Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
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
need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn when he p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation He Answered p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested This is far below what he had before said that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion c. and this Expression he Apoâ—ogizeth for ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion and that it was meant that they are very useful for it as the Exercises of Religion must be performed sometimes with Ordâ—r Uniformity and Society I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that Aâ—â—ertion Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense or not I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature We have the Mercat fallen very low from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty and Beeing of Religion first to this that inward Religion may do well enough without them next that they are not necessary but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion And then that External Religion needeth them only sometimes Further that it may subsist always without them but it will not in that Case be so Orderly as were needful Yet again it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion that they are any way useful so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed only these Churches are not like their Neighbours And lastly Religion Internal and External may have both its Beeing and Beauty in particular Persons though they observe no Holy Days only it is useful that if they think fit to go to Church and to Worship God in Society on these Days that they should observe them If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words it will tend much to Compromise our Differences He taketh it amiss that it was said that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass and this he disowneth The Ground of that Inference was for it was not charged on him further than that it followeth from his Principles that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion are in the Way to Hell yea though they understand it of External Religion which they are capable to Practise what can we think of the State of Presbyterians who do not yea will not and think they ought not observe the Holy Days if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments can have any Degree of Charity to them with respect to their Salvation unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion SECTION X. Of Schism THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism as one of the New Opinions the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this he taketh from one Person who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians neither did ever Write of Schism of set Purpose or fully but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us by Answering their Arguments However I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author or to yield to the Force of Argument if there be any thing which cannot be Defended My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general without which we may wrangle but not Dispute It hath been an ancient Practice and is frequent in later Times and in ours for different Parties to brand one another and that with fierey Zeal with the odious Name of Schismaticks without considering or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism but did more shew that there were Schisms among them and that they were Angry one with another and hold â—urth some particular Causes of these Heats than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism Some modern Authors have Written more disâ—inctly of it yet the particular Cause they were concerned for hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet Irenic p. 108. that the word Schism though it sound harsh it being often taken in an ill sense as it importeth a separation from a Church is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil according to the Ground Reasons Ends and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism the Formalitie of it must be â—etcht from the Grounds on which that is built He citeth also another Author Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used are Two Theological Scarcrows with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion use to fright away such as making Enquirie into it are readie to relinquish and oppose it if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious § 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers and others about the Nature of Schism it is needful to premise a few things 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie and therefore there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie yea where there need be no Unitie or where there can be no Unitie Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is it is needful to Consider what Unitie should and must be amongh Churches and among Christians There are several sorts of Unitie that we cannot have with all Churches as local Communion some that we need not have as Identitie of Rites some that we ought not to have with some Churches as Communion in false Doctrine or impure Worship 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered or in all the sorts of Churches In the Catholick Church visible and invisible in all the Combinations of Churâ—hes among themselves National provincial classical and in particular Comgregatious It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with and câ—eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie so that it is not
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
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
distinguisheth them than as the one word signifieth Office or ruling Power the other the Age of them who use to be put into that Office and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office yet not when it is joined with and distinguished from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is clear that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters as he had done several times in the Epistle as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rulers not one but more in the Church of Corinth and as they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 elder in years wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety § 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation that this Author pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel insisteth only on that which is of least weight even in the Testimony already mentioned as is above shewed and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings without so much as mentioning them Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned that Clement telleth us that the Apostles knowing per Dominum by Divine Revelation that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church so far were they saith Blondel from thinking Prelacy the best or only Remedie against Schism as some did in after ages He doth also shew how Clement teacheth that the Presbyters or Bishops for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons were set in the Church by the Apostles and after by other excellent men so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church not by the Bishop and Patron and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course need fear no Change And after sheweth how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth it had then stood as it is thought about 25 years should move Sedition against her Presbyters some turbulent Spirits among them withstood not a single Bishop of whom not a word in all this Discourse but the Presbyters of the Church and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters that were settled in it it seems he did not name the Bishop nor provided against Sedition against him because he knew no such person at Corinth And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters Now all this insisted on by Blondel he passeth by which was his wisdom and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath far less weight than these Passages have § 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp which is that writing to the Church of Philippi he taketh no notice of their Bishop that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons not mentioning the Bishop but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church His Answer to all this is first that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters while he saith Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself and answereth it fully and easily calling it nuda Conjectura and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself from his being the older man and the older Minister And being ordained by an Apostle which was a Dignity though it gave no Superiority of Power as being better known to the Philippians and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages where no Superiority of Power can be imported All this our Author passeth over in silence Next he saith this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie which is a mistake for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune which could not all be Diocesans and their Head the Bishop is not noticed and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative because as was above shewed of Clement he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned if such a person had been in that Church He will prove p. 51 that this can be no Argument for Parity Because first Irenâ—… refutes the Heresies of the Valentians from the unanimous Dâ—… preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp which could be no Argument if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters I ask him how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument Do not Ministers in any Church succeed one to another as well as Bishops And if they be faithful they will continue the true Doctrine and hand it down to their Successors as welâ— as Bishops would do Neither hath it any force that single Successon are mentioned for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie who is mentioned as more eminent though having but equal power If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine not by Episcopal power His other proâ—… is the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted of which our Author wâ—… speak in due time When he shall please to speak of Ignatius we shâ—… consider what he saith and hope to find that all the proof he caâ—… thence bring is insufficient Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book Ergo he approveth all that is in it 〈◊〉 he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles in that they assâ—… Prelacy that had been to the purpose otherways his Inference 〈◊〉 without all force § 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas in his Book calleâ— Pastor on whom he layeth very little stress as is evident to any whâ—… will read Blondel without prejudice and I think Blondel needed not 〈◊〉 have mentioned him both because he is of little Authority it beiâ—… most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book whether 〈◊〉 mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct witâ— respect to Hermas 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences froâ— him that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book wâ—… written which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circulâ—… Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement then Bishop 〈◊〉 Rome Answer This Evidence and the
the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church or it is wholly insignificant 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary for the Evangelical AEconomie is first said without Book he used his Libertie nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern Next the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church as he could do of the Jewish Church 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons the Servants of the Church were inferior to Presbyters the Rulers of it and this he setteth forth by the Similitude not binding Pattern of the Levites being inferior to the Priests whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were and the Deacons what the Levites were but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters whom he had been proving to be the same and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons 5. If he can shew us that any 〈◊〉 the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish to a Christian Hierarchie 〈◊〉 to infer that they should be alike or that they infer any more from 〈◊〉 than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers we shall consider what they say § 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome he taketh notice p 74 75. That Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius in which the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters is frequently and plainly expressed And after when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval after the Apostles in which the Church was governed by 〈◊〉 Parity of Presbyters This is a strange way of reasoning Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles Ergo though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine All that Jerome saith is that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians another to the Magnesians c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote and that Jerome mentioneth or that they are not vitiated 〈◊〉 will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles whether they be spurious or legitimate whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr or by an other of that Name long after but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters is in them frequently and plainly expressed When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done we shall consider them He bringeth another Evidence as he thinketh of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat 23. Quod fecerunt Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos Presbyteros ordinantes I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse of what he designed by that Expression but the words contain no Argument for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same Jerome might well say in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers whom we now distinguish by these Names What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason that this Constitution setting Bishops over Presbyters followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church because Jerome in Epistola â—…d Titum saith priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putaâ—…it esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony he must assert that Paul Apollos and Cephas 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs not Christs and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth which I hope he will not say It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men and after that Schism Bishops were set up which no man will say was in the Apostles time He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy p. 78 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places by the Apostles themselves The Answer is plain and easie the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches that â—…s Ministers who were to teach and rule them but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters â—…s the question and is not determined by this Argument § 12. He next citeth Jerome Epistola ad Nepotium Esto subjectus pontifici â—…o quasi animae parentem suscipe quod Aaron silios ejus hoc Episcopum Presbyteros esse neverimus This Citation is lame between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth there is besides other things this Passage sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse non Dominos honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos Ut ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis honâ—… deferatur scitum est illud oratoris Domitii cur ego inquit te habeâ—… ut Principem cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem Then followeth quâ—… Aaron c. And he addeth unus Deus unum Templum unum etiam 〈◊〉 Ministerium and he citeth to this purpose 1 Pet. 5 2 3. and addeth pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros praesentibus Episcopis non loqui quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time and not of what was the Apostles practice or what was Divine Institution and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose for our present Debate is whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution Next it is also manifest that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were theâ—… aspiring to not approving the way of that time We deny not the in that Age the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached
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
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
Apostle was said to sit but that of Jerusalem the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches but not Apostles and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick than that of Canterbury or York c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors tho not so immediatly as those mentioned 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth were not so early made as he would insinuat they do indeed begin with early things and guess at what past in or near the Apostles Times but we do not find that such Coâ—…ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years â—…er Christ except some little account by Irenaeus and these that are â—…nt are so perplext and do so disagree with one another that nothing can be concluded from them with any certainty particularly in the Succession at Rome there is no certainty that Peter was there nor who were after him the same might be shewed of others of them 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues but that in the first Ages of the Church there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches whom after Ages called Bishops but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had nor whether they ruled these Churches alone or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters As Gers-Bucer expresseth it p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint sed quales Episcopi suerunt quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power for 1. That is not always done Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest or the Praeses of their Meeting or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches but to shew a Succession of Pastors and of sound Doctrine Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches but in some that were of most Note § 28. His second Enquiry and Observation p. 119. is In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand His first is Irenaeus Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docuerunt neque cognoverunt quale ab his deliratur What can be hence inferred further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops from the Apostles time which is not to our Question That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians is not probative of our Authors point what he addeth out of Irenaeus Quos Episcopi successoru relinquebant suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes is not concludent for 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place but of all the Pastors of the Churches whom we maintain to have been a Plurality 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority for that was to his purpose that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters he hath cited no place for it and if he had it importeth no more but that special notice was taken of the Praeses beyond the rest of the Presbyters it can never prove sole nor superior Jurisdiction Another Citation out of Irenaeus that I may not transcribe all the words is no more but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias which we deny not seing it may be understood of all Presbyters and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops because of their Age on the contrary I plead that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office because Preaching Power was committed to them and not to Bishops only and it is of that he is speaking as that by which the Valentinian and other Heresies were condemned Another Testimony out of Irenaeus we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum Dei acceperunt I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter or Pastor of the Church nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference viz. Ye see here that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same in the Language of Irenaeus None can see this unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters in our Opinion which he should refute not suppose it to be false 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus but a part of it to wit Charisma veritatis certum which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans the Church would be ill served if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth seing they cannot preach to all their People and in our days seldom preach to any of them He bringeth another wonderful Argument which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing the Prophesy saith he which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate in the Room of Judas I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this unless he would infer Matthias succeeded to Judas Ergo the Bishops and they alone succeed to the Apostles which is much more ridiculous than what he a litle before he charged Beza with If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick it is captio ab homonymia § 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father and Holy Martyr I have lately Answered in a Debate on this Subject with I. S. I am not willing to repeat yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth Cyprian saith Apostolos id est Episcopos Praepositos Dominus elegit His Objection hath its own Answer Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos Praepositos the President Bishop and the Presbyter and he calleth them both Apostles because they succeeded to the Apostles I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos least he make Cyprians sense to be Apostolos i. e. Episcopos i. e. Praepositos Another Citation quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini quando aliqui de Presbyterie nec Evangelii nec loci sui memores neque futurum Dei judicium neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes quod nunquam omnino
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
his Point we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and stated Days for this Commemorating Worship and maintain that Christ hath appointed Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration and he telleth us the Church hath Commanded it also to be done and there is an End § 11. He next bringeth somewhat like Reason the Church may appoint these Seasons which are but Circumstances of time as well as the Jewish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer at which the Apostles were present Acts 2. 15. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and express Institution of GOD but were kept by an Appointment and Custom of their own Ans. 1. He doth injuriously insinuate that we require an immediate and express Institution for the Days that we will observe where have we ever said so let him Prove an Institution either by express Words or good Consequence or Apostolick example or by anie good Medium and we shall acquiesce 2. The Appointing Holy Days is more than determining a Circumstance of Time It is a sequestering of these Days perpetually from Civil to Sacred Use it is to give them a relative Holiness as far as Mans power can reach by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercises of Religion it is a Dedication of such a part of our time to GOD so as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time and so making a difference among Days which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie the Apostles Rom. 14. 5. counted it a weakness in some who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus slightlie what they did was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They distinguished days one from another and that with respect to Religion which could not be without judging one of them better and more Holy than another and so it is Expounded by Erasmus and Vatablus Eslius turneth it eligit unum prae alio is this no more but determining a Circumstance Beside the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circumstances of Worship as we please but when it is Necessarie that a Circumstance that relateth to Worship must be determined and it is not determined by the Lord in Scripture in that case Men may and must Determine it but this is not the Case in hand there is no need that a stated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Mysteries of our Redemption seing the Lord himself hath appointed his own Day for that End and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration 3. For the Jewish Church appointing hours of Prayer It is to be Considered that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice And these Hours of Prayer were appointed by God not the Church It is true Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewes were obliged to Observe everie day and on their Festivities they added a Fourth but this was in the degenerat times of their Church as the Papists have their Canonoical hours Maimonides indeed telleth us that Esdras made Forms of Prayer and they appointed the Number of Prayers according to the Number of the Sacrifices but it cannot be Proved that these Constitutions were of that Antiquitie § 12. He further reasoneth thus p. 171. there is something Analogical in the Christian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews which are not the less Acceptable because Voluntarie but rather the more as long as they are within the Circle of these things which he hath Commanded Ans. If we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies and make these a Warrant for modes of Religious Worship there shall be no end of devising new Ways of Worshipping God while yet Men keep within the Compass of what is Commanded as to the Substance of their Service In this case the most fancieful Contriver and Inventer of what is New fine and gaudie shall be the best Divine and there shall be no end of Contention for what this Bishop thinketh a fine way and Anological to what is Commanded another shall think unfit We have cause to bless the Lord that he hath given us a more sure Rule for our Direction even the Scripture 2. These Days Invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes for these were Commanded in general and a Warrant given for them and Directions given how they should be Managed Levit. 1. 3. and 3. 16. and manie other places nothing of this can be said of the Holy Days People may Pray as oft as they will and so may the Church meet as oft as she will for Religious Service as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pleased but the Jews were never allowed to set up stated Days and to separate them from other Days for their Free-will-offerings no more are Christians allowed to do so with respect to Prayers and Praises 3. If Modes of Worship or stated Days for them be not less Acceptable because Voluntarie there could be no such thing as Will Worship which yet the Scripture condemneth and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teach for Doctrine the Commandments of Men viz. about Religious Worship which is contrary to Maâ—th 15. 9. I confess Prayer and Praises are not the less accepted because Voluntarie for these are Commanded Duties but to separate Days from Common use to these Exercises and that without special occasion and constantly when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end this is not Commanded in general nor in particular nor hath any Analogie with the Jewish Free-will-offerings this we Assert not to be within the Power of the Church if he think it is he must Prove it He sayeth the Doctrine of Presbyterians is contrary to all Christian Churches and he telleth us of Citations to this purpose by Durellus No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us but such an universal Assertion cannot be Proved by a Thousand Instances if we can bring one instance to the contrary and for this we adduce the Apostolick Church I have also § 4. mentioned Churches and Learned Men in them who are as far from his Opinion in the Matter of Holy Days as from ours I shall now add some more Luther lib. ad Nobilitatem Germanicam Art 5. consultum esse ut omnia Festa aboliantur praeter diem Dominicum And lib. de bonis operibus Utinam saith he apud Christianos nullum esset Festum nisi dies Dominicus That Calvin was really against them all though for Peace he yielded to some few of them I have shewed above Bucer in Math. 12. p. 118. hath these Words Ferias alias sive Dei-pari Virginis sive Christi sive Sanctorum Nomine commendatae sint optarem abrogatas universas And he bringeth strong Reasons for his Opinion while he addeth Primum enim constat nullo Dei verbo invectas ubi enim in Apostolicis Scriptis aliquid de Natali Christi de Epiphania similibus facile crediderim Zelo Dei a veteribus introductas
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
the Case of Martialis and Basilides who Sacrificed to Idols Ep. Synodal apud Cyprian quae est 65. § 1 3 4. where after many Words to this Purpose are these Propter quod Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini Deum metuens a peccatore Praeposito separare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misâ—ere quando ipsa maxime habeat Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi A second Cause was Haeresie Irenae lib. 1. c. 13. Opportet longe fugere ab eis speaking of Haereticks Origen Homil. 7. in Ezek. alloweth one to separate from his Bishop Si habueris saith he occasionem Doctrinae pâ—ssimae aliena ab Ecclesia dogmata Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. telleth us that at Antioch many of the Clergy and People withdrew and set up private Assemblies when three Arrian Bishops Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were set over them And lib. 2. c. 24. that they did the like when Leontius who favoured the Arians was set up and that Flavianus and Diodorus took the Charge Vincent Lyrin adversus Haer. c. 16 relateth of Photinus Bishop of Sirmium a Man of great Abilities that when the People discerned his Error Quem anteâ— quasi Arietem Gregâ—s sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere coeperunt Thirdly The Scandalous and Wicked Life of a Bishop which the Words cited out of that Synodal Ep. in Cyprian a little above do plainly bear and Irenae lib. 4. c. 44. Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptatibus non praeponunt â—imorem Dei in cordibus suis sed contumeliis agunt reliquoâ— principalis confessionis tumorâ— elati sunt in absconsis agunt mala ab omnibus absistere opportet I shall not now determine whither this was sound Doctrine if it be understood of Peoples deserting their Pastor for his Personal Immoralities before the Sentence of a Church Judicatorie be interposed I only relate the Opinion of the Ancients Origen indeed saith Homil. 7. in Ezech. that they should not for his Scandal desert the Faith that he Preached But he speaketh nothing of their deserting his Ministrie nor contradicteth the rest whom I have cited § 9. I now come to consider what Apprehensions Modern Writers have had of Schism And here were a large Field to Expatiat in If I should Examine all or most of them so many have written on this Subject and so different their thoughts are of it Wherefore I chuse one whom I think my Antagonist will not except against the Learned Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic p. 109. The Sum of whose Discourse is all are bound to joyn into some Church Societie and being so joyned should continue in that Societie till his Communion with them becometh Sin Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church Communion and consequentlie warranteth Separation he supposeth that Corruption in the Essentials of the Constitution of the Church may warrant it but where there are Corruptions crept into a true Church yet remaining such he saith the Question is whither we may separate from such a Church for purer Administrations particularly whither we should separate from a Church because of Corruptions in the â—xercise of Discipline he determineth it that one may separate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice which are avowed and owning them is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church he alloweth in that Case not only Noncommunion but a total and positive Separation but he telleth us that where Soundness of Doctrine is retained but some Corruptions in Practice are tollerated but not imposed Separation is unlawful on that Account He saith thirdly where Doctrine is sound but some unlawful or suspected Practice is required to be owned and conformed to denying of such Conformitie and Communion with the Church in these things is lawful but positive Schism or erecting Altare contra Altare is not lawful These are Concessions of that profoundly Learned Writer Against which I have nothing to object but what I have elsewhere Debated with him viz. Where some unlawful or suspected Action is required to be done by Ministers or People and if the Church so imposing will not suffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances unless they will conform in these both they must do for keeping a good Conscience and he alloweth them a Negative and Partial Separation and the Church forceth them on a Positive and Total Separation what shall they do in that Case either they must live without Gospel Ordinances or they must set up Meetings wherein they must have them the former is unreasonable the latter is that Positive Separation which he condemneth I with he or any else would tell us what is to be done in that Case Let us then improve that general and indisputable Maxim that we ought not to joyn with any Church however commendable she be in many things when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is our Personal Sin and that other Truth which cannot be denyed that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacraments with the Church unless they will do that which is sinful or that they after their uttermost Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching apprehend to be sinful they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments and it will clearly follow that a positive Separation even from a true Church and setting up a Church in a Church is not only lawful but is a Dutie and the Sin of that Schism doth not ly on them who so leave the Church or are driven from her but on that Church which requireth such unlawful Terms of Communion and imposeth them with such Rigour § 10. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schism I proceed to Examine what my Adversarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyterians to be Schismaticks which he attempteth without making any Distinction among them though he knoweth there were different Practices among them with respect to joyning in Communion with the Episcopal Church He saith there is not a Church on Earth with which they can joyn in Communion without fear of being polluted It was Answered that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland France when the Protestants had their Assemblies there and Geneva c. It was not said by the Author whom he refuteth that we dislike several things in these Churches but by him and it was Answered we can communicate with a Church that is not so pure as we wish what we dislike we shun the Practice of it but do not for that refuse to communicate with the Church where it is found His Refutation of this is at this rate it will be hard to find Schismaticks in all the Records of the Church This is most false for some did cast off Communion totally with the Church and set up separate Meetings when they could blame no part of Church Practice but had Quarrels with the Persons that governed the
a Religious Conversation but differed from the Church without cause in matters of lesser moment The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies acknowledged to be such but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these which they could not do without wounding their Conscience If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church on on frivolous pretences as he supposeth p. 222 he gaineth what he contendeth for but he findeth it easier to suppose this than to Prove it It was said by his Antagonist that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors which Presbyterians do not the Bishops being none of our Pastors He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians in their Erecting Altar against Altar Answer 1. That is not all that we plead for as is clear from what hath been said I have shewed § 8. Cases in which even lawful Pastors may be forsaken and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them But I say 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule And I am willing that Matter be Determined 1. By the strength of Argument if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to we must yield 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church which was positive plain and unanimous in this that the People should chuse their own Bishop and other Church-Officers see Instances Enquirie into the Constitution c. of the Primiiive Church c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog Test veritat p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation in any Man to a People on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical and without their own Consent This is our case the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government the Magistrat not the Church made a Change and set Men over the People to be their Bishops whose Office they could not own and whose Persons they had no concern in I Question whether the Primitive Church I mean the first Ages would have counted it Schism to disown such and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors who had been called by them setled by Church Authority among them and laboured among them to their Comfort and Edification His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris is contrarie to Petavius rationar tempor lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him his Assertion p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church is so false that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it If he understand it of Preaching Deacons he should have said so and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church § 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks is from the Doctrine of Cyprian of which he is so confident that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator not a Diocesan to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings If I had read much more than either he or I have I should not so often nor so superciliously vilisie others If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now undertaketh to refute Which Book I have Answered with such reading as I could attain both of Cyprian and other ancient Writers in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written before I saw it I am not willing to Transcribe it being the most part of that Book He may read it if he thinketh fit and if he or any other will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age I shall be willing to be Informed by him His Triumphant Conclusion p. 225. evanisheth into smoak if what hath been said be duly Considered He begineth another Debate about Preaching Moralitie which he passeth in a Word overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head While it was told him that not all the Clergy but he and such as he was so blamed Also that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured but Applauded and lookt on as necessarie but what we Quarelled was that some do only Preach Moralitie and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit by which they should obey the Law acceptably and the Righteousness of CHRIST on account of which they and their Works that are moraly Good should be accepted and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed to shew his Mistakes in that Matter to all which he maketh no Return but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print nor heard him and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it but much more occasion was given for so thinking from a large Discourse in his Book that I was then Refuting Vindicating their way of Preaching in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST and the influence of his Spirit by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing as he hath done the Third time an Error of the Press which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author this I say sheweth the Mans temper I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious than it will on the Person whom he would Defame SECTION XI Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed whether by Bishops or the Pastors of the Church acting in Parity We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way in this Matter because of the Silence and Defectiveness of the History of these times and therefore it is a Mis-representation when he saith that we hold that they were Presbyterians if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense as made up of Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies we suppose they had a Government in that Church and that it was Managed by Church Officers and directed by the Word of GOD as they then understood it for this we can bring no other Proof but that they were Christians and we owe them that Charity having
which are the Work of the Minister not of the Elder § 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it is that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted for it not only was the way of the Apostolick but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages as I have shewed Rational Def. of non conformity § 6. p. 197. c. and should now further have Debated it with him if he had insisted on it He misrepresenteth our Opinion while first he saith we maintain this Right to be unalterable whereas we think a People may lose it as to its present Exercise by their inhability or negligence and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church While 2dly He insinuateth p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People without due Restrictions and Limitations We think the People in this as in all their other Religious concernments are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery Congregational or Classical Instead of Arguing against this Way he laboureth to cast Dirt on it which easily may be wiped off I have proved in the Place Cited that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent or Objecting against them but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe for the 36. Canon of the Apostles it is Mihi 37. which he Citeth not only we Reject it with the rest as not Authentick nor Probative but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office and Charge Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent as well as without theirs that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike either on the part of the Pastor or of the People after Ordination which should not excuse them from mutual Duties and so it is nothing to our purpose How popular Election would hinder Uniformity more than the Patrons Election doth iss hard to be understood That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals doth not always hold People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning and more Religion than themselves And if they be of such perverse Inclinations they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery What he saith of the scandalous effects of Popular Election I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions were far more visible frequent and horrid when Bishops were otherwise chosen there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops in the Later Primitive times after that Office was settled in the Church What are we concerned more than his own Party is in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another Is any Church accountable for either the Follies yea or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members further than to Rebuke or Censure them according to the degree of Offence given when they come to be known I know of no such Wagers laid among our People tho may be there is too much of being Puffed up for one against another as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive timeâ— is most absurd if he mean that a great regard was not had to it as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church if he mean that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians and no more lookt after it is false and injurious § 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one Pâ—esbyterian and which had been sufficiently wiped off but he is resolved not to be satisfied I am wholly indifferent whether he be or not And yet this Charge he only mentioneth and therefore I shall not insist on it neither but it seems this was but Introductory to what he intended which is he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops I have abundantly Cleared this Matter and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius in 3d. Sect. of this Work § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh He telleth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisiâ—â—h properly to help one that is ready to fall this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith and higher in Authority of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop the Praeses A most ridiculous way of Arguing For 1. It supposeth the Question that Bishop or the Praesides Presbyterii are higher in Authority which we cannot yield 2. It can be far better applyed to Deacons who relieve them who are ready to Perish Next saith he Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of A. What Grotius saw I know not nor am concerned to know Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue that we must know these that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet may be might one say the Apostles by Baptism by casting out of the Church c. understood some other thing than we do at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek and we know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in that Language if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now he should have Proved it and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue he should have shewed it and not thought us so â—ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess built on a Possibility where he cannot shew so much as Probability His Advice hath been followed before it was given in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design He hath another Argument from the Context which yet is the same above-mentioned and Answered that the Apostle having in the preceeding v. he should have said in the same v. distinguished the several Offices c. that were then