l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
but never received into Holy Orders by any thing that appeareth whence I infer that in the Opinion of that time a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop which our Brethren use to plead for I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry they amount to no more but that there were but few Ministers and many Reformers were Lay Men to all which I Answer this sheweth that Presbyters and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had It was far otherwise in England where the State carried on the Reformation whereas in Scotland the greatest both in State and Church opposed it as long and as much as they could and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth did rather comply with the Reformation than actively promote it notwithstanding of all which it is unbecoming a Protestant to call our Reformation violent and disorderly as he doth p. 7. out of Spotswood § 3. The second Enquiry is Whether the Scots Reformers what ever were their Characters were of the present Presbyterian Principles whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment and try his Critical Skill on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle In which it is not my Province to interpose I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry if it be granted that Parity and not Prelacy was the Church Government that they chused If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren it will make more against themselves than against us for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity but they chused this and rejected that notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it under Popery We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity that they shewed so much Zeal for it as they did though they had not that Light about it that after times afforded It is certain that that Dispute which had so long by the Tyranny of the Bishops been buried and forgotten except among the Church in the Wilderness which few knew of the Waldenses could not at first be so fully understood as by further Enquiries it came to be Notwithstanding it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini though they did not much insist on the Debate about that for in the Book of Policy Chap. 1. they have these words this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirk gathered not to a single Bishop and hath ground in the Word of God to be put in Execution by them unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk by lawful Calling is committed Here it is plain that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government and chap. 2. There is this Article and to take away all occasion of Tyranny he that is God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with equality of Power every one according to their Function And after there are four ordinary Functions or Offices in the Kirk the Office of the Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elder and the Deacon Where it is evident that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right § 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie for if it were yielded it doth not hurt our Cause And his Arguments are verbose tedious and insignificant I shall only point at them and the Answers that may be made to them There is p. 9. c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe the Popes Supremacy was Debated but not Prelacy Ans. nihil sequitur our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists He doth falsly assert p. 10. that Churches when they are Reformed set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State as in Geneva which was a Common-wealth they set up Paritie For who readeth Calvins Writings may see that they built on another Foundation even Divine Institution and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary Paritie was in the Church and Monarchy in the State He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government he will soon see on whose side the impudence is He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful If Christ hath instituted a Form as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form inconsistent with that to be absolutely or simply unlawful He telleth us ibid. that Beza saith that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable if duely bounded by the pure canons of the ancient Church and I say the same for then it would be no more but a Presidencie which doth not destroy Paritie He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church which is not our Debate If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal no more are we unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us His second Proof is our Reformers had no peculiar Motives or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy nor interest to determine them to Paritie nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments seing most of them except England set up the same Government Thirdly He argueth thus none of the Confessors or Martyers or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection have given that as their Opinion And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times but what is that to the Order p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops against Presbyters as well as Bishops p. 19. And he hath a long Debate with some of our Historians about the Opinion of John
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
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
Right quod autem saith he Jure Divino Episcopi sint Presbyteâ—is superiores si non ita clarum est è sacris literis c. And he provetâ— it by the Authority of some Popes and Councils As also Lombard 〈◊〉 supra fetcheth the Original of the several Degrees of Bishops from the Heathen Flamins Archi-flamines and â—roto-flamines not from Scripture Bellarm citeth Medin condemning Jerome as erroneously holding the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter this Bellarm hath lib. 1. c. 15. de Clericis Object 6. Medina doth there affirm August Ambros. Sedul Primaâ—â—us Chrysost. Theodorat AEcumen and Theophylact. to be of the samâ— mind and he addeth alque ita illi viri alioqui sanctissimi sacrarum literarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in â—erio deinde in Waldensibâ—â— postremo in Wiclefo damnavit Ecclesia c. It is here evident that others as well as the Scots Presbyterians held the Opinion about Parity to be no Noveltie Also Sixtus Senens Biblioth Sanct lib 6 Annotatio 324 looketh on Jeromes Opinion as being for the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter and citeth as agreeing with him Ambros Chrysost Sedul An selm Thom Valdens against Wiclife who refuteth him as being of Jeromes Opinion in this and of Alfonsus Castrensis he saith non veretur fateri Hieronimum hâc in parte errasse to these Schoolmen I shall add some of the Canonists as plainly against this Jus Divinum of Episcopacy Gratian dist 60. cap ult Ad verbum Papa sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hot quidem solos primitiva Ecclesia habuisse dicitur Joan Semeca Gloss in Jur Can dist 95. Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat Officium Episcoporum Presbyterorum nomina erant communia Ibid. c. olim Et officium erat commune sed in secunda primitiva coeperunt distingui nomen officia So Owen of ordination p. 108. who also citeth to the same purpose Concil Aquisgr can 8 Concil Hispal c. 2. Canon 7. and Concil Constantiens where Presbyters were determined to have decisive voices with Bishops because in the Law of God Bishops were no more than Presbyters I am far from inferring from what hath been said that all these were Presbyterians But it is evident that some of them did not hold Episcopacy to be Juris Divini as this Enquirer doth and that none of them lookt on Paritie as so late an Invention as he doth SECTION VI. His Answers to our Citations from Jerome and Augustine examined THis learned Author hath singled out the Testimonies brought by Presbyterians out of these two Fathers and promiseth p. 65 to examine them more narrowly as being the chief strength of the Presbyterians that is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients I shall adventure to examine his Examination He taxeth Blondel for inscribing his Book Apologia pro Sententia Hieronimi as if the Presbyterians Doctrine had been certainly espoused by Jerome and bringeth this Argument against this Conduct of Blondel At this rate saith he his Contemporaries were very much to be blamed who placed Aerius among the Hereticks and yet on all occasions make honourable mention of Jerome if he taught the same Doctrine for which Aerius was condemned for a Heretick This reasoning is of no weight for it is well known on how small grounds some in the fourth or fifth Centuries were listed among the Hereticks 2. It is no rare thing in the World to heighten the same Action or Opinion in one person which they excuse or extenuate in another We know how the Pope condemneth the same Principles as Heresie in Calvine which he passeth no such Censure on when they are taught by the Jansenists and how Alvarez chargeth Calvine with Heresie for the same things that he himself holdeth and is at much pains to shew the difference where indeed there is none Jerome was a man of great esteem so as it seems Aerius was not 3. It is thought by many that Aerius managed his Principle more unpeaceably than Jerome did that he opposed himself more fiercely to the growing Usurpations of that time and made a Schism about the Matter And it is evident that many of them who are by Epiphanius called Hereticks were at most but Schismaticks Neither do I by this yield that Presbyterians now may be called Schismaticks for I know not that Aerius was justly so branded on account of that Opinion Nor do I think that Episcopacy was come to that intollerable height when Aerius opposed it that it is come to in our days and came toâ— soon after his time 4. Magdeburg cent 4. c. 5. p. 399 4â—0 edit Baâ—… 1560. sheweth that Epiphanius maketh him an Arian So August aâ—… Basilâ— say he was the Author of the Heresie of the Syllabici which wâ—… indeed Arianism from which Magdeb concludes that we have littâ—… certainty about him 5. Some men of great worth excuse Aerius 〈◊〉 Whitaker Reinolds and affirm that he was innocent of these Heresies they charge him with only he had angered some great men of tâ—… Age by questioning some of their Usurpations and also by zealouâ—… opposing some of the Superstitions that were then creeping into tâ—… Church and had too much Countenance from some eminent Men such as Praying and offering for the dead and Praying to Saints 〈◊〉 Aerius was not esteemed a Heretick by all the Fathers of that or tâ—… following Age none call him so but Epiphanius and Augustine wâ—… implicitely took it from Epiphanius Neither Theodoret nor Socratâ—… nor Sozomen nor Euagrius have any thing of the Aerian Heresie § 2. He maketh a Collection of the Citations we bring out of Jerome and then giveth us his Remarks on them I must also transcribâ—… them that the Reader may have them before him while he is upoâ—… this Debate about them The first is out of Hieron on Tit. 1. Diligenter saith Jerome Apostoli verba attendamus dicentis ut constituas per Civitates Presbyteros sicut ego disposui qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari 〈◊〉 sequentibus disserens hoc ait si quis est sine crimine unius uxoris vir c. Postea intulit oportet enim Episcopum sine crimine esse tanquam Dei dispensâ— tor idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctâ—… studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecelesia gubernabatur Postquam vero unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Of what followeth in Jerome the Enquirer giveth but a lame account telling us that Jerome proveth the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Acts 20. 1 Pet. and Epistle to the Hebrews But I shall
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator soon after there was a difference made in their Dignity but we deny that there was in the first Antiquity any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction and so our Principle standeth firm for all this Concession What he next citeth out of the same Author p. 17. is so far from his purpose that it sheweth litle Skill or Consideration at least that he mentioneth it Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches to seem to be equal to them May not this be meant of Presbyters as well as Bishops that the Apostles so honoured them For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop and Presbyter which he thinks is here overturned the Reader before he come this length will see this Cavill to be groundless if he consider how we manage that Argument He citeth him also saying that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus and Apostle I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken without any Inconveniency to our Cause see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose that he further citeth from Salmasius that he saith James whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem was over the lesser Bishops as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters in the Quality of an Apostle that the Ancients called him a Bishop I have shewed how that is to be understood in the place last cited He is at him again in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter and Paul tho not soon after yet in the end of the first Century and beginning of the second If Salmasius mean as I am confident he doth that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency and Majority of Dignity and Notice did then begin to creep in I confess the same let our Author make his best advantage of it if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction I dissent from him tho even this would not overturn our Cause which is built on Scripture not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles § 41. He next p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel apol p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year 140 This is a foul misrepresentation Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions in which one said I am of Paul c. after the manner of the Corinthians that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy as the supposed remedy was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady but that other means were used Blondel saith Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities where were many Thousands of Christians they had but one Church this saith our Author could not be without a Bishop over them Which I deny the contrarie is ordinary at this day all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie and their Moderator which in that place he calleth unicum concessum in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church which I cannot so well understand Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg which is a Mistake the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited he expresly assenteth to Jerome Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie And a little after proinde tam qui Presbyterialem quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt videntur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours Seing both are for a jus Divinum So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council it is his own conceit we should have two for his one and allow Bocharts suffrage to be non liquet And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground which he saith the Adversary yieldeth supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches to be the whole Partie and that some of them said what they never thought His first Batterie is a Question P. 140 seqque Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie quo molimine quibus machinis was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of changed from that aequality into Prelacie and here he hath a long harangue and many tragical words setting forth the impossibility of this Change and the absurditie of asserting it To all this the Answer is plain and easie and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of § 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth and if any of them have let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it we are not concerned we cau yeild no further than the Apostles having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings soon after the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t◠how soon this Presidencie being constant in the same person began 〈◊〉 be taken more notice of than was fit and more deference to be payed 〈◊〉 the Praeses than was meet and that after some Ages some in some places did Usurp or grasp at more Power than was due but that either the Solitude of Church Power or the Superiority of it was owned 〈◊〉 practised avowedly for the first three Centuries we deny yea we 〈◊〉 not find that it became Universal for some time after Wherfore 〈◊〉 ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth and so his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden nor so great a Change as he mentioneth 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution and practice of the first times We do not ascribe it to a general Council nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State to make that Change Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way But 1. We are persuaded
THE GOOD Old WAY Defended Against the Attempts of A. M. D. D. in his BOOK Called An Enquiry into the New Opinions Chiefly propogated by the Presbyterians of SCOTLAND Wherein the Divine Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters Acting in Parity is Asserted and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is disproved the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Episcopacy as now Pleaded for are made Manifest from Scriptural Arguments and the Testimony of the Antient Writers of the Christian-Church and the groundless and unreasonable Confidence of some Prelatick Writers exposed Also the Debates about Holy-Days Schism the Church-Government used among the First Scots Christians and what else the Enquirer Chargeth us with are clearly Stated and the Truth in all these Maintained against him Likewise some Animadversions on a Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery in so far as it misrepresenteth the Principles and Way of our First Reformers from Popery where the Controversie about Superintendents is fully handled and the Necessity which led our Ancestors into that Course for that Time is Discoursed By GILBERT RULE one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH EDINBURGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Excellent Majesty Anno DOM. 1697. To the Right Honourable PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT Viscount of BLASONBERRY LORD POLWARTH of POLW ARTH REDBRAES and GREENLAW c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND My Noble Lord I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns as for the State so for the Church of CHRIST as now Established in this Nation My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rulâ—rs Favour having had for many Years the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church and of the Nation In utraque fortuna and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both But what I aim at is to express the true Sense I have as I know my Brethren also to retain of your Lordships Wisdom Zeal and Fortitude encountering the Greatest of Hazards and enduring the most grievous of Hardships for that Holy Religion that ye Profess and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey The eminent Post your Lordship is now in as it is a Token of your Princes Favour and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service of another Sort and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things when ye have the Occasion and Temptation of seeking your own Things as ye did when ye Ventured and lost your All in this World for him GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble and that ye will be singly and actively for him the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work and Occasions are uncertain There will be great Peace in Reflection when our Work is at an endâ— on sincere Endeavours and Application of Mind to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship and continue your Capacity to do Him Service and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings is the earnest prayer of Edinburgh December 20 1697. My Noble Lord Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant G. R. TO THE READER THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War being for my Age Miles emeritus needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth and right Ways of GOD should be Stopped and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way when I entered on this Work nor till I had finished it After it was in the Press and some Progress made in it I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela Voâ—um Justum wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with are solidly Refuted and the main Subject that I Treat off is Handled which made me think that Bâ—ok might Supersede mine Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self and my own second Thoughts finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected And that the one Work is more Historical the other more Argumentative so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched and that two Witnesses are better than one these Considerations I say determined me not to stop the Press And indeed the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors on the slenderest Grounds should be exposed as much as may be while they Build so Important Truths and Practices and press them so warmly on Phrases Words and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients which signified quite another thing then than what now they are commonly applyed to The Learned Clericus in his Preface to Ars Critica Sect. 3. at the end hath these Words here very apposite Quot quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur in numerato habere qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt nempe Vocabula nuda didicerant aut Voces quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery And in that Case Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I Build my Church and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time doth infer his sole Power seing as our Lord in another Place giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters as well as they several times mention that of Bishops without mentioning Presbyters No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case ERRATA PAge 1. line 16. read Principle p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems p. 50. l. 5. r. James p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses p. 150. l. 36. r. them p. 181. l. 37. r. approved p. 186. l. 37. r. great p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank p. 199.
more than with rational refutation Acts 17. 19 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion is looked on by some as what was new in that time So was Luthers Doctrine and Calvins and that of the other Reformers in their day respectivè If my Antagonist can make it appear that our Opinion about Parity was never countenanced by Scripture nor practised in the Christian Church till of late in Geneva or Scotland Let it then pass for a Noveltie and on that account be condemned but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie tho for many Centuries it was not practised under the Reign and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ We are very willing according to the place of Scripture he putteth before his Book to ask for and walk in the old paths but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People as some expound the place of the way that Moses taught them and which they walked in who we are sure did not err as Grotius expoundeth this place of the way of Abraham Isaac and Jacob we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did in making the Golden Calf tho that was a very old practice and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes both Antient and Universal § 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction and first the ill words that he very liberally and at 〈◊〉 random bestoweth on these who are not of his way calling their Principles and Writings Lybels Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to complain of them whom he supposeth do persecute them I am sure it should less be his work to Rail with such unmanly and unchristian revilings at them who no other wayes oppose him and his Partie but by dint of Argument He doth p. 5 6. Suppose The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority and telleth us How in the Primitive times they were opposed by men chosen by the People who calculate their Doctrine to the fancies and humours of the Multitude and prostituted the Gospel to promote error and delusion in stead of serving our blessed Saviour they became slaves of the People by whom they were originally imployed and because they were so unhappily successfull as to gratifie their lusts they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre or to plead for Truth to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith vvise men vvill judge It is rather to be lamented than denyed that there are such Ministers in the Christian yea in the Reformed Church but I may confidently say they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men than among the Presbyterians in Scotland Whom it is evident that by all this Discourse he designeth to defame We preach against this Inclination even as it is in mens hearts and vve censure it vvhen it appeareth in their practise either to the promoting of Error or disturbing the Peace of the Church More of this he hath p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises and looser theorms and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie and true faith that worketh by love to airie notions and mistakes Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper or of the Presbyterian Ministers I shall leave to others to determine I am sure they who know the Scots Presbyterians and do not spitefully hate them will not say that either their Doctrine or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose Whether the Presbyterian or Prelatick Church Discipline as they have been exercised in Scotland come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church it 's easie to determine by them who have seen the one and can judge of both without prejudice § 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion had their immediate commission from heaven and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned If he mean the Apostles I shall not contradict his Assertion but must look on it as most impertinent Seing the other who he saith had their Authority from Men were distinguished from and opposite to not only the Apostles but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church who were in or after their dayes Also the Assertion so understood could make nothing for Prelacy or against Paritie in the primitive Church which seemeth to be the design of this Passage If he understand it of Bishops who he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles this is a new opinion with a Witness and for any thing I know himself first hatched it and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians so new as this of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions Sure if it be so they must then shew their credentials from Heaven and the signs of Apostles wrought in them As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King 's Congedelire and their Consecration and also all the debate that is about their Prelation and will excuse us from owning them till we be satisfied in this matter wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous § 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches and unaccountable Extravagancy while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence and Impiety Supposing without any semblance of Proof◠that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded but demolished when Episcopacy is laid aside and that without these sacred Vehicles viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie to use his own words I know not what can be called by that Name It is of the same strain that the extravagance of these last dayes which is wholly charged on Presbytery is boundless and Sceptical and Christianity is more dangerously wounded by the delusions of some that are Baptized Presbyterians then by the open blasphemies of Infidels and that the first viz. the Presbyterians are altogether inaccessible by reason that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations and will not be instructed their Errors are made stronger by their vanity And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose To which I have no other
evil of it as they ought to have been In this sense Ambrose understands this place for on this occasion he saith Si autem quis potestatem non haber qui scit reum abjicere vel probare non valet immunis est So also Chrysostom on the place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non accusat quod non ei significaret sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit propter peccati evidentiam What can be more plain than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth as having the power of Church Censures Yea that the Apostle thought so too otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated delivered to Satan by them assembled together not by one Bishop among them and of this their assembling for this end he saith two things which imply their power that his Spirit should be with them that is his good Wishes Approbation and hearty Concurrance Menoch in locum congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu affectu Sollicitudine Next that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ and with his Power or Vertue by which he would bless this his own Ordinance and make it effectual none of these could be said of this Act if it were done by a Company of men who had no power from Divine Institution 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they not thou Bishop but ye judged them who were within that is the Church Members 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past saith that it was the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence the man being now truly penitent 2 Cor. 2 7. which is an Act of Church Authority and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on § 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument First that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man because he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have judged he passed the Sentence and enjoyned them to publish and execute it This is said without ground for it is evident that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written as is clear from the Arguments above adduced the man was not yet purged out he was not delivered to Satan the Apostle saying he had judged already 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion in which after deliberation he was determined that the thing should be done beside that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him more than when James said Acts 15. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I judge it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him Again they except that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not seing the Apostle had commanded it Ergo this Excommunication was not in their power Reply the Consequence is naught for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie held forth to them by the Apostle Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan was not Excommunication but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him which only the Apostle and others having the Gift of Miracles could do and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth Reply This Exposition of the place though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it is without all ground or example in Scripture and a pure Invention to serve a turn Again the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this bids them with his Spirit joyning with them do it but it was never heard that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others Further this Punishment was inflicted by many to wit the Elders of Corinth but they had no power of working Miracles Lastly Erastus the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages held that this power was given to the Apostles and some others till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church to punish Scandals from this it would follow that the Magistrate should now purge out by death all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication or delivering to Satan such as Drunkards Fornicators Railers c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles § 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters and not by a Bishop is that of Thessalonica 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word and to withdraw from them this note is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians Erasmus in locum ut signamus boves cornupetas quo vitentur my Argument from this Text is this the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power and that by the Apostles allowance to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel Ergo they and not a single Bishop did govern the Church The Consequence is plain the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline which he would not have done if they had not had Authority so to do Neither doth he here design the person or persons who were to be Excommunicated but owneth them for proper Judges of that and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance by another reading and Gloss on this Text they read it thus if any man obey not our word note or signifie that man by an Epistle and have no company with him that he may be ashamed So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning that they should write to him giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons and then the Church should shun their company the Presbyters were to examine the Matter and find it sufficiently proved and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence § 15. To this I oppose for strengthening our Argument 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters AEcumenius Theophylact Basilius Ephrem Cyrus all cited Altar Damasc
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors and by them to the People and indeed it is certain that the Word may be so taken and if we should yield this to our Brethren it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument unless they can prove that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters tho addressed to them by the Praeses Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction The third Opinion to which I most incline is that Angel is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o◠Collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters so that to the Angel is in our Phrase to the Moderator and remanent Brethren In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England in this matter they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Beda Haymo and many others saith Owen of Ordination C. 2. p. 35. § 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken next that it mu◠be so understood For the former it is usual in the Scripture and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it in Types and Visions and th◠most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile every one knoweth to put the Singular Number for the Plural or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place Th◠Ram Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia 〈◊〉 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome is calle◠Antichrist the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition The Antichristian Church consisting of Priests and People is called a Beast the Whore So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns and her Deliverers four Carpenters Zech. 1. 18 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number thou shalt do so and so hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude that there is no Absurdity nor is any Violence done to the Text if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church or the Colledge of Presbyters My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood for which I bring these Arguments 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule or Jurisdiction but Gods Messenger to the People as also Rev 1. 16 20. These Angels are called Stars which importeth their Teaching or holding forth Light to the People both which are common to the Presbyters seing then he doth not use a word of Authority whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters but of Embassy and giving Light whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop but for Teaching Presbyters It were a strange thing if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church would design him by that which is common to him with many others and not by that which is peculiar to himself It doth also strengthen this Argument that both in the Old and New Testament they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them are called Angels Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety are called the Angel of the Lord Psal 34 7. § 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery that Rev 1 20 our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision speaketh twice of the seven Churches but shunneth calling the Angels seven he saith not the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches but the Angels of the seven Churches as by the seven Spirits Rev 1 4 and 3 1 is meant the Spirit of God sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches so here the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches tho they were not one only for every Church but more Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20 28 and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3. that there were more Presbyters or Bishops at Ephesus than one If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel he could not mean a single person It cannot be denyed that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20 28 are they whom Christ here calleth Angel the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick or under the Star they cannot be a part of the Candlestick for they give Light as the Candlestick doth not but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth they must then be comprehended under the Star and consequently under the Angel whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons So that we may conclude that as by Candlestick i◠understood the Collective Body of People so by Star or Angel is understood a Body of Church Officers and not a single Bishop Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person as at Ephesus the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick that is Unchurching that People can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop if the rest of the Elders and People were free and this we must say unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person but a Community The same may be said of several other Churches would the Lord spu◠out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed as that which is meant by Angel to whom the Epistle is addressed as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison can that be Expounded some of thee Bishop of Smyrna or some of your Pastors and People and unto you I say 〈◊〉
semper muniri sed posse quandoque ab hominibus emendari and instanceth in Origen Jerom Cyprian and Augustin Our Authors Exception against this in his Distinction of Matters of Opinion and Matters of History that the Fathers might mistake in the one not in the other I am afterward to consider § 34. For further Confirmation of this Truth I shall transcribe a few heads of Arguments out of a Manuscript written by a Learned Divine of this Church Entituled Some Propositions collected out of the Writings of Divines about Church Government because few can have access to read the Manuscript it self He proveth 1. That the Testimony of the ancient Historians is not in every thing and particularly in that point of the Hierarchy probably true because 1. Even Episcopal Writers of the best Note deny their Testimony to be universally true Sutliv de Pontiff lib. 2. C. 11. p. 148. Multa de Petre Paulo aliis sanctis hominibus narrantur fabulose quibus nemo necessario tenetur credere ibid. p. 153. About Peters being at Rome Ad testimonia Patrum quod attinet expedita est Responsio quae fama acceperant narrant sed dubia incerta Whitaker of Peter and Pauls being buried at Rome Hoc totum nititur fidei humanae ex historiae veritate pendet at fides Religio nostra certiori fundamento nititur testimonio scil spiritus sancti Baron Pref. p. 3. Nulla res hactenus in Ecclesia magis negligi visa est quam Ecclesiasticarum rerum narratio quod si Historias consules magnam eorum classem essâ— intelliges quae absque delectu perceperunt aniles fabulas 2. They relate many things that are generally disbelieved as the Letter of Abgarus to Christ and Christs Answer Peter being twenty five years at Rome as Bishop of that Church is questioned by most Protestants Sutliv saith Credo eum Romam nunquam vidisse Reynold Colla with Hart bringeth strong proofs that Mark was not Bishop of Alexandria 3. Many of these old Histories are lost as that of Egesippus as Bellarmine confesseth others are vitiated some carelesly written as Socrates testifieth of Eusebius's History lib. 1. C. 1. That he took more care to praise the Emperor than to describe the Acts of that time Also several things are in Eusebius which he did not write for he citeth Sozomen lib. 3. C. 20. who lived an hundred years after him 4. The Testimony of most Ancients about the Hierarchy is in causa propria 5. Many of them whose Testimony is brought lived an hundred years after the Apostles times and therefore had things by Tradition which useth to grow by being often rehearsed for saith Socrates lib. 5. C. 9. Nulla fabula narratur bis quin duplo major evadat 6. The Testimonies of the Ancients in this are not harmonious He further proveth 2. That these Testimonies cannot found a Theological Conclusion For 1. They are no part of the Canon of Scripture on which ground Protestants reject Testimonies from Apocrypha 2. Their Writings contain some things that neither Party assenteth to 3. Their Sayings were not probative in their own time Ergo neither in ours seing we and they have the same ground of Faith 4. A Theologick Conclusion must be built not on Topick or uncertain grounds Reynold Colla. with Hart C. 6. Praeter authores sacros nullus Historicus certus esse potest i. e. Idoneus ad faciendam fidem in Theologia Sarav de Pontif. l. 2. p. 151. Quis Ecclesiae status fuerit antequam Apostoli tradiderunt rationem gubernandi Ecclesiam nemo dicere potest nisi ex sacris scripturis Sutliv 12. T. Probatur nostra sententia that Peter was not at Rome 1. Quia nusquam ex scripturis probatur nihil ejus seripsit in Epistolis suis Petrus nihil Paulus nihil Lucas qui res Apostolorum diligenter prosecutus est A Theologick Conclusion must either be founded on some evident and clear Demonstration or some infallible Authority neither of which is in the Sayings of the Ancients for the Hierarchy § 35. Let us now hear what he bringeth for this his Opinion where in he is so positive and confident one might here expect strong Reasons but behold pro auro paleas He telleth us p. 128 129. The Apostolical Churches had their own Fasti in which were recorded the Succession of their Bishops and the Names of the Martyrs and that there are many Apostolical Monuments beside in which Egesippus c. could not be mistaken A. 1. Euseb. was of a contrary Opinion he could find none of these Fasti but was forced to go in an untroden Path as I shewed § 31. 2. He should have given some evidence for this confident Assertion for we know not where to find these Fasti without his Direction I deny not that in some after Ages they began to keep Records in Churches but that in the Apostolick and next succeeding Age they had them we find not and these are times of which we with Eusebius and others complain of as to the Uncertainty and Defectiveness of History 3. The Memory of the Martyrs was early Recorded we do not find that the Succession of Bishops was so 4. Suppose the Records of both had been early and exactly kept this can give no Light in the present Debate unless they had Recorded what Jurisdiction they whom they called Bishops did exercise which he doth not so much as alledge out of these Faâ—â—i 5. It is confessed by all that Hegesippus was a very Fabulous Author and took many things on Trust which he neither found in the Fasti nor any Apostolical Monuments For Irenaeus and Tertull they say nothing for his Cause but what we are ready to contest with him even supposing their Authority to be as great as he will make it For Clement he is mistaken about him as I shewed before out of Scalliger § 36. Next he advanceth a Distinction and ingeminateth it of Theorems and Matters Fact he confesseth in the former that the Ancients might mistake but not in the latter that it is impossible that they should mistake and they would not impose upon Posterity seing such things were obvious to the Knowledge and Observation of the meanest Christians we must not think that they Lied in these or Conspired to propagate a Lie to Posterity for they were Men of such Sanctity defended the Truth with their Blood many of them had miraculous Gifts they were Unanimous in delivering this their Testimony A few Considerations will easily dissipate this Mist 1. He supposeth the Unanimity of the Ancients bearing Testimony to Episcopacy being the way setled by the Apostles which is utterly denyed he taketh it also for granted that that was universally practised in and since the Apostolick Age till of late which is also said without all ground if he will prove either of these we shall insist no more on either Arguments or Defences from Antiquity If he will take it for certain
short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews in March 6. it hath but little Assembly 1572. at Perth a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops Deans c. as scandalous Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed as well as others to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk in her Assemblies which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them And it is Enacted that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers that it was Enacted Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year In the beginning of that Assembly when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops Superintendents and other Ministers was mentioned John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion and Reasons that he and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy as he calleth it came to from 1571. to 1575 when we deny not there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government endeavoured by some Courtiers and Ambitious Church Men their Tools But from this time Presbytry began to Revive and gather Strength till at last it was fully setled For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock where they must ordinarily Labour Assembly 1576 p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick without the Kirk Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter and to Discharge him to Visit any more till he be Admitted by the Kirk Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names and called Brethren p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops Assembly 1578. held in June extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away And Commands all Bishops that now are to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication Assembly at Dundee July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason The whole Assembly in one Voice did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland to be unwarrantable in the Word of God and unlawful in it self and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God All Bishops are Charged to Dimit and to use no part of the Office of Pastors without new Admission by the Assembly Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean that the Government of Bishops as now in Scotland is wholly Condemned After which Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation For his false Citations out of the Manuscript I shall mention but two tho the Reader may observe many moe by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly unless he have Complaint to make or be Complained of or be Warned to it by the Superintendent whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents Commissioners and Ministers brought with them together with Commissioners of Shires Burghs and Universities And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention with Consent of the rest of the Ministers and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod Whereas the Manuscript it is p. 10. saith that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction cause warn the Shires Towns and Parish Kirks to send their Commissioners to the Assembly declaring to them the Day and Place Here is nothing like what he Citeth and if it were so as he saith it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority than if it had been said it must be done by their Vote These things out of that Manuscript I have here cast together because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places § 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie than to make some short Remarks on it hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press from which we expect a full Account with more Truth and Candor than what is to be found in his Discourse 1. I deny not nor do I know any that ever denyed but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church that the first Endeavours of the Reformers for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery met with some Interruption and Opposition the Causes were evident the Covetousness of some Courtiers and other States Men and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy and they had some degree of effect but they were always opposed and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed as they wished but at last after much Wrestling Presbytery was settled in its Vigour in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions was needless Labour which I do not envy him the Pleasure of seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages with the same Author if I mistake not nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new save insolent Contempt and ill Words which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements 2. I observe that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that
was Missus and Ordinatus ad Scotos he was not sent to the Scots but to Ireland Do not the Words bear it in their very Face that he was sent to Scotland and was their first Bishop and after he had been there for some time he was brought over to Ireland it is not said Missus nor Ordinatus but Perductus his Mission was to Scotland what Casuality or Design led him to Ireland is not told us neither is it Prosper but Probus that mentioneth his going to Ireland and that he never was in Ireland I have shewed in the Place Cited § 6. He further endeavoureth to overturn our Argument from Prosper as he is Cited by Baronius where he attempteth two things 1. To shew that Palladius in Prospers Sense was not the first Bishop that was in Scotland but the first Bishop that was sent to them by the Pope This he buildeth on Prospers Words both as they are Cited by Baronius and also are in the Augustane Copy the first are Basso Antiocho consulibus ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius primus Episcopus mittitur And the other Copy is Basso Antiocho consulibus ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius primus Episcopus missus est I see not what moved him to transcribe the Words twice unless he see a Mystery that others cannot observe in the Difference that is between mittitur and missus est but he will have mittitur or missus est primus Episcopus to signifie that he was not the first Bishop but the first Bishop of the Roman Mission if he be allowed to put what Sense on Mens Words he pleaseth it must be so Baronius and Spondanus did not so understand the Words neither can any Man so understand them unless his Preconceived Opinion do Darken his Mind that he cannot see things as they are If Prosper had thought that there were Bishops in Scotland before he should have spoken more plainly and told us that the Pope sent him to Rule over the Scots Bishops or that whereas Scotland was formerly Governed by their own Bishops the Pope would have them thenceforth Governed by such as he set over them He telleth us of several Bishops sent to other Churches not to introduce Episcopacy but to bring them in Subjection to the Pope This I deny not tho he instanceth only in Austine the Monk who was sent to England but this furnisheth an Argument against himself for none of them is called primus Episcopus of such a Nation except he who was sent to Scotland Augustine is neither called primus Monachus nor primus Episcopus though as Beda hist. lib. 1. c. 23. hath it he was ordinandus Episcopus si a Gente Anglorum susciperetur He saith it is not evident from Prospers Chronicon whether there was any Formed Organized Church in Scotland when Palladius was sent by Caelestine This is wholly beside the Purpose for Prospers Testimony is not brought for that End Is it not enough that it is clearly proved out of Authentick Writers that the Scots were Christians anno 199 and Palladius came to them about 431. Now can he imagine that the Scots Christians all that time were not an Organized Church if he think that therefore they were Unorganized because they wanted Bishops this is to beg the Question § 7. His other Answer is not a Refutation of me but of Baronius who took the Chronicon consulare for Prospers Work whereas our Author saith it is none of his and for this he produceth the Authority of Pithaeus which is not sufficient against that of Baronius And even Pithaeus himself confesseth that Chronicon per consules digestum hactenus in omnibus Hieronomiani Chronici editionibus Prosperi nomine subjungitur All the Ground he hath for denying it to be Prospers is that the Stile differeth from what he calleth the true Chronicon whereof a Fragment only remaineth He telleth us also that Doctor Cave saith that the Chronicon consulare is much Interpolated but that doth not prove the Book spurious neither doth it derogate from the Testimony we bring out of it unless he can say that it is one of the Interpolations may be Foisted in by some Presbyterian which if he say it will make the Presbyterians older than our Author will allow He quarrelleth that I had asserted that the Christian Faith was received in Scotland in the beginning of the second Century and calleth it a Dream because we have no certain Records of any Progress of Christianity made in the Island at that time He should not have been so confident in this Matter without Answering what was brought for that Assertion or Dream whatever he will call it He should have disproved that Donald was our first Christian King that he began to Reign anno 199 that Palladius came to Scotland 431 in all which Space the Scots lived without Bishops If I have brought our Christianity any nearer to the beginning of the Christian AEra I shall confess an Error in Calculation which I deny not that I may readily fall into What he saith of Squeezing of his Words I cannot Answer for he neither tells where nor wherein for my Book lying open to his Remarks the Reader must judge whether it be so or not and what Advantage he hath got against it the Error of my Title Page putting of in stead of for the Clergy is not such as he would represent if they do not owne it he should crave Pardon for making it if they do I have not Miscalled it tho I confess changing his own Word was an Oversight but I hope it is not a Beam but a Mote that he hath discovered by his Critical Skill SECTION XII Of Ceremonies and the rest of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Presbyterians which have not yet been touched THe last Effort made by this Author against the Presbyterians in his fifth Chapter is made up of his Essay against our Opinion about Ceremonies and other Miscellany Purposes which hardly can be reduced to one Head which I shall consider as his Discourse shall bring them in Before I Examine his Dissertation I observe two things in general concerning it The first is the course Treatment he giveth the Presbyterians without Exception as if he had them under his Feet in this Conflict before he enter on the Debate He calleth our Opinion or rather his own mistaken Apprehension of it for it is none of ours as will by and by appear a silly Theorem on which he saith we have broken the Unity of the Church and filled the Heads and Mouths of People with a thousand Airy and Unaccountable Fancies he calls what we say on this Head Raveries and a Labyrinth of Idle Talk Fooleries My other Observation is his odd Representation of our Opinion which he maketh to be altogether new and our own and indeed as he representeth it it is wholly new and none of ours but his
parting Blow to the Ordination of the later 〈◊〉 Presbyterians which he saith p. 277. is left naked and destitute of all such Arguments as might excuse the Ordination of other Forreign Churches And he doth more than insinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination His Arguments so far as I can pick them out of his Discourse are 1. They were under no necessity to separate from their Bishops in the Isle of Britain A. 1. Want of Bishops might be the same Excuse for the want of Episcopal Ordination that it was to other Protestant Churches for whom he pleadeth it they might have had Bishops if they would in France Geneva Switzerland c. as well as we might 2. The Necessity lay in this that we thought and still must think till he or some else instruct us better that Bishops ought not to be in the Church 3. He speaketh of separating from our Bishops in the Isle of Britain that plainly insinuateth that not only the Bishops in the Church of Scotland are ours but the Bishops of England also and that we are under their Jurisdiction as some of them have pleaded this from a Minister of the Church of Scotland is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependeth on for his Bread 3. If Ministers in Scotland have no Ordination because in want of Bishops among themselves they went not to the English Bishops for Ordination why is not the same Defectiveness imputed to these in France who might have come over to England for the same End But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation and therefore any Weapon that cometh to Hand must be used to beat them down Before I leave this Point I shall make it evident that the other Reformed who are without Bishops can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath 1. Because they might have had Bishops to rule them for what could hinder them their Magistrats did not for they are of Opinion with themselves except in France where the Popish Magistrats did not nor would oppose that piece of Conformity with themselves Yea Thuan. blameth the Protestants for not setting up Bishops the Primitive Church under Heathen Magistrats had Bishops in our Authors Opinion and we think they wanted no needful Church Officer even in that State 2. It is plain that the Reformed were against Episcopacy as no Ordinance of Christ as I have shewed and it is evident from Confession of the French Church Art 30. and of the Belgick Art 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort was not disliked by any of the Externi save these from England § 11. His second Argument that the Scots Presbyterians have no Ordination is It is very uncertain whether they retain such Solemn and Formal Words when they impose Hands as expresly declare that the Priestly Power of Administrating Sacraments and Absolving Poenitents is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained If there be no such Conveyance there is no Ordination and if the Words made use of doth not plainly and formally signifie such a Power then there is no such Power Conveyed A. This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point For such Words may really be used tho both he and I be uncertain whether they were used or not Again how can he prove the necessity of such Words what if Words be made use of which do really and materially signifie the thing designed tho they do it not formally and plainly He is the first that I have met with who layeth so much weight on the Form of Words It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions Against it I thus argue 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture which must needs have been if the Nullity of Ordination and consequently of the Ordinances Administred by such Ministers had been the necessary Consequent of Words not sufficiently formal and plain What a sad Uncertainty and Confusion should follow on this Necessity of such Words not unlike that which in the Popish Church followeth on the Opinion of the Necessity of the Priests Intention in his Administrations 1. Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apostles used when they Ordained Ministers how plain and formal they were if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination it will by good Consequence make void all the Ordinations of the Apostolick Church I am sure he can give us no Account of their Words from any Authentick Records 3. In the Administration of Baptism no Church that I know of useth Formal and plain Words that express either Admission into the Church or Communication of Christian Priviledges or Covenanting with GOD or our Renouncing the Devil c. I am sure I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father c. are not Formal plain Words to express these Things tho I doubt not but that they Include them all and if Baptism be valid without such a Form of Words why not Ordination also He says p. 278. that there are many of their Number in the West who think Imposition of Hands unnecessarie I suppose he hath no Personal knowledge of this and he should be sure of his Informers before he cast such a Reproach on his Brethren for my part I know no Minister in Scotland West East South or North who professeth that Opinion tho mean while I can tell him of others who are not far from it even the Church of France in their Synod at Paris 1565. C. 6. Quick Synod p. 62. but I far rather agree with Mr. Firmin who hath Written a Treatise to prove the Necessity of it He inferreth likewise p. 279. from what he had Discoursed that we have no Organical Church We are not afraid of his Censures we can Prove not only that we have the Essentials of Ordination but that for the Manner of it it is nearer to the Gospel Pattern than what is Practised in that Church which he owneth I find him to be of the same Sentiments with that Bishop in England that was mentioned to him who said of a Presbyterian Minister that he was no better than a Mechanick tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts and had Presbyterial Ordination It is strange that he should Insinuate that we derive our Power from the People he cannot but know that we Disown that Principle but Calumniare audacter aliquid adhaerebit he hopeth that some will believe what ever evil he saith of us § 12. His next Controversie is about the Presbyterian Church Discipline which he had most Abusivly and falsly Reproached Apolog. p. 22 23. and was Checkt for so doing by a Modest Answer Def. Vindic. p. 17 In which that which is most Material he wholly passeth over bringing some what like an Answer to Two or Three Things It was asked what is that Discipline of the Antient Church which he wisheth were Restored which is not either the same with ours or far more strict and
his Prejudice against them doth represent them to him and his Hatred of them maketh him so represent them to the World with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations and these Stations he highly extolleth and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are and concludeth that we are bound by the Covenant never to be present at such Exercises of Mortifications c. The Stations were their Meetings on Wednesdays and Fridays for Fasting till Nine of the Clock and for other Spiritual Exercises So Albaspin whom he citeth and his Adnotator Keitombellius Observ. 16. p. 23 24. who also telleth us that this they did primis iâ—is saeculis quibus miseriis persecutionibus undique quasi perpetuis stiparentur I know no Presbyterian who either hath Sworn against or Condemneth these Stations so far as we have a distinct Account of them have not we in great Towns the same thing on the Matter with these Stations Morning Exercises for Confession of Sin Prayer and Instructing of the People and that ofâ—ner in some Places than Twice a Week That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant is falsly asserted indeed in the National Covenant or Confession of Faith which was Subscribed by the King the Nobility and the whole Nation they Renounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines and Practices and his Stations are mentioned among them but will any Man who understandeth what he saith or who doth not look on the whole of Popery as Pure and Primitive say that the Popish Stations under the present Degeneracy of that Church and the Primitive Stations were the same thing the best Account that I can find of what now is called Stations among the Papists is from Onuphrius Panvinius de stationibus urbis Romae where he confesseth that their Original is obscure he maketh them in the Primitive Church to have been Prayers with Standing in Opposition to these with Kneeling to which sometimes Fasting was joyned and he sheweth how several Popes Limited them and others appropriated them to certain Days and sheweth how in his time they were fixed to Days and to Churches in the City of Rome as it may be presumed was done also in other Churches He sheweth also their Number viz. in fourty seven Churches ninety six Stations on eighty three Days and telleth us of Indulgences granted to these Stations by Pope Boniface This Term may also be applyed to their Solemn Processions for Perambulating any Piece of Ground wherein they do often Stand at such a Cross or at such a Turning and Rehearse certain Prayers This Supestition is what is renounced in the Covenant and it is joyned with Peregrinations and such other Fopperies He calleth Superstition a Bastard Kind of Worship p. 305. but Scrupling at Ceremonies hath nothing in it like Worship whether Bastard or Legitimate how will he then Reconcile this with Calling our Scruples Superstition The Jewish Superstitions the Murdering of A. Bishop Sharp the Heathens Superstitions that he hath Consulted Juvenal about none of these touch the Presbyterians tho one of them was Acted by some who bare that Name to the great Dislike of the rest of them He further Argueth p. 307 308. that we Contend for our own Opinions he for the Church and her Catholick Constitutions The same Arguments the Papists use against Protestants the Name of the Church is the Shelter that some flee to when they have no other Cover for the Nakedness of their Opinions We affirm and our Assertion is as Probative as his is that we maintain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture and not such as we have Groundlesly Chosen for our selves § 19. He next p. 309. falleth on the Catechism which is owned and taught in this Church after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condescending to Popular Fancies and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance This is his Strain his Genius and to be Neglected his Reproaches and Praises are of the same Value with us The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechism is it is Unintelligible by the People which were a great Fault if true and that it is Adapted to serve the Hypothesis of a certain Order of School Men he meaneth as is evident by what followeth the Dominicans or Jansenists in Opposition to the Jesuits his Grievance is our Catechism is not Pelagian nor Arminian enough I shall free him of a Fear that he expresseth p. 315. that if the Vindicator as he calleth him take these Paragraphs to Task he will most Zealously Undertake the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff that is Contained in their Publick Catechisms and Write out a whole System to Confute his Adversary Whatever be that Persons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms as intirely Orthodox he need not Fear Writing of a System on this Occasion the Person he Aimeth at will be more Sparing than so of his Ink and Paper and yet more of his Time and Labour unless he saw more Hazard to Truth than can arise from this Authors Attempt and unless there were none who could do it to better Purpose as there are many seing he intendeth not to Question the Orthodoxy of the Catechism tho he often Lasheth it that Way by severe Innuendo's but only to Prove its Unintelligibleness I shall engage with him only in that He Talketh Big of many Instances which might be brought wherein our Catechisms are Unintelligible but he is pleased to pitch but on one which is that Question Wherein consisteth the Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell to which the Answer is The Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell consisteth in the Guilt of Adams first Sin the Want of Original Righteousness and Corruption of his whole Nature which is commonly called Original Sin together with all Actual Transgressions which proceed from it I shall Anâ—madvert a few Things on this his Essay before I consider particularly the Proofs of Obscurity and Unintelligibleness of this Doctrine 1. If I should yield all that he here proposeth to himself he falleth short of his Design which is to Reproach the Scots Presbyterians for tho they owne that Catechism and look on it as one of the best extant yet it is not of their Composure it was done by the Divines Assembled at Westminster few of whom were Presbyterians 2. Few Men of Sense who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion and the Salvation of Souls will prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechism which beginneth What is thy Name Who gave thee this Name c. but will owne that there is more sound plain useful Truth and what is necessary to be known by the â—eople in our than in their Catechism As might easily be made appear if I might Digress to State a Comparison between them from the Beginning to the End 3. We must not imagine that whatever is put into a Catechism must be so plain that the meanest Capacity without Help can sufficiently understand it for there are Truths needful
What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing unless he can evince that the Presbyters who were necessary for the growing Charge were his Underlings not his Collegues § 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy as he thinketh he manageth p 164 seq from James Bishop of Jerusalem who was over many Congregations for the Increase of Christians was such as that they could not meet in one place The Answer hath been before given James was no ordinary Bishop but an Apostle and had Jurisdiction not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea but in all the World He telleth us that we use many Evasions but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them when he knoweth which of them we most trust to If I had dealt so by his Book no Answer had been given to it I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to nor which of them doth best deserve that regard If he had answered all that we say he could not have missed what we most trust to he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions not according to our Esteem of them but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice we are not much concerned in it it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City provided their Pastors be not subject to one but Co-ordinate among themselves His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir◠was needless he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel Dally and Salmasius yet that Author might modestly put him in mind how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken and when he had in his own Apprehension baffled that triumph over Presbytery as if never more had been said for it while he hath neither out of his own Store nor from the Answers of thess Books brought any thing against our main Arguments SECTION VIII Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined judging it more proper for some States Man or one who is versed in the Law his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament which he treateth very saucily but finding that they neglected his Book and think it below them unless they could also find his Person and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another if not the same Author here speaking more dareingly from behind the Curtain on second thoughts I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth in some short animadversions such as I have already made upon his Preface in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament I know the hazard of that from the experience of others but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen which touch not this matter He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries I shall consider what he saith on each of them § 2. His first Enquiry is Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters I observe two Mistakes to give them no worse Names in thus stating the Question First it is enough to us if our Reformers were mostly though not solely Presbyters if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work Secondly it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church when they had withdrawn from Subjection to the Roman Hierarchy for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers being now Reformed for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government But to gratifie my Adversary a little I so far yield to the State of his Question as to maintain that few if any had an Active Hand in the Reformation who had been Popish Bishops but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work If he would have cleared the Question he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House but confounded all and builded a Babel of their own devising To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560 who all turned Protestants this is little to the purpose for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time Preachers and some private Men did more for the turning Persons to the Truth than Parliament Men did 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number if there had been no more Hands at the Work it had gone slowly on 3. Among all these eight there were but two Bishops the rest were Prelates indeed in the Popish Sense Abbots and such like but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates or that they have superior Power in the Church to Presbyters 2. He telleth us that they who laboured most in the Reformation were not in Holy Orders and nameth some of them Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops It is true many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way nor were they Presbyters in that Church but when they turned Protestants they were made Presbyters and not Bishops Yea Claud. historic def of the Reformation part 4. page 15. saith that in many Nations among whom he nameth Scotland the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors to wit Monks Preachers Priests Curats Canons c. And it is as certain as History can make it that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops Argyle and Galloway Some of them and these of good Note and who were eminently blessed with Success were but Lay-Men as he frazeth it who by their private Labours converted many and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly by such Ordination as then could be had but they were never exalted to be Bishops Let me digress a little to observe that the Laird of Dun by this Authors account was after made a Superintendent