Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All
sayeth Eccles. Polic. lib. 7. 3. 69. that GOD'S Extraordinarie Works have Sanctified some times Advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD more Holy than other times and afterward as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Presence Sanctifies some Places so His Extroordinarie Works Sanctifie some times from this the Author of Dâ—â—f of Vind. inferred justly that the Church in chusing another Day acteth Arbitrarily and unwarrantably and Absurdly neglecting the â—ay so Sanctified It was also told him that it is a probable Argument at least that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Observed on account of CHRIST'S Birth seing He hath concealed from us what Day it was that CHRIST was Born especially seing He hath Instituted the observation of the Day of Christ's Resurrection viz. the Weekly Sabbath He hath told that it was the First Day of the Week all this my Adversarie hath overlookt as either not worthy of his Notice or as easily Answered I look on his Citation out of Austine as not to this Purpose when he sayeth nos Dominicam diem Pascha Coelebramuâ— alias dierum celebritates sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora observamus sed quae illis Significantur temporibus this indeed Proveth that Augustin thought that these were not to be Observed for themselves but for the Mysteries that were Commemorated on them but it no way evinceth that he thought there was no need of chusing the Days themselves on which the thingsCommemorated were Acted but one Day of the Year might be as fit as another as the Church should Determine § 22. It is unreasonable to put it on us to disprove that Christ was born Dec. 25. as he doth p. 192. For that we cannot do so well as by fixing on some other Day and proving that to be the Day of the Nativity which we pretend to be uncertain it rather is his part to prove who affirmeth that our Lord was born on that Day And yet if it were needful for our Cause probable Arguments might be brought whicâ— may incline us rather to think that he was born at another Season of the Year some of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity was in September or in October But whatever may be the Concernment of our Adversaries it is no Concernment to us what was the Day it is enough to us that the Mystery it self is firm and sure The Reader may find this Question about the Day and Moneth of the Nativity Learnedly handled by our Countrey Man Master Bailly operis historici Chronologici lib. 2. quaes 7. p. 42. seq where he concludeth with Spanhemius Mensem Diem Natalitium a nemine determinari debere nec posse cum de iis Scripturae silent nec quicquam certi primis Ecclesiae Christianae seculis a quopiam prolatum sit He had been charged by the Author of Def. of Vind. with Shuâ—â—ling in that he had pleaded God's Appointment for Holy Days because God hath appointed that we should obey the Apostles and their Successors as our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers because though we are to obey the Apostles whom we know to have been Infaâ—â—ibly Guided we are not to obey their Successors real or pretended further than they bring Divine Warrant which cannot be shewed for Holy Days He endeavoureth to clear himselâ— from Shuffling by telling us that there was no more meant than that the â—hurch may by that Power which is perpetually lodged in her Regulate the Publick Solemnitieâ— of Worship and when she enjoyneth nothing but what is lawful we ought to obey Here is Shuffling to Excuse his former Shuffling he is entangled by Wrestling to Extricat himself For he supposeth the whole Question that there is a Power perpetually lodged in the Church to appoint Holy Days otherwise he saith nothing to the purpose Again he supposeth that appointing of Holy Days is as much in the Churches Power as other Regulating of Publick Solemnities whereas he should have considered if he would have Explained and not Confounded and Darkened the Matter that there is a Regulating of Publick Solemnities which lyeth in determining Circumstances which must be determined and yet are not determined in Scripture such as the Time Place and Order of these Religious Actions that the Lord hath appointed his Day to be spent in there is another Regulating which is adding to what the Lord hath appointed more Days to his Day new Religious Ceremonies to these which are of Divine Institution or determining Circumstances which neither are determined by God nor need to be deterned such as are more Holy Days than Christ hath appointed the Churches Power about the first sort we do not controvert her Power about the second is the Subject of our Question and here he either supposeth the Question viz. That the Church had such Power or he saith nothing to the purpose Yet further when he speaketh indistinctly of Apostolick Power and that of their Successors as to this Regulation if he mean no more than such Regulation as is always in the Churches Power he giveth the Successors of the Apostles the same Regulating Power that themselves had the Consequence of which is that their Successors I suppose he meaneth the Bishops may institute new Offices new Government new Discipline and all other Ordinances in the Church as the Apostles might which is full as high as the Papists Screw up the Power of the Church and is indeed to make the Bishops absolute Lords over God's Inheritance And this he confirmeth by telling us that the Apostles made Constitutions that were laid aside by their Successors and other Usages came in their Room but because he saw this lyable to Exception he distinguisheth betwixt greater Usages that are variable unless they are equally subservient to the great Ends of Discipline in all Ages and Countries nisi consuetudine Ecclesiae universae sint roboratae and lesser Usages whose Continuance and Abrogation may depend on the Convenience of particular Churches and he giveth an Instance in the Deaconesses which he saith are not in the Presbyterian Meetings nor any Reformed Churches If he would have Extricated himself from the Shuffling that was imputed to him he should have given us some Rules or Characters by which we might discern what Constitutions of the Apostles are to be accounted Great and Unalterable and what Small and Changeable by their Successors if Marches be not clearly Rid here we are at a Woful Uncertainty yea bold Men may dare to meddle with Episcopacy it self and pretend that it is one of the lesser Apostolical Constitutions if they did at all appoint it The Marks that he hath given us are very insufficient their universal Subservience to the Ends of Discipline will be as much controverted as whither they be great Constitutions or not he saith Bishops and Holy Days are such we deny it and will Debate it with him and so we are still in
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
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
Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
work if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls by spiritual Advices and Directions that is common to him with the Teacher before mentioned in this Text and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers § 7. For Grotius's notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I oppose first by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers 2. By the force of the word the native and genuine signification of which is to help uphold or support one who is in hazard to fall which I am sure is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work or to a troubled Soul by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop That learned Critick saith it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to strengthen and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere because the seventy translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is a strange Argument to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be turned manu ducere It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 23. 19. Heb 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt for who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not the same signification neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it is constructed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand laid hold on by another being that by which one is supported that he fall not as he goeth and it is evident that the force of that word in these places doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way as his manutenency by which they are supported From all which it is plain that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius why we should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood Further if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care when the word properly signifieth upholding to which indeed care is often needful but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me where that word in any of its derivata is used and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless § 8. These of our Episcopal brethren who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office will possibly say that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place in the Lists of Church Officers viz. under the name of Apostles Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book which I am now examining what I have now to do is to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate which may plainly appear if we consider first that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words and not into them Yea Grotius and Estius on 1 Cor. 12 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned have these words Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos à Christo in id vocatos ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent And Doctor Hamond saith these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent regerent eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church 2. It cannot be denyed even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were none will say that they are wholly the same more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary who were sent immediatly by Christ to plant Churches and ordinary who succeed to these and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists under the same name of Apostles is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected for in these Enumerations he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant must give us some better ground for believing this than a Synonimous word I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do a sort of Apostles this is to expound Scripture at pleasure and indeed to make it speak what we fancy I conclude then that Bishops have no Divine right for them seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church both at first for planting of it and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World and no Diocesan Bishop name nor thing is to be found among them § 9. A third Argument for Parity and against Prelacy I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline Mat. 18 17 that the offended Party when other more private means of Redress do fail should lay the case before the Church whence this Argument doth clearly result that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many is not Jure Divino lodged in one person but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment is to be exercised by many Ergo it is not Jure Divino in the hand
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
that there was a Hierarchy undâ—… the Old Testament whence this Conclusion is necessary that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful If I were a Papist and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God Priest and People were subject whence this Conclusion is necessary that or single person be Head of the Universal Church is not in its self simplicâ—ter unlawful This Author is in a great Mistake if he imagine that 〈◊〉 say that Episcopacy is simpliciter and in it self unlawful we think that Christ might have set up Bishops yea a Pope with such limited Power 〈◊〉 his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church if so it had seemed good to Him And if He had 〈◊〉 done we should cheerfully have submitted to the one or the other wherefore our Question is not what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution but what He hath appointed as the way how He will haâ—… His Church governed The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent essential Powâ—… of the Apostles which he maketh to be perpetual from the extrinsick aâ—… extraordinary Priviledges and Advantages of that Power sutable to the fiâ—… Plantations of Christianity which he maintaineth to be Transitory and 〈◊〉 have ceased when they died § 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts nor Infallibility nor in their immedâ—… Call nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection and hâ—… proveth of each of these that others beside the Apostles had these Priviledges These things are asserted Dictatorie but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions It is not any where told us in the Word what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office and what is accidental or extrinsick to it and therefore we must be very Waâ—…e in determining so positively in this Matter It might be expected that this Gentleman who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right requireth of them plain Proofs else they must be lookt upon as Impostors p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy but here we are disappointed He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these preaching Power with Administration of the Sacraments Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church and that with Rule over all Churches an immediate Call extraordinary Gifts Infallibility to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles and none else are Apostles and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle which agree to Apostles omni soli semper and consequently they complexly taken are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office for we know not the Essences of things but by their first and essential Properties how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own § 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others on both sides about the Matter of the Apostolate or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it which yet is not his but is borrowed from the Papists But I first observe that Christs twelve Disciples who are by way of Eminency called Apostles arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power by degrees they were first called to be Believers and afterward were sent forth as Preachers Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him for some time in neither of these Degrees had they any Church Power except that of Preaching and Baptizing they were no Church Rulers for there was as yet no Gospel Church to be ruled but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church at last our Lord after his Resurrection gave them their Apostolick Commission by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office and sent them out both with Authority to Teach gather and setle and to govern Churches and their complete Ordination or solemn setting them apart for that Office by which also they were furnished for the Discharge of it above what they had been before was when the Spirit was poured out on them on the day of Pentecost they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18 10 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission as may be gathered from Act 1 4 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true others beside the Twelve got some Drops of that heavenly Shower but they had not the same Commission with them and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them nor fit them for Apostolick Work Another thing that I here observe is that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner though the Word is sometime used at large yet it is applyed to them so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself in the Inscriptions of his Epistles but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1 2. Now our enquiry is wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had who by way of Eminence were called Apostles or what are the Characteâ— that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers If we can arrive at any Light in this it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles as some plead or their Successors as others imagine § 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word but p. 210. he telleth us that the Twelve were called Apostles from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ and that our Lord made use of the word Sending as applied to them in the proper and peculiar sense And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same that he maintaineth that 〈◊〉 Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples Whitaker against Bellarm de Pontif Romanâ— who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter not in his extraordinary but his
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
p. 181. 182. The first is that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments to which they are subordinate as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises I still think this is no sober Doctrine for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment even the Christian Sabbath Beside it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities though not in a separated Notion yet in a distinct Notion from the Word and Sacraments and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without than with Mans devices I mean the Holy days because having no Institution they have not the Promise of the Blessing and are but vain Worship but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People than the Holy days can have therefore there is a more Efficacious mean for that end what ever notion he take the Holy days in But the Reader may know that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him but several others of that or a higher strain which were Examined but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them with this shift he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologiâ— I find him at leasure for as needless Work as it were to Clear to us these and the like Passages do we not see all Nations agree in this that publicke Solemnities and annversarie Festivities and Fasts are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion this is a soaring flight of his fancie they preserve and increase our Mortification They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually and make more lasting Impressions than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men all the Sermons of the Presbyterians no doubt are here meant the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them he passeth over in silence the Reason is if ye will believe him not that he could not Answer all but because he was not at leasure A second Answer he bringeth is that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments and other Exercises of Religion and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision either formal or objective of the Holy day from the Religious Work of it while they Celebrate it without going to Prayers in idleness or that which is worse I know this is not the intent of the Church yet it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration I mean in Practice what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them will evanish if we consider that our Question is not whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses and Effects that he speaketh of for that we are agreed in that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion they preserve and increase our Mortification â—hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent c. that is they are Means adapted to these Ends but that which we Debate is whether these Ends may not be attained as well by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed or if the Holy days be necessarie or the Religious Exercises as performed on the Holy days be ne cessarie for that End This we deny and we require that they may Prove it And the Question is not whether the Holy days separated from Religious Exercises are abominable but whether Religious Exercise or the times of GOD'S Appointing it to wit the Weekly Sâ—bbath's without the Holy days be defective I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days in themselves or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack but such a time being separated for such an Exercise receives its Denomination from the Authoritie and Exercise it self by which it is distinguished from other Days This seemeth to be shuffling and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination even a relative Holâ—ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times So Hooker above Cited He should have told us whether he understandeth this relative Holiness or a mere Denominative Holiness that they are called Holy but there is nothing of Holiness in them even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to He doth indeed tell us that they are called Holy days by a relative and extrinsick Denomination which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible he Chargeth others with non-sense and gross ignorance on less Ground a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days which yet he seemeth to disown again If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted and the Exercises performed in them can communicate a relative Holiness to them wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days It hath no more but a relative Holiness resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it The Difference then must be only this that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making these a relative Holiness of Mans making and so Man as well as GOD shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days and consequently to Places and other Things and how much of the Popish Superstition and Power of Consecration that will bring in I know not neither I suppose was himself aware of it I think it is evident that the first Day of the Week which we own as the LORD'S Day hath no intrinsick Holiness of it self the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodiâ—k as maketh up the Number of Eight from where we begin to Count doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath he must prove that such Power is granted to her I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion What he Objecteth
Evividence of what is agreeable to true Reason I deny both these Propositions 1. How will he prove that all Nations were agreed about the Necessity and Usefulness of Holy Days Or I distinguish this Proposition all Nations are agreed in general that there should be some Religious Holy Days if I should put him to the Proof of this it might puzzle him but for our part we think it of great Use and necessary also necessitate praecepti whatever may be said of the necessitas medii we think it a Wise and Excellent Constitution of the Divine Will that we have recurrent Days I mean the Christian Sabbath and Occasional Times of Solemn Worshipping God but that all Nations are agreed about the Necessity of Holy Religious Anniversary Days of Mans Appointing this is yet unproved the Jewish Holy Days till that Church fell into manifold Apostacy were appointed by God the Heathenish Religious Rites and their Holy Days among the rest were appointed as they pretended by these whom they owned for gods which I could prove if it were not to digress with that Pretension Numa and others gained the People to submit to their Religious Rites For his second Proposition it is utterly false that the Agreement of Nations is the best Evidence of what is according to right Reason this might hold if Men were generally Perfect in Knowledge and Holiness if their Mind Will and Affections had no way been hurt by the Fall but in the present State of Fallen Corrupt and Sinful Men it is a False Dangerous yea Pernicious Position if understood as here it must be of Matters of revealed Religion such as instituted Worship is His Proof of this Assertion is most absurd which is two Maxims of the Civil Law wofully misunderstood and misapplyed viz. Quod major pars Curiae efficit pro eo habetur ac si omnes egerint and Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem This is to be understood of Humane Courts in any Nation or Society not of the Consent of all Nations otherwise one Nation could not make Laws for it self but must peruse the Volumns of all Nations that they may know what Laws obtain in most Nations Again which is yet more to our purpose these Maxims hold in Civil not Religious Matters to make the Consent of Nations to be the Rule of Religion as this Author manifestly doth hath so many Absurdities wrapt up in it that it is a wonder that such a Fancy could fall into the Head of one who owneth revealed Religion and is not far from Hobbism or Deisin with which he is not sparing to charge the Presbyterians on far less Cause given I am far from charging him with these horrid Opinions but I advise him to beware of Zeal for Humane Holy Doly Days on such Principles as would lead Men into that Snare If we must be determined by a Pole among Mankind as his Assertion doth plainly import in the Matters of our Religion Heathenism will clearly carry it against Christianity Yea Turkism will bid fair for it and Popery will clearly Outvote Protestantism This is a thousand times worse than what he or his Friend is so angry with a Presbyterian Parliament for having regard to the Inclinations of the People in settling Presbyterial Government we must now receive the Holy Days because the Inclinations of the Apostate World Heathens Jews Papists c. incline that Way His distinguishing of such Constitutions by considering their general or abstracted Nature and considering them with their Ends and Objects will not help him for corrupt Men will always be generally for what is worst consider it as ye will neither can it be said that this Rule of Judging of Religion holdeth not in the Essentials and great Points but in the inferior Matters and Rituals for the instituted part of Religion lieth more remote from Mans Reason as a Contriver of it than other things in Religion do because these depend merely on Institution and the Will of the Instituter as ye can less give a Reason why Bread and Wine should signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ except from the Wiâ—l of him who appointed this than ye can do why we should Pray to God obey him c. § 25. He taketh it very ill and calleth it strong Natural Nonsense that the Holy Days and other Religious Ceremonies of Mans Devising are called new Means of Grace which are not to be appointed by Mens Reason but by Gods Authority He saith they are only appointed to increase our Devotion for the old Means of Grace they are but Circumstances of time determinable by the Church All that is sufficiently refuted already but he repeateth and forceth me to do so First That which is appointed to increase our Devotion toward Prayer the Word and Sacraments which are the old Means of Grace is a Mean of Grace it self for increase of Devotion is Grace therefore the Means toward that End must be Means of Grace and if these be appointed by the Lord as the Sabbath is for increase of our Devotion in Prayer c. this is one of these he calleth the old Means of Grace viz. Means of Gods appointing if appointed by Men for the same end they must be new Means of Grace appointed by Men and superadded to these of Gods Appointment But the Holy Days are such ex tuo ore being appointed to increase our Devotion this cannot be said of mere determining a Circumstance of Worship as appointing a Week Day Sermon 2. That which is necessary to the Beeing and Beauty of Religion to keep us in mind of the Mysteries of our Religion is the Peoples Catechism c. must be a Mean of Grace but all this and more he hath ascribed to the Holy Days not only to the Work to be done on them but to it as done on such a Day they must then be new Means of Grace beside what God hath instituted 3. That they are but Determinations of the Time of Worship is above refuted and himself refuteth it by affirming that they are appointed for increasing our Devotion I should allow him not only to Smile but to burst out into Laughter if it had been said as he pretendeth that Christmass was kept in Honour of Julius Caesar before Christ was born he need never want Matter of Laughter if he be allowed thus to Devise what may make him Merry All that was said is that Holy Day was so kept and thence called Yule in Scotland The Import of which is no more but this that the same Day being kept by the Heathens on one Account some Christians changed it into another Use and Celebrated it as the Day of Christs Nativity as I could shew they did with many other both Times and Places His Criticising on the Word Yule making it Noel and then turning it to a nouvelle and Expounding it a Day of Tidings I might rather Smile at I think it not worthy a Laborious Examination I
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
Severe He Answereth that he never found fault with our Discipline for its being strict but for being factiously Pragmatical and endlesly Inquisitive and from its having no Tendency to Edifie the Christian-Church or to Reclaim wicked People What can an unbyassed Reader understand by these Words but that the Man is angry and hateth the Presbyterians and their Way and would fain cast Dirt on them if he could find it These indefinite and gross Accusations must either be Proved that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Discipline of the Church and this must be in many Instances and many Ministers and Elders and all this well Attested or the Man who thus Writeth must pass for a Slanderer rather than a Disputant Our Discipline we Manage by the Rules of the Word and the Principles of sound Reason we do not Indulge Sin in these of our own Way nor medle with Things that are without our Line nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become such by being openly known and if Occasion be given for Enquirie and nothing be found we Desist and leave Secret Things to GOD to whom they belong for the Tendency of our Exercise of Discipline we are sure it is for Edification and we can make it appear that sometimes it is Blessed with Success and if it Irritate some or Harden others or have no Fruit on many we Lament it but are not to be blamed for it for the same Thing may be said of Preaching the Gospel and that in a Commendable manner I Deny not but that some are short of that Dexterity that others have and that there is Imperfection in the best of us and if they that blame us can say otherways of their own Church either they are strangly Deluded or the World is generally Deceived about their Way He commenceth a new Debate p. 283. about Non-resistance which he had raised Apolog. p. 20. and yet waved and of which very little was said Def. of Vindic. p. 16. he now resumeth the Debate and talketh more freely than before being behind the Curtain and not in Hazard of Censure I was then unwilling and am still more so to medle in that Matter both because it is a Controuerne that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity and Lawyers are sittest to Mannage it Also because it is not now between Prelatists and Presbyterians the Generality of both having of late years Agreed in what is Inconsistent with the Prelatical Doctrine that was Current some years ago § 13. Another of our new Opinions he will have to be p. 289. that they the Presbyterians abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD c. we have under this Head a parcel of the most False and Impudent Assertions in Matters of Fact and the most unjust Calumnies that ever the Press groaned under And it is a wonder that a Person pretending to Conscience or to Christianity could give such Scope to his Passion as to have no regard to Truth and indeed here is little or no Matter of Debate nor place for Vindication but by Denying what he Asserteth without any Attempt to give Evidence for what is Asserted I Deny not but that there may be found some few among the People that own Presbytery who through Ignorance and a mistaken Zeal run into some of these Excesses that he Taxeth but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us sine discrimine and I am sure the more Sober and Intelligent sort of Presbyterians abhorreth many of these things that he Chargeth them with He Asserteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what he saith it is a palpable Falshood For 1. We neither abhorre nor cast off the Form of Sound Words I mean the Scriptures of Truth recommended by the Apostle for us to hold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 1. 13. nor do we abhorre or reject the Form of Baptizing and Administring the LORD'S Supper nor of Blessing the People at the Dismissing of the Assembly 2. Even some Forms that we Reject as needles and therefore unfit to be used in this state of the Church yet we do not abhor them such as Forms of Prayer we think they were both Lawful and necessarie when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Ministers yet we think they should now be laid aside when they are not so needed as a Man should not use Crutches when he is well Recovered from his Dameness 3. To say that we abhorre and reject Rules in the Worship of GOD is beyond all bounds of Truth and Modesty We own and use the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him neither do we abhorre or reject the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule we have our Directorie and many Good Acts of General-Assemblies yea of Synods and Presbyteries in their respective Districts His next Assertion is shameles above measure that since the Revolution they Turn out the Episcopal Clergy out of their Livings if they retain any of the Ancient forms tho never so short Catholick or Orthodox Pray Sir when was this done by whom where or to whom none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on these Heads either by Church or State and none by the Church except for Ignorance Error in some Great Point of Faith supine negligence or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins or not It is true Uniformity even in these little Things is required of these who will Joyn with us be Received into Ministerial Communion and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us and much Tenderness and Forbearance hath been used even in these for some time but they who think not fit to Joyn with us are suffered to follow their Ministerial Work in their Parishes and Enjoy their Livings without such Uniformity with us as he Talketh of And if we had Required this or Turned them out it had been but an Imitating of the Practice of his own Party Whom do they Suffer to Enjoy Publick Livings who do not Conform to their Way to the Height § 14. He persists in his false Assertions while he saith the Episcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer Reading the Holy Scriptures in their Assemblies the Apostolick Creed and the Doxology This is far from any Semblance of Truth no such Prohibition was ever given He insisteth a little in Pleading for the Use of the LORD'S Prayer but taketh no Notice of the State of the Question about it as it hath been Proposed by his Antagonist His Business seemeth to be not so much to Convince as to Accuse It is False that we have Banished that Prayer We duely use it as a Directory and Pray according to it we Teach it to our Catchumâ—ni we do not Judge nor Blame any Man
to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed and his Answers refuted § 5. of this Section § 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth p. 185. He had in his Apologie required that we should tell when they began to be Observed and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles It was told him this is Iniquum Postulatum and the Consequence is naught Both because of the Defectiveness of History and they came in by insensible degrees Next it was shewed from the silence of Scripture and of the History the first Ageâ— that Christmass for of that was the Question was not Observed for 300 years after Christ which was Conâ—â—rmed by Easter being much noticed but it not and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem and ancient Histories cited by them also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it all this he thought fit to overlook only he Examineth the Assertion which he doth falsifie by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter And laboureth to prove out of Origen and some others that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not for if they were then used and injoyned by the Church scripture silence of them is enough to us and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them I searched no further but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it But now when I have further considered that Matter I â—â—nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame he first citeth Origen contra Celâ— mentioning the Christiaâ— Festivities but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work where this Passage may be found that it might be Examined The like Omission in another about a Word of Augustin he agregeth at great length p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths which are not forbidden Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place Col. 2. 15. also of Easter that in and before Origins days was observed and contended about His other Citation Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find though I lookt over that Homilie May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated as most of the Writings of the Fathers have His next Author is Hippolitus as he is Cited by Photius all his Proof out Hippolitus is he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam and a Conjecture that himself layeth no weight on it is NIAC is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus the rest of the Line being defaced The Answer to all this is easie 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie if he had it 2. Photius who lived â—n the Ninth Centurie may be rejected by an Argument Ad Hominem which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories concerning our Conversion from Heathenism p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theopâ—aniam cannot prove his Point unless that he can Prove that that Word from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation or GOD manifeâ—â— in the flesh which is the proper Import of it but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery which was its current Signification when Photius wrot For his Niac it is so wide and groundless and a strained Conjecture that few wisâ— Men will be fond of mentioning it much less of making an Argument of it he supplieth it I know not by what Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles the Authority of which we cannot own unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum I denie not that in Process of time they did degenerate into Holy Days such as he pleadeth for and becoming so Numerous they became a Burden to the Church and were diâ—used till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized but at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them made after the ordinarie Service of the Church and that Age and some that followed were so respectful to the Martyrs for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges whence it may be Inferred that from these Commemorations to other Holy Days is no good Consequence He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie It is no consequence the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres who Succeeded the Apostles Ergo they could not forget the Apostles themselves if they understand such a way of Commemoration the Reason I have already given § 21. He Inferreth p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed because Easter and Pentecost were so The Consequence will not hold and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost the Feast of Weeks may be added but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own He Answereth an Objection that was brought that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth there was no need to determine that Question and all Christians he excepteth some Presbyterians are agreed that this Determination was not Neâ—essarie and that Christians in different Nations make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live they Commemorate the Mystery but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact He sayeth the Vindicator left this Consideration alâ—ogether untouched In this he is in the Wrong and is Guilty of what he blameth another for There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is all which he hath left untouched They are it was never heard of that the Birth day of any Person was kept but on the Day on which the Person was Born That if this Determination be needless the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration which none ever affirmed It was also told him that others particularly Master Hooker pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers whereas no more was intended but that Master Hookers Arguments which are lookt on as the strongest on his side are inconsistent with his Notion while he