathers because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument as stated by us in this his Discourse only his unmannerly as well as false Assertion p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling He may see if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute that they have other yea better Arguments and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument represented in its full Strength SECTION V. Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me Vindicated HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side he might have found thrice as many more and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say But this and the two Arguments above debated with him are all that he will allow us to have on our side His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name while he calleth them who possessed the Government and Revenues of the Church Atheists and Enthusiasts and that without exception or Limitation Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England as well as others charactered by him We will not retaliate but the learned and religious world had and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry and judge that Atheism and other sinful Evils have been diffused into the Church after that time though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves and all
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
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy and that in his presence he being then with the Apostle Also from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus From his telling them that they should see his Face no more Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them but laying it on the Elders but I shall not enlarge on these § 15. He alledgeth with the same Confidence and as little Strength of Argument that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus in Crete And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea that Titus we say the same of Timothy was an Evangelist which he very discretly more suo calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists 〈◊〉 Saith he It is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who were called Evangelists A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists The word is divers ways used in Holy Write neither do we argue from the Name that either he or Timothy to whom this Name is expresly applyed 2 Tim. 4. 5. were Evangelists but we argue from their Work and Circumstances together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church in the beginning of Christianity There are others beside them whom we can prove to have been Evangelists who may be get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture Next he argueth the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon What if all this were yielded what gaineth he by it Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him tho he were no Bishop and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist what we design is that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop seing he was an Evangelist who hath all that power that Titus is said to have Beside Saravia who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath de Ministr Evang. grad C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae Prophetae Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri ita Titi Timothei qui Presbyteri Episcopi erant major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops if then Titus was an Evangelist is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist or a Bishop to a Presbyter or he to a Deacon unless some of these were degraded for some fault Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop Further he describeth an Evangelist out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it at least were not converted by it Eusebius is not by him fairly cited C. 33. not 37. he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles as his own words bear therefore they did not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists that is saith he they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations as Apollo did after Paul 1 Cor. 3. 6. also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted or any way to preach the Gospel His at last is his own addition to Eusebius not the words of that Historian It is evident then that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels and on that account be called an Evangelist in a large sense as may also every on that preaches the Gospel but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church distinguished from Apostles Prophets Pastors Teachers c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about that it is more than insinuated He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist which is a Truth but very impertinent to his purpose because Daniel did the Work of the King who was no King but much lower than a King a very wise Consequence indeed That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm or ordain he affirmeth p. 112. which is both false he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise For the power of Confirmation we know none had it there being no such Ordinance in our Authors sense in the Apostolick Church It is also wide from this purpose for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be sent elsewhere on another Errand and yet both be Evangelists That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists is true in the large sense as before but not in the strick sense neither is this to our present purpose for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists in the Primitive Times were Bishops But what followeth is wholly false that any Bishop or Presbyter who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times If it were so every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct â—…m all other Church Officers for there were whom the Scripture doth particularly call Evangelists Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished § 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops and not Evangelists I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist whence it will appear plainly that Timothy and Titus were such and that there is no ground from what is said of them in
Scripture to think that they were ordinary Officers in the Church or Diocesan Bishops I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears Yet it is often taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit and so Matthew Mark Luke and John are called Evangelists 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches and propagating the Gospel That there was such an Officer distinct from all others both extraordinary or temporary and ordinary or permanent is evident from that place already cited Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer from all others Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church as Philip Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum saith qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset factus est Presbyter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus quales Evangelistae vocabantur Eph 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Esai 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim 3 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture or from Antiquity or by the help of later Writers The Scripture not only giveth us account as hath been said that there was such an Officer in the Church but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority as is evident in Timothy as is shewed § 12. and Titus whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels Gal 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about from Smectym § 3 p 38. That I may shun the pains of Transcribing Tichycus Softhenes Luke c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb hist lib 3 C 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers neither ordinary nor extraordinary Wherefore they must be Evangelists and from the account that we have of them we must gather what was the Power the Work and the Characteristick Note of an Evangelist that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches who was imployed by the Apostles and by them authorized to do what ever work or exerce what Acts of Power the Apostles themselves who imployed them might have done § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients it is to the same purpose they make them no fixed Officer but itinerant They ascribe to them Apostolick Power and make them subordinat to and delegated by the Apostles for this see Euseb hist lib 3 C 33 or as some editions have it 37 who telleth us of some who 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being sent Abroad performed the Work of an Evangelist and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been preaehing the Gospel planting the Faith in strange Places and ordaining other Pastors committing to them the Labouring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of them who were newly brought in and he addeth that they themselves went to other Countreys and People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them Euseb also hist lib 5 C 9 speaking of Pantaeus that he was sent as far as Judea he hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. There were many of the Evangelists who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to promote the Heavenly Word and to plant it and these Evangelists he saith they were prepared of purpose which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office Augustine de tempore Serm. 14 〈◊〉 calleth the Evangelists suppares Apostolorum which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles and far above the ordinary Bishops with which if we compare council Chalcedon which saith that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist as to set him in the degree of a Bishop or an ordinary Pastor in the Church Chrysost in Eph. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3ly Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel as Priscilla and Aquila Later Divines both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side tread in the same steps Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist on Acts 2 8 above cited but on 2 Tim 4 5 he calleth them adjutores Apostolorum quae saith he magna sane dignitas Scultet Piscat in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant tempore Apostolorum qui itinerum eorundam laborum socii erant qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias ut fundamenta jacerent quales Philippus Sylvanus alii Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi Grotius and Hamond on the same Text they were adjutores vel comites Apostolorum From all this it may be concluded that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word and considering the nature of their Office and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture they were not fixed to any particular Charge and consequently were not Bishops in the sense that we use that word If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation each to some Flock which is no ways done by what he hath yet said § 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem and he saith it is not material to his design whether he was one of the twelve Apostles or not One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles and if James was an Apostle this instance can never prove such Succession But I pass this I think he was one of the twelve because he is so called Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem save Peter and that he speaketh of that James who abode at Jerusalem when the rest of the Apostles left it is not to be doubted That James stayed at Jerusalem and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles I have acknowledged § 4. and there have given account how it came to pass That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan we deny not
was the Appointer of the first of them but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known after the Apostles and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted this Argument had been weak and the Hereticks might have insulted A. I deny that either he or the Hereticks could have any such advantage because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another they had no occasion to consider that in this Debate further than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church where there were more it was enough to confound the Hereticks that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days and they could tell them by whom What followeth p. 126 127. is a Repetition of the same thing about which I shall trouble him no more let him tell it over again as oft as he will He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church we know there are Worthy Men in that Church but we never thought them all infallible § 31. His third Enquiry is Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients in an Affair of this Consequence he saith no doubt we may and ought I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction and of some Doubting and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive without clearing the State of the Question And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case because our Author seemeth in pursuing this his Enquiry to confound two different Questions one is whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days Another is about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government as he wordeth it p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church whome some Men will call Bishops another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished Some of them lived in or near to the Apostolick times others of them some Ages after the Credibility of the former caeteris paribus is far greater than that of the later Because they had better causam scientiae and because tho Tradition without Writing may at first and under the best advantages soon and easily be corrupted yet by length of time and passing through many hands it is more apt to be depraved and that even without design For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients some of them are Spurious and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted and interpolated tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear others of them are Dubious so that it is sub judice whether they be credible Testimonies or not A second Distinction is of the things about which we debate our Author indeed doth distinguish in the Progress of the Debate between Matters of Fact and Matters of Opinion or Principle of which afterward I distinguish things on which our Faith or our Duty doth depend from these things that we are not so concerned in being merely Historical Passages or Debates about Natural or Politick Things in Matters of Fact of the later sort we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians and regard them at least some of them as Men of Learning yet so as not to believe their Histories nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason for the former sort of things I look on their Testimony as insufficient to perswade the Mind or clear the Conscience Scripture not the Fathers must be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Practice Distinction third These things that we Debate about are either determined in Scripture or not if not much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men who had much of the Mind of God in many things yet as was said before we must not blindly follow them over the Belly of Sense or Reason If they be Scripture light must be our Guide not the Opinion of the Fathers Listinction fourth The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous or they are Divided in the later case we cannot follow them but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded In the former their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice and may readily byass the Mind yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered or we must guess at them from dark Hints As the one sort can no way command our Faith so neither the other is to be received implicitly § 32. Out of these Distinctions this State of the present Question resulteth whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted My Antagonist is for the Affirmative I am for the negative for which I give these Reasons 1. We have no concurrent nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition and Unanimity about it If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point we shall quit this Argument Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head few of them have have written on it directly and of purpose and what they have said is but indirectly without considering the State of our Controversie which I am perswaded was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have written nothing many of the Writings of that time are perished there are different Opinions in this Debate among them whose Writings we have which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of for this last the rest are certain enough I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head is obscure and hard to be understood their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time which was plain enough to them who then lived but not so to us who know not their Idioms nor the Customs that they relate to as then known things they also used words in a far different sense than we do As Merit Pennance Bishop and such like It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture and Reason than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine and Spurious the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith or Practice
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
to greater Criminals 26. To restore Criminals 27. He had the Power of Excommunication 28. To delate attrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrat 29. They had great Power over Schools and Colledges 30. They were the Licensers of Books § 10. Quae non prosunt singula juncta juvant here is a large Muster Roll to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train that might have been to as much advantage drawn into a narrower Compass I shall first Make some general Observes on all this Heap of Prerogatives Next Examine them particularlie but very succinctlie For the former I observe 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at first more absolute and independent on the rest of the Ministers than afterward because at first there were hardlie any qualified Ministers but only Readers or such as could Catechise the People newly come out of Popery but when there was a better Stock of qualified Ministers and yet the Church but meanlie provided the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence and was little other than a constant Moderator and his Power was by every General Assembly abridged till that Office was at last abolished as no longer needful in the Church 2. It is not denyed but that there was an Imparitie between a Superintendent and another Minister but this was lookt on by our Reformers not as a standing Office nor as having any Foundation but that of present Necessitie so that it did no way derogate from that Paritie that they lookt on as the Way that the Church should be Governed and as what they intended when their Case should allow it But of this more afterward 3. All this cannot make the Superintendent and the Bishop to be the same Officer in the Church because the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Christ and his Soveraign power over the Presbyters is by Divine Appointment the other is set up by Men and more or less Power is given to him as they think fit The one is accountable to none but Christ the other is accountable to the Presbyterie and may be Censured yea Deprived by them The one is lookt on as what should always continue in the Church the other was designed but for that Exigency of the Church to be laid aside when that was over 4. Not a few of these Prerogatives are either asserted without Ground or Misrepresented To make out which I proceed to the second thing I proposed viz. To Examine them particularlie for the first The Extent of their District is no Argument for such Disparitie as he pleadeth for they had each of them their proper Charge as other Ministers where they were ordinarilie to Labour but had larger Districts for Visitation 2. Their Nomination by the Council and Election by the Nobility and Gentry is asserted without Ground Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it nor do I find any thing to that purpose in any of our Historians 3. A Superintendent could not be deposed but by the Ministers of the whole Province This necessarilie followed upon his Charge or Power of Visiting being of that Extent In that he was deposeable by the Ministers it is evident he was no Bishop in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bishop 4. The same reason was for his being Elected by the Ministers of the Province What our Author saith of the Ordination of the Superintendent is a foull Misrepresentation as any one may see in the place he citeth Spots hist. lib. 3. p. 159 160. Nothing is there mentioned but Election and Trial but on the contrarie it is expreslie said other Ceremonies than this Examination the Approbation of Ministers and Superintendents with the publick Consent of Elders and People we do not admit Whence it is evident that he had no new Office nor Ordination above a Presbyter § 11. His fifth Prerogative is He was not to be Translated from one place to another but by a Council of the whole Church This is no Episcopal Jurisdiction The Extent of his District to a Province made this necessarie there being no Judicature above his Province but a General Assembly 6. It is least of all Argumentative that he was to give good proof of his Qualifications by being some time in the Ministry because the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Ministry was the Rise of his Office therefore he must be the best qualified that can be had 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument he had more Work and Occasion for Expense by Travelling to Visit Churches than the rest had It is falslie alledged that Spots p. 210. saith it was agreed 1567. that the Superintendent should succeed to the Beneflces of the Popish Bishops deprived there is not such a word in that place only there and in the former page it is agreed that the Church should be restored to her Patrimonie 8. There being constant Members of the General Assembly saith no more but that there being so few qualified Ministers these few choice Men were needed in the Assemblies of the Church 9. His trying Ministers and Readers was from the present necessities of the Church when Presbyteries could not be had to do it 10. His giving Collation did follow on the former Power 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Minister fell to him and his Council He could not place a Minister by himself as our Bishops pretended to do but by the assistance of such Ministers as were fittest to judge these were his Council this also was for the present necessity and want of Ministers to make a Presbytery 12. His power of Ordination our Author passeth very slightly and with a general alleging of several Acts of Assemblies It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himself when no other Minister could be had to joyn with him but as soon as Presbyters could be had it was not so Our Reformers used no other Ceremonie in Ordination but Nomination and Tryal and Approbation and it is evident that these were to be performed by the Superintendent with the rest of the Ministers for Spotsw p. 155. sheweth out of the Book of Discipline that this Tryal and Approbation was to be performed by the learned Ministers appointed for their Examination then not by one Man alone 13. Subjection to him which our Author is pleased to call Canonical Obedience was a necessarie consequent of his Office but it is to be observed that in the Assemblie 1562 out of which he allegeth this Passage Superintendents were Tryed and Censured by the Assemblie and it was appointed that at every Assemblie they and Ministers and Elders should be Tryed as to their Conversation which looketh not like Episcopacy 14. His power of Visitation was indeed his main Characteristick but doth not prove Episcopal jurisdiction it being delegated to him by the Church and he being Accountable to her for it 15. His power of Deposing is expresly said to be given him by the Assemblie and he is ordered to report his
in Election of Principles and Rectors and in Auditing Colledge Accompts Ans. If this Argument had any Force it would prove that Apostles immediatlie sent by Christ must continue as long as Churches and Ministers because they were imployed to Erect the one and Ordain the other Yea he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance but that they were to Visit Churches and plant Ministers and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done and so they should for ever shut out in the Design of our Reformers not only Presbyteries but the Diocesan Bishops they were to do that Work in the present Exigence it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done § 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church It is taken from some Passages in Knox and the old Scots Liturgy about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents 1. The Necessity of them is asserted which I have answered before Next The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful not saith our Author so long as the present Exigence requireth The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution as well as the other he is said to be called of God and owned as a Minister of Christ they who will not submit to him are said to rebel against God and his Holy Ordinance In the Prayer after his â—…stallment is this Petition send unto this our Brother whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian c. Thus saith our Author our Reformers lookt on Superintendency whâ—… they composed this Form Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth to which he Knox p. 289. prefixeth this Inscription The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers at Edinburgh March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher also because in the Prayer Lothidn is mentioned which could not be in a general Form This Method John Knox at that time used It iâ— like it was usual to proceed in this Method to use these or the like Questions to Pray to that Purpose and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church it neither helpeth his Cause much nor hurteth ours 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery but it was an Application or Modification of the Ministerial Worâ— which at that time was necessary He will not say that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration beside that which maked him a Minister which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter 3. My main Answer is the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry whither he be to be a Superintendent or not and thâ—… it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversaâ—… layeth hold on in this Form of Election may fairly be understood witâ—… respect to the Persons Ministery to this Ministery he is called of Goâ—… with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ it is that which is called Gâ—… Holy Ordinance it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name anâ—… indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted goâ—… the Chief Charge of to be their Pastor Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance but whither it be such an Ordinance that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church which that present Exigence did force them upon by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution and a Superintendent too so far as that Office includeth the Ministry but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office it was of Man and not of God § 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument p. 150. which according to his wont of using the highest Confidence and biggest Words when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest he calleth Irrefragable It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them others for Increasing their Number and Placing them where none were before and that when the Church was of four years standing and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased One Petitioned that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed and that Superintendents Ministers and other needful Members should be Planted in their Places Whence he very wisely inferreth that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops This is mentioned by Spotswood but by none else as himself observeth Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing or all that he hath said but that the Churches found the necessity which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents not to be over in four years nor wholly in fourteen years though Qualified Men Increased yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church I look on the Increasing of their Number which must be a Lessening of their Districts not as tending to perpetuate them but on the contrary it was a reducing them by Degrees to the State of other Ministers by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes and so at last to one That they were needful Members of the Church at that time I doubt not but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops is a wild Fancy that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been and were to be Maintained by their Revenues He concludeth this head as is usual with him with Confident Rehearsing what he hath made evident The Judicious will judge
of his Performance and mine too I agree with him in what followeth p. 153 154. That the Superintendents when Churches were provided were no more to travel among them but I affirm when they were sufficiently provided their Work was Confined to one Parish and that Office ceased in the Church of which before § 19. He advanceth now p. 154. to another piece of his Work to consider our Reasons for the Temporariness of Superintendency The first of them that he nameth is the Force of Necessity there being so few Men qualified for the Ministry scarcely one in a Province against this he bringeth several Replies intermixed with an unbecoming Confidence and bitter Reflections The first is this Reason is inconsequential because that necessity might have been answered by dividing the Nation in as many Parishes as there were qualified Men and Lessening them as moe qualified Men could be had Ans. The course that was taken was materially the same that he proposeth only it was necessary that within these great Parishes the Minister or Superintendent of it call him as you will should have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Ministers who were set in the several little Parishes and who could neither dispense the Word sufficiently nor govern the Church and should have Power to plant qualified Men as soon as they could be found in these lesser Parishes and this was the Office of a Superintendent I hope the Reader will see that this Reply to our Reason is insignificant and that our Reason is not shewed to be inconsequential His second is this Reason destroyeth Parity for that could not be the Model that our Lord instituted which cannot answer the ends of its Institution as in this case Parity could not do for here the Church is reduced to that State that the Governours thereof forced by necessity must lay it aside for a time and establish a Prelacy Ans. This is stranger Divinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reason It supposeth if it have any Sense in it that all Gods Institutions and Injunctions do so serve for all the cases that can fall out that no necessity can excuse a temporal receding from the Observance of them Which to be evidently false shall be made appear in Answer to his third Reply which upon the matter is the same with this the Model of Government that himself and other Prelatists is for is lyable to the same Inconvenience and according to his Logick is none of Christs Institution He and the rest of them maintain that by the Laws of the new Testament there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bishop and yet they think themselves warranted by Necessity to allow Ordination without a Bishop Downam in his Sermon about Episcopacy hath this Passage posita enim Ecclesia aut in universum Episcopo destituta aut conferta Hereticis aut Idolatricis Praelatis quales Papistici sunt a quibus nulli Orthodoxi Ministri ordinationem sperare debent dubitandum non est quin prisci Patres in tali necessitatis casu ordinationem sine Episcopo fact a permiserint licet non ut regularem ordinarii Ecclesiae regiminis regulis respondentem efficacem tamen quae justificari possit ubi deest Episcopus I have not his Sermon by me in English and therefore use the Latine Translation And he citeth Concil Antioch C. 10. for it and pleadeth for it by several Reasons Here that Learned Person had in great Esteem in the Episcopal Church maketh two Cases of Necessity in which the Model he pleadeth for as Christs Institution must be receded from And if Prelatists may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Case of Necessity why may not Presbyterians allow a single Person to Ordain under the same Force and Cogency Also Forbes Iren. p. 158. seq not only asserteth but proveth the Force of Necessity to warrant such things withal asserting the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy and he insisteth at length to prove this Proposition from Scripture and Antiquity that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Bishop § 20. His Third Rply is it is strange Divinity that Paritie is of Christs Institution and yet may be laid aside in case of necessity and here he falleth heavily on G R. for asserting what this may be inferred from and taketh occasion to reproach him I find no more shew of reason in this part of his Discourse though there be many bitter and harsh words in it but this that if we may do so in one thing we may do so in all things Ans. I shall shew that this is no strange Divinity and then Answer his Reason against it It is not rare Divinity for I have already shewed that Dounham and Forbes Men of the first Rank among his own Partie teach the same That it is is not against Scripture nor Reason and therefore not strange I Prove 1. It is taught by Christ himself it was Gods Command that the Sabbath should be strictly observed the Law containeth no express exeption from this Rule yet our Saviour maketh the case of Necessity to be a just Exception in that he Defended his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day and that by other Examples where Necessity had the same influence Luke 6. 1 c. David appoved by Christ in the place cited thought it no strange Doctrine it was the Institution of God that none should eat the Shew Bread but the Priests David and his Men were no Priests and yet their Necessity did warrant their eating of it The Apostles thought it no strange Doctrine who though they knew that the Jewish Ceremonies were abolished and become unlawful to be used after the Resurrection of Christ and though Paul told the Galatians when the case of Necessity was now over that Christ should profit them nothing if they were Circumcised yet they enjoyned the Observation of some of these Ceremonies and pleaded Necessity for it Acts 15. 28. and 29 verses Paul Circumcised Timothy Acts 16. 3. used the Ceremonies proper for the Jewish votaries Acts 21. 23 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who observed the Jewish Ceremonies Rom. 14. 1. though out of that case of Necessity he severely condemneth that Observation Gal. 4. 9 10 11. 2. Reason as well as Scripture doth plead for this influence of Necessity on humane Actions For 1. Necessity I mean such as the Providence of GOD without our sin bringeth us into is a Declaration of GOD'S will now this cannot be contrarie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Word when the Word and Necessity seem to clash for they can never be truely inconsistent being both from GOD and if in that case we should sin by yielding to Necessity we should be under a Necessity of sinning which no Divine will say a man can be under without his own fault To take the present case for an Example let us suppose Church Government by Paritie is Christs Institution
obstante sacrorum canonum Authoritas laudabilis approbata consuetudo Ecclesiâ— servavit servat et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula scandalâ— est introducta rationaliter quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie postea a confecrantibus sub utraque a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur c. Also the Council of Trent Ses 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds yet they make a Law against it which cannot be changed but by the Church it self Let the intelligent Reader judge whether here be not a harmonie of Principles in this Matter of the Churches Power between these two Anti-Christian Councils and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ more than that of Man whether it be not more rational to say that seing it is evident that some Rules about the Passover which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness were afterward not observed by the Church and even by Christ himself who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force were appointed but for that present time and that the â—hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution and not from any Power that the Church pretended to to Alter what GOD had Instituted § 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is the Jews used a postcoenium of Bread and Wine after the Paschal Lamb This Christ not only complyed with but he adopted it into his own Religion and gave it a high Signification and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant c. here is another piece of his Divinitie which I confess is not so singular as the former for some pretenders to be Antiquaries and great Criticks have in this trode the way before him Answer If we should yield what they here demand as to Matter of Fact viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine after eating the Paschal Lamb and that Christ did the like will any rational Man say that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover For 1. Can they prove that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom or that he had any regard to it may not we do the same Action that another doth yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person or is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution Again if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah and their being utterly rejected of God for so doing for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie nor after it while the Maccabees lived Now can any Man think that Christ who had reproved their Religious Washings and other Ceremonies would be so fond of these which stood on the same bottom with them I further Answer that this Tradition of the Postcâ—nium is a groundless fancie I find no such Custom among the Jews of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium or two parts or Services in the Paschal Supper And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae p. 167. who out of Maimonides giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it Lightfoot also and Grotius give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi Addison also in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie describeth that Feast as Celebrated by them but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them but on the contrarie I find two things that they agree in which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine and Christ imitating of it The 1. Is the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups and Morsels they took so did not our Lord he Blessed the Meat that they eat no doubt and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions which were no fewer than Eight or Nine beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture which Reading they called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and other Composers of their own and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites he must prove it by good Arguments and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these Authors give of the Passover is that they begin with a Cup then they take the quantitie of Olive of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or bitter Herbs and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast then they eat what each one listeth and after some other Observations they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before and after they may eat nothing that Night here is no concluding with Bread and Wine for a Postcaenium Yea Capellus who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth for he telleth us that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive whence it clearly followeth that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium consisting of the same Materials If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations as he phraseth it their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog Judaic cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover and all the Rites of it hath these Words p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest Judaeos â—estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis vel Dei praecepto sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones â—â—lebrare quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta § 19. His next Work is to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days he had said it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church and this I called raving the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End To this he Answereth two things
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
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