infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
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
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.
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
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
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
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
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
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
ordinary Power exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops compared with the Apostles Whitaâ—… I say bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle from these Characters of an Apostle and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself proving his own Apostleship that he was not called by men Gal 1. 1. Now saith he the Pope is called by men so say we of Bishops that he had his Doctrine not by mens teaching but by Revelation Gal. 1. 2. Eph 〈◊〉 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope nor Bishops that he had seen Christ 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists that they giâ—e other Characters of an Apostle which they make essential to him and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have Calvin Inâ—… lib. 4 cap 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle his universal Charge and not being tyed to a particular Church and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19 20. where he observeth that there was no bounds set to their Labours but the whole world was given them to labour in and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ but how he had travelled through a great part of the World preaching the Gospel He mentioneth also another Character that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architecâ—â— qui â—jus â—und 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or be 〈◊〉 They were the first Planters of Churches of which afterward If it be objected that these things belonged to the first and extraordinary Apostles not to these that are secondary and permanent or ordinary Apostles This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church but giveth no account of other Apostles therefore these other are not Apostles except in the general Notion as they are sent to do Church work Gersom Bucer dissert de gubern Eccles. Episceps 70. p. 269. proveth that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers from 1 Cor 12. 29. are all Apostles so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus making the Apostles such a distinct Office to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office that their Calling was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediate The same hath Paul Bayâ— Dyoces â—ryal p. 52. Didoclav altar Damascen C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker and Junius to this purpose and even Tilenus who was no friend to Presbyterie Petrum saith he unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere de Pontif lib 2 C. 4. Not 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not 7. he hath these words neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati tanquam globae ascriptus fuit quod Gregarli est Episcopi non Apostoli Also lib. 2. C. 12. § 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church now deceased which by an accident hath stuok in the Birth I mean the Press for some time the design of which is to prove and I think he doth it solidly that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way to gather and to plant Churches and to institute all Christs Ordinances in them to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded So he p 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it and administring the Ordinances of it And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church Ministerially under Christ whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all inferior Officers He further sheweth that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church in the beginning of the Gospel particularly the Evangelists whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles the one was immediatly from Christ the other was from Him by the Apostles though their Gifts were sometimes immediate and extraordinary 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit as the Apostles were but were directed and ordered by the Apostles 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly as the Apostles as appeareth from the Epist to Tim and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands as the Apostles had My design in all this is to shew that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office how ever confidently asserted by him on his bare word seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith we look on it as a groundless Fancie that he can never make out I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops and some of them call Presbyters Apostles in a large sense that is Christs Ambassadors but that some of them think or say that the Office of them who now rule the Churches is the same with that of them who at first planted them I find not when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform they shall be considered § 6 I cannot pass over without correction an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour but by the Apostles who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World A. It is most absurdly said that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle why made they use of Lots They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it his words are Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum prout Presbyteros ordinabant sed sorte utuntur quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum Nor doth it make against this that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Dr. Hammond who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be and understood as well what could be said for it saith constat Matthiam
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the rest in Thyatira is not there a plain Intimation of a Plurality under the Name of the Angel by the rest in Thyatira must needs be understood them who are distinct from the Angel and the Angel must be who ever is distinct from these who are called the rest and yet beside the rest there is a Plurality you My Antagonist hath an Answer to this Passage such as it is which I shall consider when I come to Examine his Vindication of his Argument Smectym Sect. 13. out of Fox Meditation on the Revelation which I have not seen citeth August Ep. 132. Sic enim saith he in Apocalypsi legimus Angelus c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum Coelorum non de praepositis Ecclesiae velit intelligi non consequenter dicat habeo adversum te c. And Homil. 1. in Apocaly◠Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae habeo adversum te pauca dicit praepositis Ecclesiarum And Greg. moral lib. 34. in Job 4. Saepè sacra Scriptura praedicatores Ecclesiae pro eo quod Patris gloriam annunciant Angelorum nomine solere designare hinc est quod Joannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens Angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur id est praedicatoribus populorum Also Primasius Haymo Beda Richardus Thomas and others are cited by Mr. Fox to this purpose § 23. I shall now examine what my Adversary bringeth offensively or defensively for his Opinion about these Angels 1. He falleth on Walo Messalinus who p. 184. interpreteth Angel by Church calling V. G. the Angel of Ephesus the Church of Ephesus and he giveth the reason because the Christians in each of these Towns were purior sanctior pars urbis atque adeo magis spiritualis therefore that part was compared to an Angel Tho I do not owne this Notion of the Learned Salmasius yet I judge our Authors calling it a silly Subterfuge and his ridiculing of it to be pretty ridiculous he maketh the meaning be the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches that is the Churches of the seven Churches By his favour it hath no such sense Salmasius can hardly be Taxed with Nonsense even by Men of more Critical Skill than this Author is it should be thus Paraphrased the seven Angels are the Churches of the seven Towns and it is evident that according to the Opinion of that Learned Writer the Angels are not distinguished from the Churches but from the Towns wherein they were Also when the Epistle is addressed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the meaning is not to the Church of the Church of Ephesus but to the Church which is at Ephesus even as the Virgin Daughter of Israel is not the Nation of the Nation of Israel but that Nation which is called Israel Mystical Expressions must not be strained by Critical Wits some Atheists by this method have endeavoured to draw Nonsense out of the most Profound and Instructive Parts of Scripture Our Author hath not dealt very fairly with Salmasius in this matter for he understandeth by Angel the Church Guides signanter and also the whole Church his words are per Ecclesiam having said that Angelus was Ecclesia non tantum Ecclesiasticum ordinem intellexit Joannes sed universum in quaque civitate fidelem populum ut mo◠est Apostolis loqui And if he will ridicule Salmasius the same Censure must fall on Aretas Bishop of Cesarea Cappadociae whom Salmasius citeth p. 183. Discoursing at large to the same purpose I cannot understand what he designeth by telling us p. 115. That the Church cannot be called a Company a Multitude or a Colledge of Angels but one single Angel praesiding in their Ecclesiastical Meetings For no Man doth so sense the word but by Angel some understand a Multitude of People others a Plurality of Elders but none of them make Angel to be a Multitude of Angels § 24. He next telleth us that tho there be Instructions in these Epistles in which others are concerned yet the Epistles are no less to single Angels tha◠the Epistle to the Philippians is to the whole Church there tho particular Compellations he used as I intreat thee true Yoke Fellow Ch. 4. Here is an odd Consequence there is an Apostrophe used to a single person in an Epistle expresly Directed to a Community and that in plain and proper Language Ergo when in a Mystical Speech an Epistle is Directed in the singular Number in a borrowed Term we may not understand a Plurality tho when the Writer of the Epistle speaketh more properly he speak expresly to a Plurality What tho the Conclusion of the second Epistle to Timothy had been to a Plurality doth it thence follow that a Mystical Word in the singular Number may not be Plurally taken the contrary would seem to follow more natively But he is guilty of a double Mistake here one is that the Conclusion of that Epistle is to all the Faithful the last words are The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit grace be with you Where he is mentioned expresly as the Person to whom the Epistle is Directed and the People of God with him are remembred also expresly it is not alike when the Word is used in the Direction of an Epistle which tho singular is capable of a plural Sense and in the Epistle a Plurality is expresly spoken to His next Fancy is most groundless that the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches are called Angels in Imitation of the High Priest who was Dignified with that Name and for this he citeth Mal. 2. at the 7. v. For tho we should grant that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be Translated Angel as well as Messenger yet this is a Description of the Priests Work and Authority telling us what he is it is not a Name by which he used to be Designed Again what Warrant is there to say that this is meant of the High Priest peculiarly it is evidently to be understood of Priests in common the Priest that is every Priest For Deut. 27. 9 10 11. whence that Axiom seemeth to be taken Ascribeth this Priviledge to a Plurality of Priests and not to the High Priest alone Further it is a bad Consequence the High Priest was called an Angel and the Church Rulers are called Angels Ergo every one of them had the same Jurisdiction that h ehad this is a loose way of Reasoning and either will fix the Pope in his Chair or is Insignicant He hinteth very superficially and obscurely an Answer to one of our Exceptions p. 116. That the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels because they had Spiritual Power to reform them Reply it cannot be so understood for some of the Faults are such as no Church Discipline can reach nor any Ministerial Care prevent or amend as having a name to live when they are dead Hypocrisie is not properly the Object of Church Censures but such Scandal as are the
Symptoms of it nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel may be gathered from v. 4. where a few and only a few in that Church are excepted from that blame I add that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity § 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you and to the rest in Thyatira 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel who not only blameth our Translation but the Greek which he alledgeth to be corrupted by adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would have it read to you the rest of Thyatira His ground is the most ancient Manuscripts particularly that of Alexandria preserved in the Royal Library hath not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans. It is Confidence enough if it be also Candor to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts when but one can be instanced Grotius Ribera and Beza mention but three which is far from the most part and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas I oppose to this bold Pretence the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus who hath with no good Design toward the Scripture gathered together what he could meet with and may be more than ever were extant where this is not to be found Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts which he there nameth and not a word of these in any of them Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis in the fore-mentioned Appendix where nothing of this appeareth If his one Manuscript be enough to Over-ballance all the Manuscripts and Printed Copies extant let the Reader judge Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose he hath a second Answer which supposeth our Reading of the Text to be right that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you relateth to all the Churches of Asia which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention and let him have the praise of it Doctor Ham. in loc maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis which is better sense but without all ground unless what is in Question be yielded to him his Party may applaud his Zeal which will rather Distort the Scripture and turn it to Nonsense than not defend the Dignity of Bishops For what sense could it make I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts but to you the Churches of Asia and to the rest in Thyatira I say these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia how then can they be called the rest as distinguished from them Beside he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person It were then strange if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel that a Praeses is meant ridiculous and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly or Monethly Moderator but pleadeth against his being perpetual which this Author should have opposed with Reason or Scripture not with Taunts We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops his refuting of it is idle work That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna as he saith p. 118. is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus and if the Good that is said of Smyrna sute to the one History the Ill that is said of Ephesus will as ill agree to the other He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries the Presbyterians being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them which might easily be done if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity § 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner that all this Labour might have been saved But it may be this Birth also may miscarry Parturiunt montes the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties as before this Invention was hatched His easie way lieth in three Enquiries Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees when they reason against Hereticks 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority and Tradition in an Affair of this Consequence If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions our whole Debate will soon but not soundly be at an end but if we contest every one of them in his sense with him we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth For his first Enquiry it must not be made nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles but the Question is whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People that the Apostles had The Ancients sometimes with the Scripture called all Presbyters Bishops sometimes by a Custom that early crept into the Church they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters and the Question is whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles I hold that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted and must be continued to the end was communicated not to the Praeses alone but also to the rest of the Presbyters and that all of them were the Apostles Successors in that respect he is for the contrary Opinion § 27. Let us now hear his Reasons Two things he brings for Arguments or what else I do not well know One is It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees by the most ancient Records of the Church This is no dreadful Argument for 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth I need not transcribe them there is not one in which an
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
viz. his Epistles If we have no more Certainty about the Epistles than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Martyr and other Popish Relicks few wise Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them That Polycarp made a Collection of these Epistles and Irenaeus cited them proveth no more but that good Men may be imposed on by Forged Writings Eusebius rejected some suppositions Books after accurate Enamination were a good Argument if it could be made out that he rejected all such the contrary whereof is well known For his Belief that the Orations of Cicero are genuine let him enjoy it but if he build his Faith on any Article of Religion or his Practice of Piety towards God on that Certainty I cannot do so too Whether Cicero wrote these Orations or not is neither a Matter of such Moment nor so contested by plausible Arguments as what we now Debate is § 45. What remains of my Antagonists Discourse on this Controversie about Episcopacy is a Recapitulation of what he hath already said in nine Questions which he seemeth to set down as so many Trophies of Victory over all his Adversaries and a few other Hints for strengthning his Cause His Questions need litle Animadversion all that is contained in them being already Answered and his Opinion in these things disproved whether concludently and solidly or not the Reader will judge His first three Questions do all suppose that we are against Prelacy merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy used in Scripture which is a false Supposition I have proposed our Argument with more strength Sect. 4. § 5. so as it is no way touched by what he here saith wherefore it is no loss to our Cause if we give a negative or affirmative Answer to these Questions whether he shall chuse To his fourth Question I Answer that Apostolick Power as to its permanent Branches was perpetual and successive my Answer must be Tautological because his Question is such but not so as to all its Essential Branches As to its necessary Branches if he mean what is necessary to the Beeing or Idea of an Apostle I deny these to be Perpetual and Successive To the second part of this Question I Answer negatively that this Power was not transmitted in solidum to single Successors in particular Sees but to a Colledge of Presbyters Question fifth Where Superiority is forbidden is most impertinent to our Debate seing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it he should bring either a Command for it or what is equivalent The Popes Monarchy over the Church is not more forbidden than the Superiority of one Priest as he speaketh over another both of them must be Juris Divini in his Opinion I retort his own Argument if Parity be not plainly forbidden which I am sure he cannot shew then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Episcopacy such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government is Groundless and Chymerical It is enough to us that Christ hath instituted Parity and he hath not allowed Men to change it we think this a sufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pleadeth for His sixth is a heap of Questions to which I Answer we deny the universal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth and say a more universal Tradition might be demanded We deny also that the Argument from universal Tradition exclusive of Apostolick Tradition if he can bring that he hath done his Work is in this Case either the most proper or most necessary Scripture Command or Example is both more proper and more necessary For the seventh we do not pretend there was such a great Change so suddenly as he fancieth we do and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Possibility of it I have said enough on this head § 41. To his eighth we affirm that Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly represented by Presbyterians and have answered what he saith to the contrary Sect. 6. § 7. seq His last Question about Ignatius's Epistles may be retorted on himself whether there be any solid Argument brought for them sub judice lis est Himself declineth that Debate as I also do It is enough to us that even the Testimonies out of these Epistles are not concludent and if the Epistles were Authentick their Authority is but Humane and Fallible and cannot be a Prejudice against Divine Institution and indeed cannot make Faith where the Question is de Jure Divino as here it is § 46. I now proceed to consider some immethodical and incoherent Notions with which he concludeth this Chapter He telleth us p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Praesidency since the days of the Apostles he might have added and in their days too so that the Quarrel is not so much against Episcopacy as against the Extent of their Diocess and Increase of their Power over what it was in the Primitive times Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more absolute than now it is pretended to be for nothing was to be done without the Bishop a Presbyter might not Baptize without his express Indulgence as Tertull witnesseth This Testimony of Tertull. I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examed § 49. By Bishop may either be understood the Moderator not in his single Capacity but with the Presbytery none might act within their District but by their Allowance or a Parish Minister none might Baptize c. in his Parish but by his Consent He next citeth Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth writing to the Gnossians exhorting Pinytus their Bishop not to lay the heavy burden of Caelibacy I suppose that he meaneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Brethren that is the Clergy whence he wisely inferreth the Power of Pinytus to have done this And citeth on his Margin Euseb. hist. Eccles. but neither Book nor Chapter nor the place of Dionysius where the words may be found A. Euseb. hist. lib. 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epistle of Dionysius to Pinytus and his Answer to him where he checketh Dionysius for that Advice to him But nothing of all this importeth the Power of Pinytus to forbid Marriage he might say on this burden by preaching the necessity of Caelibacy without Authoritative imposing it Yea he might impose it as Praeses by the concurrent Authority of the Presbytery without sole Jurisdiction He mentioneth likeways the Canon Apostol and Ignatius's Epistles but citeth nothing out of them so that he cannot expect an Answer As to the Extent of Diocesses we no further make an Argument from it than we maintain that a Pastor of a Church should have no larger Charge than he can dispense the Word and Sacraments to and that he should not do this by Deputies under him We lay no Stress on the word Diocess nor on the unequal Extent of a Pastors District provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without such Superiority over others
Knox in this matter which meerly to save time I shall not concern my self in Ans. It being evident that in our first Setlement of Discipline our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie negative Arguments from the Writing or sayings of private Men are insignificant and it is less to the purpose to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said or Written any thing to the contrarie directly or indirectly For his Debate about John Knox I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing and against Christs Institution That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline is falsly supposed p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it of which after § 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount of what influence England had on our Reformation from Popery whence he inferreth that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England Here he undertaketh two things 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Policy of the Church For Ans. to this Argument it is wholly inconsequential if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned except the last about the Government and Policy of the Church and even that signifieth nothing unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy and not for Paritie and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things and shall consider his last Article and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it The Reader without my Animadversion will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey and fawning on another Nation This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England which he insisteth on from p. 7. it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy is less to his Question which is only about Government We never thought that our Reformers at first were all of the same Principle with us in all things I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church Yea themselves had afterward other thoughts of some things than they had at first as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first which afterward he rejected I observe further that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers his best ground for what he affirmeth is it is not to be imagined that they did so and so or it is to be presumed We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy that so it must be If I thought it worth the while I would Examine these Histories more narrowly But I could easily yield him all without prejudice to our Cause seing the Principles of our Reformers are better known by their publick Deeds than by the private Sayings or Practices of two or three of them and these not sufficiently attested These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies by which she had been burdened but that all or most of them were satisfied with their Government and Discipline is the Question and is not Proved by what he hath said It is least of all Concludent that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland which he laboureth to Prove p. 80. and it is unaccountable that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England that they were of the same Religon with us which he puteth in majusculis we say the same of them at this day and I hope they think not otherwise of us and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini If he can find a Contradiction here let him try his Skill to discover it It is an odd method that he useth p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy because it was natural for the English who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it And I Prove they were not for it because de facto they did not setle it but a way inconsistent with it Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent We do not find that the English made such a Demand and if they did not they acted like discreet Neighbours not to impose on their Brethren who had other sentiments of the Matter and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion And if they made such a Demand the Event shewed that it was not listned to For his Citation of Buchannan p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions who can hope to find the place I know not what Buchannan could mean by it but it is evident if the Scots did so subscribe they did not act accordinglie which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way It is nauseous to repeat with him so often the Godly Conjunction the Unity Peace and Christian Concord that was then made between England and Scotland and to set forth this as a Demonstration Yea a Set of Demonstrations that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate in the Face of Matter of Fact that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church § 6. He undertaketh p. 96. and forward to prove that at the Reformation the English Lyturgy was used in this Church If this should be granted it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also they wanted qualified Ministers so that there was need of some help to them in Praying and Instructing the People publikly and it may
be there was no other that they could at that time use and they had not so fully discovered what might be and afterward was excepted against in it and therefore used it for a time but I think he will not deny that as soon as they could they laid it aside and made use of that more Unexceptionable Form of Geneve till at last that was difused also as a Man layeth by his Crutches when he getteth Strength to go by himself He sheweth wonderful Skill in Logick p. 98. Calderwood had said that the English Lyturgy which was read in the new Colledge in Saint Andrews was not of any continued Practice in time by past since the Reformation Ergo it was practised at the Reformation Whatever may be said of the Consequent the Consequence is no better than this I never used to smoak Tobacco in any continued Practice since I was born Ergo I did it when I was born p. 101 c. he telleth us of another Principle wherein our Reformers agreed with them of England that the Church had a great Dependence on the State that it belonged to the Civil State to reform the Church that the People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrat c. this is still extra oleas vagari I shall not so far digress from the purpose in hand as to consider what the present Presbyterians hold as to these Assertions nor need I compare the Opinion of our Reformers with ours in this matter if he can charge us with Hetrodoxy on this head we shall Answer him when he will This whole Discourse is impertinent it doth not prove that our Reformers were for Episcopacie and if it did it is no good Consequent that we should be for it too I have alreadie said that we never thought our Reformers were in all things of the same Opinion with the present Presbyterians and I am sure that he hath far less cause to think that they were for all that the present Prelatists hold Another thing more he sheweth that the Scots and English Reformers agreed in this p. 105. that they took for the Rule of Reformation the Word of God interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church And here he enlargeth in the Commendation of this Rule and obliquely chargeth the Presbyterians with all the Horrid Rebellions and Unchristian Divisions unaccountable Revolutions both in Church and State which have Unbinged all the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty and Disabled nay eaten out the Principles of Christianity among us that now we are not so much disposed for any thing as for Atheism Which Strain I find is common with Men of his Stamp but it is most disingenuous Dealing for the World knoweth where the Fault of our Divisions dothly and whether Atheism Immoralitie and Injustice have thriven more under the Influence of Prelacie or of Presbyterie For the Revolution that he seemeth to be so angry with the Presbyterians think it their Glorie to have Countenanced it and the Bodie of the Prelatists in England I mean not in Scotland will not disowne their Accession to it nor will they look on it as this Author and some others do to have Unbinged the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty The Rule of Reformation that he had mentioned he saith he will bring in again by and by where we shall attend him § 7. He telleth us p. 106 c. of his Performances which he recapitulateth and concludeth in the highest Measure of Confidence that Words can express that our Reformers were not for the Divine Right of Parity I am so dull that I cannot see this Point proved for all that he hath said and if it were proved it is nothing to our main Cause we never said that they were in all things either as Presbyterians or as Prelatists are now in their Opinions all that we assert is that they were for Paritie and practised it as the Government of the reformed Church of Scotland and it is more than probable that they were for its Divine Right In what followeth his Confidence ariseth yet higher and that in the Entrance of what now he is attempting and about which he maketh very large Promises p. 108. where he pretendeth to give plain positive direct and formal proofs of his Assertion to as high a degree as the nature of the thing is capable of or can reasonably bear For performance of this his first Attempt is in a Petition of the Reformers to the Government this is one Article as it is set down by Lesly de rebus gestis Scotor lib. 10. p. 504. Ut Episcopi deinceps Pastores illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque Diocesis hi parochorum assentione ac voluntate ad beneficia cooptentur There is nothing Answerable to the Evidence so confidently promised by him it is no positive plain c. Proof the matter could bear more viz. if Lesly had said that however the Schismaticks as he calleth them were for abolishing the old Doctrine that they were for keeping up the ancient Hierarchie But that this is no sufficient Proof of his Conclusion I shew 1. Supposing Lesly's Veracitie and fair Representation of the Address that the Reformers made no more can be concluded from it but that it is supposed that the Revenues of Bishops could not quickly be alienated and that some must be chosen to enjoy them that they might be so and so chosen here is not a Word of chusing Bishops to Exercise that Office over or among the Protestants and it is well known that the Rents of Bishops Abbots Priors and other Dignitaries of the Church of Rome did continue and Men were chosen to the Name and Rent of these Places who did not Exercise the Power that Men under these Names had in Popery 2. Himself confesseth that this Article of the Petition is otherwise rendred in Buchannan and Spotswood viz. Ut Ministrorum electio juxta antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset Here is no Word of Bishops and one may think that we have more Cause to Credit these two Protestant Historians than Lesly a Papist who on all Occasions sheweth his Spite against Protestants especially Spotswood an Arch-Bishop would not have neglected to make use of this seeming Countenance to his Cause This Author hath no other Shift to take off the Edge of this Exception but to tell us that Buchannan minded Matters of State most in History and Spotswood is very defective in many parts of his History which is indeed to say that neither of them is to be much regarded but Lesly is the Man if it be so we must look on the whole of our Reformation with a very unfavourable Eye Whither this will seem absurd to this Author or not I know not He is at a great deal of Pains to prove that Lesly did not Forge this Article and bringeth no fewer than six Arguments to prove it which I judge not worth my Labour of Examining
meant none but such as Anabaptists and Familists And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland by saying and that frequently that no Error could get footing there in Scotland while Kirk Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies stood in their Force He concludeth his Second Enquiry with making a great Improvement against us as he thinketh of our saying that the Bishops set up in that he calleth his second Model had no more Power than Superintendents whence he Argueth Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power but the Assembly at Dundee 1580 Condemned Episcopacie and they Condemned also Superintendencie whence it followeth that they and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this not only forsook but condemned the Principles of our Reformers This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand But the Answer is plain and easie and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed That Assemblie did and the Presbyterians do condemn Superindendencie as what ought not to continue in the Church nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time in an extraordinarie Exigent And we affirm which our Author hath not yet disproved that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church § 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is whether Prelacie and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance and Trouble to this Nation and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People ever since the Reformation He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true this Question will soon be dispatched for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed He might if so it had pleased him saved the labour of this tedious Debate in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said unless we could which is impossible have the Vote by Pole of all the Individuals of the Nation and that in all the Times and Changes since the Reformation The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs he may for me abound in his own sense I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians yea of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest â—…minencie for Vertue Understanding and Rouk and yet not Presbyterian that Presbyterie was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie I judge they mistake but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt I would have him also consider that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie and Establish Presbyterie the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow and countenance by their Authority this Government of the Church but we think it standeth on a surer bottom than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth which Grounds I have laid down in this Work if he can Beat us from these we shall become his willing Proselyts and quit though we will not Revile it as he doth this Act of Parliament as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State or of the Church or was more designed to ridicule or to refute Presbyterie that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done but we are in utrumque parati to despise his Mocking and to Answer his Material Arguments though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done about Matters that be remote from the main Question § 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576 and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had Beza also and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church Ans. I believe so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence it was no small Mercie and Matter of Joy that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church when as many as were needed could not be had and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem yet it is no good Argument the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful therefore they inclined to have them or Bishops perpetuated in the Church Another great Argument is even in after times and the more advanced State of Presbyterie when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London for their forwardness in that way yet all things went peaceably in Scotland as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie and their Inclination to Presbyterie seing the Nation have these years past been in Peace though he and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be That Episcopacie prevailed 1610 Proveth no more for the one side than the prevailing of Paritie 1592 and again 1690 Proveth for the other side Yea submitting to Episcopacie so far as to sit in Synods and Presbyteries with a Bishop was no Argument of Approving it in the case of the Church that then was when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie and Bishops thrust in on them It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority and were called again only by the Bishops Authority He Chargeth Calderwood and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie that he had said that it was Statute in Parliament 1565 that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is and shall be within this same Kirk Established presently or which floweth
to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion by Men and as a part of Gods Worship And another whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God merely as a piece of good Order and Policy The first the Papists are for the other most of our Prelatists owne though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter 6. The Question is not whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship that is when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation or for Thanksgiving and Rejoycing seing in that Case there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work but whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly and as it recurreth every Year The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year and other Days and exempteth it altogether and constantly from Civil Use the other doth not so the one maketh a Difference among Days the other maketh the Difference only in the Works or Dispensations of God which occasioneth such Work on that Day and not on another All that the Church doth in the one Case is whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work as it is expressed Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time which must be done in the other the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity Which the Lord hath not injoyned neither do we doubt but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship to wit while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth Weekly or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning 7. One Question is whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed or may be appointed by Man another whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints for some are for the great Days as they call them which respect Christ and our Redemption such as the Nativity Resurrection Ascension and some others who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints 8. It is a Question whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints as the Papists do and another whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days this last our Brethren are for though it will be hard to separate these two of which afterward § 3. I shall now set down our Opinion and wherein we differ from others And first we maintain that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him I do not expect that our Brethren will directly and expresly controvert this though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon Only I take notice that they who are most for observing other Holy Days do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day either in their Principle or their Practice 2. I assent that the Lord hath not instituted under the Gospel any other recurrent Holy Days nor enjoyned the Observation of them If any think otherwise they must prove what they affirm 3. The Church hath no Power to institute or injoy the Observation of any recurrent or Anniversary Holy Days for Religious Use without a special and present Occasion 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally for Religious Work are no further Holy than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment they have no Sanctity in themselves nor can Men impart it to them 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring either Ancient or Modern Churches or Persons who are for some of these Holy Days yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this nor look on these Days as indifferent things as some of them do 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches which our Author talketh so much of and blameth us for differing from them he may know that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them in this Matter than we are for they condemn the Saints Holy Days so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin in both the Epistles cited § 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith cap. 24. in Cor. Confess p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days in these Words Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo judicoque quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur circumciditur moritur resurgit Christus Turretin Theolog. Elentic loc 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do I shall transcribe his Words after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits and should do it in the Word and Sacraments he addeth sed questio est an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi Deo sacri annuatim recurrentes a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint quod nos negamus he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others or a part of Gods Worship or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii Markius also Compend cap. 12. § 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed and himself so near to them as he would now make the World believe I do not pretend that they are generally wholly on our Side in this for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent in which we cannot assent to them But I know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them being recommended by the Church or of the Religion that is in this Observation as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do Our Brethren do also stand by themselves in their keeping of Saints Days and in the Number of their Holy Days which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews forthe Primitive Church at some Distance from the Apostolick Times may be they may have some Countenance there yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned and urged as they urge and impose them nor made such a Yoke to the People as may be gathered from Socrates histor Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. I am of Opinion that as many other things crept in by Custom in diverse places so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People from a certain private Custom and Observation in so much that as I said before not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man so much as one Rule of it it was observed not by Canon but of Custom and afterward he
the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
his Point we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and stated Days for this Commemorating Worship and maintain that Christ hath appointed Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration and he telleth us the Church hath Commanded it also to be done and there is an End § 11. He next bringeth somewhat like Reason the Church may appoint these Seasons which are but Circumstances of time as well as the Jewish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer at which the Apostles were present Acts 2. 15. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and express Institution of GOD but were kept by an Appointment and Custom of their own Ans. 1. He doth injuriously insinuate that we require an immediate and express Institution for the Days that we will observe where have we ever said so let him Prove an Institution either by express Words or good Consequence or Apostolick example or by anie good Medium and we shall acquiesce 2. The Appointing Holy Days is more than determining a Circumstance of Time It is a sequestering of these Days perpetually from Civil to Sacred Use it is to give them a relative Holiness as far as Mans power can reach by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercises of Religion it is a Dedication of such a part of our time to GOD so as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time and so making a difference among Days which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie the Apostles Rom. 14. 5. counted it a weakness in some who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus slightlie what they did was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They distinguished days one from another and that with respect to Religion which could not be without judging one of them better and more Holy than another and so it is Expounded by Erasmus and Vatablus Eslius turneth it eligit unum prae alio is this no more but determining a Circumstance Beside the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circumstances of Worship as we please but when it is Necessarie that a Circumstance that relateth to Worship must be determined and it is not determined by the Lord in Scripture in that case Men may and must Determine it but this is not the Case in hand there is no need that a stated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Mysteries of our Redemption seing the Lord himself hath appointed his own Day for that End and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration 3. For the Jewish Church appointing hours of Prayer It is to be Considered that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice And these Hours of Prayer were appointed by God not the Church It is true Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewes were obliged to Observe everie day and on their Festivities they added a Fourth but this was in the degenerat times of their Church as the Papists have their Canonoical hours Maimonides indeed telleth us that Esdras made Forms of Prayer and they appointed the Number of Prayers according to the Number of the Sacrifices but it cannot be Proved that these Constitutions were of that Antiquitie § 12. He further reasoneth thus p. 171. there is something Analogical in the Christian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews which are not the less Acceptable because Voluntarie but rather the more as long as they are within the Circle of these things which he hath Commanded Ans. If we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies and make these a Warrant for modes of Religious Worship there shall be no end of devising new Ways of Worshipping God while yet Men keep within the Compass of what is Commanded as to the Substance of their Service In this case the most fancieful Contriver and Inventer of what is New fine and gaudie shall be the best Divine and there shall be no end of Contention for what this Bishop thinketh a fine way and Anological to what is Commanded another shall think unfit We have cause to bless the Lord that he hath given us a more sure Rule for our Direction even the Scripture 2. These Days Invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes for these were Commanded in general and a Warrant given for them and Directions given how they should be Managed Levit. 1. 3. and 3. 16. and manie other places nothing of this can be said of the Holy Days People may Pray as oft as they will and so may the Church meet as oft as she will for Religious Service as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pleased but the Jews were never allowed to set up stated Days and to separate them from other Days for their Free-will-offerings no more are Christians allowed to do so with respect to Prayers and Praises 3. If Modes of Worship or stated Days for them be not less Acceptable because Voluntarie there could be no such thing as Will Worship which yet the Scripture condemneth and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teach for Doctrine the Commandments of Men viz. about Religious Worship which is contrary to Maâ—th 15. 9. I confess Prayer and Praises are not the less accepted because Voluntarie for these are Commanded Duties but to separate Days from Common use to these Exercises and that without special occasion and constantly when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end this is not Commanded in general nor in particular nor hath any Analogie with the Jewish Free-will-offerings this we Assert not to be within the Power of the Church if he think it is he must Prove it He sayeth the Doctrine of Presbyterians is contrary to all Christian Churches and he telleth us of Citations to this purpose by Durellus No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us but such an universal Assertion cannot be Proved by a Thousand Instances if we can bring one instance to the contrary and for this we adduce the Apostolick Church I have also § 4. mentioned Churches and Learned Men in them who are as far from his Opinion in the Matter of Holy Days as from ours I shall now add some more Luther lib. ad Nobilitatem Germanicam Art 5. consultum esse ut omnia Festa aboliantur praeter diem Dominicum And lib. de bonis operibus Utinam saith he apud Christianos nullum esset Festum nisi dies Dominicus That Calvin was really against them all though for Peace he yielded to some few of them I have shewed above Bucer in Math. 12. p. 118. hath these Words Ferias alias sive Dei-pari Virginis sive Christi sive Sanctorum Nomine commendatae sint optarem abrogatas universas And he bringeth strong Reasons for his Opinion while he addeth Primum enim constat nullo Dei verbo invectas ubi enim in Apostolicis Scriptis aliquid de Natali Christi de Epiphania similibus facile crediderim Zelo Dei a veteribus introductas
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
only Schism to depart fâ—om a Church without just cause that we have been joyned to but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without Sin the former may be called a â—ositive this a negative Separation 4. Schism may be also called Positive or negative in another Sense the former when a Partie in a Church doth not joyn with the Church yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church whereof they were Members the later when they set up such a distinct Societie there may be just Causes for both The first When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to because of some Corruption that I must partake of if I joyn but I partake with some other more pure Societie The second When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin nor can they have the occasion of a Societie where they might joyn they must either live without Ordinances or set up another Religious Societie on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches 5. There may be a partial Separation when one Ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot joyn in it and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion and a total Separation when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service unless we joyn in all or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous The former by most wise and sober Men is not reckoned such a Schism as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account but the Author I now Debate with aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism as also do many of â—is Partizans driving many Consciencious and good Men from them for the sake of some Usages which themselves count indifferent and the others apprehend to be unlawful 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters especially when Managed with heat and animosities may be called Schiâ—m according to the import of the Word yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism they are not to be so reputed unless some kind of separation or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another follow upon them Diversitie of Opinion and of Affection are sinful evils but it is diversitie of Religious Practice following on these that maketh ChurchiSchism 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other and often neither side is wholly innocent they who have cause to separate may manage their Good cause by evil Methods and in a way that is not wholly Commendable now to know on which side the blame of the Schism â—ieth we must not always conclude that they are in the fault 1. Who are the fewer Number otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful Nor 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers themselves being in Possession of Church Authority for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis Nor 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority and hath the Law on its side not only because it is the Gospel not the Law of the Land that is the Rule of our Religion and Church Practice but also because that is variable and by that Rule they who were the sound Partie one year may be Schismaticks the other without any Change in their Principles or Practice which is absurd Wherefore the blame of Schism in that case lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide or who though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause every thing that we may justly blame not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church Hence it plainly followeth that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is there is the Church and they who have most of these are the soundest Church § 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism and where the Blame of it lieth I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church about Schism it is evident that they did Oppose it and set forth its Sinfulness and sad Consequences with a great deal of Zeal and that justly for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side or the other but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order of the inward and outward Practice of Religion and of Mens Souls and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians that they think well of Schism that is truely such or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard and Fatal Effects of it nay our Principle is that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church yea that nothing can Warrant or Excuse it but the Necessity of shuning Sin It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks as also of Heretick and that often proceeded from a true though mistaken Zeal for lovely Truth and beautiful Unity at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities that they as all Men are were Subject to Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Father 's called several Practices Schism and shewed a great dislike of them all As 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church as Schism and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed under this Head which I shall not now mention it being my Work at present only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about and blameth People for as Schismaticks and Sectaries which they laid no such stress on They bare with one another though they Dissered in Rites and several Customs They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent but maintained Peace and Concord notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus reproving Victor of Rome where Usurpation and imposing on others early began for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind and yet they did lovingly Communicate together The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some think they should
Fast one Day to wit before Easter some two others 40 hours but yet still they retained Peace the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith and in the same place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they maintained Peace and none was cast out for that Difference Among Cyprians Epistles one from Firmilian sheweth the same thing iâ— plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum nominum varietate diversa fiunt nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae â—ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est § 4. It is also very plain that the Fathers I mean of the first Ages did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same Opinion about all points of Doctrine but did bear with one another and maintained Peace even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths yea when some of them would impose their Opinions on others and Censure them who Differed from them they were by the rest dealt with not as Maintainers but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church Justin. Martyr dialog cum Tryphon speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites if they did it out of weakness and did not impose on other Christians sayeth of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That we must receive them and Communicate with them as of the same Mind or Affections with us and as Brethren And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account Firmilian in the Ep. above cited hath these Words on this occasion quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore honore servabant Irenae lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren propter modicas quaslibet causas magnum gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt dividunt quantum in ipsis est interficiunt pacem loquentes bellum operantes vere liquantes culicem camelum transglutientes § 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal Charging such as Apostats from the Church and breakers of her Peace who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential and Fundamental or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths Irenae lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit Colon 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion hath these Words hanc igitur praedicationem hanc â—â—dem adepta Ecclesia quamvis dispersa in universo mundo diligenter conservat aâ— si in una eademque domo habitaret ac similiter iis fidem habet ac si unam animam unumque idem cor haberet atque unâ— consensu hoc praedicat docet ac tradit ac si uno ore praedita esset Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum una tamen eadem est vis traditionis nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt nec quae in Hispania neque in Galliis neque in Oriente neque in AEgypto neque in Lybia aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt sed quemadmodum Sol Creatura Dei unus idem est in universo Mundo ita praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt Eusseb Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae condemning Tatianus the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae and saying of him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church or a breaking her Unitie The same Historian lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating how long the Church remained a Virgin Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets and what the LORD himself taught and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth Rome and Jerusalem and then sheweth how Heresies arose whose Authors he calleth false Christs false Prophets and false Apostles and of them he sayeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they divided the Unity of the Church by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD and against his CHRIST Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose but these may be sufficient I do not Question but that there might be other things which might be called Schism even with respect to the universal Church as if any should bring in Idolatrous or Superstitious Worship contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils and should set up Societies in opposition not only to one or few but to all the Societies of Christians or all the Soundest of them But of the first we hear little of the first Ages neither could the second be because they had no general Councils nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward for the Third we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks who were Noted for their Heresie and their Schism little spoken of as being the Consequent of the other so it was with the Novatian Schism § 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all or most Churches and so on the Catholick Church yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches either which were united by the Bond of one Government a Provincial or lesser Synod being made up of them or only living in the vicinitie of one another or having frequent occasion of Correspondence they who were not under any uniting Bonds but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence mutual Assistance as occasion offered acquainting one another with their Affairs so far as it was of any Advantage admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion with them on occasion refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches as were by them Excommunicated and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned or refused especially when they who were cast out by one were received to another or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church or denied to such Sojourners if they desired it or when one Church shewed Rage Furie and Bitterness against another because of what they differed about Instances of this are many the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome and Cyprian of Carthage came to that Height that they would not Communicate together one of them Anathematized the other and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe and these of Africk did concern themselves in it Eusebiâ—â— cited Catal. Test verit p. 26. ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the
Contentions of Priests and Bishops Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author p. 27. maketh an Observation that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord in Solâ— vero Ecclesia Dei pro qua Christus est mortuus in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde opulenter â—ffudit maximum dissidium vehementem multorum tum inter ipsos tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obsâ—rvari quod horrendissimum est ipsos Ecclesiae prâ—sides in tanto Animi Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare gregem ipsius absque ullâ— commiseratione perturbare ut ipsis nunc si unquam prodeuntibuâ— florentibus iniquis impleatur illud Apostoli ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes ut abstraâ—ant post se discipulos The Learned Owen of Apostacie p. 500. observeth that the Scandaloâ—â— Divisions among Christians especially among their Leaders was the first â—tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen § 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality whether it were Injunctions Reproofs or Censures The Breach of this Unitie was when any one or moe of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said much more when they did that by themselves which should have been done by the whole as when Foelicissimus and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage absolved some of the Lapsed neglecting Cyprian the Bishop or Praeses and the Body of the Presbyters which Cyprian did Highly and Justly Resent Or when they or any of the People refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth I insist no further on it for it is the same Thing as to Church Unity whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop if that be the right Government of the Church or against the Synod Presbyterie Classical or Congregational if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed Yea it is the same Breach of Unity to set up another Bishop beside the true Bishop of the Church or a new Synod or Presbyterie beside these which one was before a Member of or Subject to yea or to gather a Church and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish beside what was orderly there settled Wherfore the last sort of Unity or Schism is that which belongeth to a particular Congregational Church This Unity if we take Schiâ—m in a large Sense is broken by Diversitie either of Opinions or Affections among the Members of the Church when they Disagreee and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion At Corinth there was such a Schism they came together and yet the Apostle saith there were Divisions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among them But Schisms in the Church were of old and now are taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion either by withdrawing only or by setting up another Religious Society also This the Fathers Expressed sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop or withdrawing from him that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie So it is sometimes Expressed by them but even when the Presbyterie or Church is not named it is so to be understood and the Bishop is so often Named because he was in these times the constant Praeses of their Meetings and even this Praelation though without sole Jurisdiction into which it did at last Issue began early to be too much taken Notice of as I have more fully shewed else-where § 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often yea ordinarilie thus understood by the Ancients Next that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism but allowed it to be done in some Cases and for some Causes For the former Cyprian in many Places condemneth this as Schism Ep. 40. § 4. Edit 1593. Deus unus est Christus unus una Ecclesia Catâ—edra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata aliud Altare constitui aut Sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum Altare unum Sacerdotium non potest Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit Adulterium est impium est quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur ut Dispositio Divina violetur Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church also Ep. 55. § 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata quam unde quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him and the Church What he saith of one Priest and one Judge cannot be meant that the Presbyters were no Priests for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar likewise Ep. 64. § 4. Hâ— sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant sic de Ecclesia receditur sic Altare profanum foris collocatur sic contra Pacem Christi Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought Ep. 69. § 7. he calleth the Church Plebs Sacerdoti unita Pastori suo Grex adhaerens and Ep. 38. § 1. saith of Schismaticks â—um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere id est a Pastore oves Filios a Parente separare Christi Membra dissipare And de Unitate Eccles. § 10. he saith of them Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt so also Ignat. ad Mag nes p. 32. Edit Vossii quarto 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they conveened not firmly that is it would not hold in Law according to the Command and Ep. ad Smyrn p. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who doth any thing viz. in Religious Matters without the Knowledge of the Bishop that is in a Parish without the Pastor or in a Presbyterie without them orderlie met with their Praeses he serveth the Devil The second thing above-mentioned is to shew that there were some Causes for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop or the Church that they were Members of I find but three expressie mentioned 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith as in
the Case of Martialis and Basilides who Sacrificed to Idols Ep. Synodal apud Cyprian quae est 65. § 1 3 4. where after many Words to this Purpose are these Propter quod Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini Deum metuens a peccatore Praeposito separare se debet nec se ad Sacrilegi Sacerdotis Sacrificia misâ—ere quando ipsa maxime habeat Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi A second Cause was Haeresie Irenae lib. 1. c. 13. Opportet longe fugere ab eis speaking of Haereticks Origen Homil. 7. in Ezek. alloweth one to separate from his Bishop Si habueris saith he occasionem Doctrinae pâ—ssimae aliena ab Ecclesia dogmata Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. telleth us that at Antioch many of the Clergy and People withdrew and set up private Assemblies when three Arrian Bishops Eulalius Euphronius and Placentius were set over them And lib. 2. c. 24. that they did the like when Leontius who favoured the Arians was set up and that Flavianus and Diodorus took the Charge Vincent Lyrin adversus Haer. c. 16 relateth of Photinus Bishop of Sirmium a Man of great Abilities that when the People discerned his Error Quem anteâ— quasi Arietem Gregâ—s sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere coeperunt Thirdly The Scandalous and Wicked Life of a Bishop which the Words cited out of that Synodal Ep. in Cyprian a little above do plainly bear and Irenae lib. 4. c. 44. Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptatibus non praeponunt â—imorem Dei in cordibus suis sed contumeliis agunt reliquoâ— principalis confessionis tumorâ— elati sunt in absconsis agunt mala ab omnibus absistere opportet I shall not now determine whither this was sound Doctrine if it be understood of Peoples deserting their Pastor for his Personal Immoralities before the Sentence of a Church Judicatorie be interposed I only relate the Opinion of the Ancients Origen indeed saith Homil. 7. in Ezech. that they should not for his Scandal desert the Faith that he Preached But he speaketh nothing of their deserting his Ministrie nor contradicteth the rest whom I have cited § 9. I now come to consider what Apprehensions Modern Writers have had of Schism And here were a large Field to Expatiat in If I should Examine all or most of them so many have written on this Subject and so different their thoughts are of it Wherefore I chuse one whom I think my Antagonist will not except against the Learned Bishop of Worcester in his Irenic p. 109. The Sum of whose Discourse is all are bound to joyn into some Church Societie and being so joyned should continue in that Societie till his Communion with them becometh Sin Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church Communion and consequentlie warranteth Separation he supposeth that Corruption in the Essentials of the Constitution of the Church may warrant it but where there are Corruptions crept into a true Church yet remaining such he saith the Question is whither we may separate from such a Church for purer Administrations particularly whither we should separate from a Church because of Corruptions in the â—xercise of Discipline he determineth it that one may separate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice which are avowed and owning them is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church he alloweth in that Case not only Noncommunion but a total and positive Separation but he telleth us that where Soundness of Doctrine is retained but some Corruptions in Practice are tollerated but not imposed Separation is unlawful on that Account He saith thirdly where Doctrine is sound but some unlawful or suspected Practice is required to be owned and conformed to denying of such Conformitie and Communion with the Church in these things is lawful but positive Schism or erecting Altare contra Altare is not lawful These are Concessions of that profoundly Learned Writer Against which I have nothing to object but what I have elsewhere Debated with him viz. Where some unlawful or suspected Action is required to be done by Ministers or People and if the Church so imposing will not suffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances unless they will conform in these both they must do for keeping a good Conscience and he alloweth them a Negative and Partial Separation and the Church forceth them on a Positive and Total Separation what shall they do in that Case either they must live without Gospel Ordinances or they must set up Meetings wherein they must have them the former is unreasonable the latter is that Positive Separation which he condemneth I with he or any else would tell us what is to be done in that Case Let us then improve that general and indisputable Maxim that we ought not to joyn with any Church however commendable she be in many things when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is our Personal Sin and that other Truth which cannot be denyed that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacraments with the Church unless they will do that which is sinful or that they after their uttermost Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching apprehend to be sinful they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments and it will clearly follow that a positive Separation even from a true Church and setting up a Church in a Church is not only lawful but is a Dutie and the Sin of that Schism doth not ly on them who so leave the Church or are driven from her but on that Church which requireth such unlawful Terms of Communion and imposeth them with such Rigour § 10. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schism I proceed to Examine what my Adversarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyterians to be Schismaticks which he attempteth without making any Distinction among them though he knoweth there were different Practices among them with respect to joyning in Communion with the Episcopal Church He saith there is not a Church on Earth with which they can joyn in Communion without fear of being polluted It was Answered that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland France when the Protestants had their Assemblies there and Geneva c. It was not said by the Author whom he refuteth that we dislike several things in these Churches but by him and it was Answered we can communicate with a Church that is not so pure as we wish what we dislike we shun the Practice of it but do not for that refuse to communicate with the Church where it is found His Refutation of this is at this rate it will be hard to find Schismaticks in all the Records of the Church This is most false for some did cast off Communion totally with the Church and set up separate Meetings when they could blame no part of Church Practice but had Quarrels with the Persons that governed the
a Religious Conversation but differed from the Church without cause in matters of lesser moment The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies acknowledged to be such but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these which they could not do without wounding their Conscience If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church on on frivolous pretences as he supposeth p. 222 he gaineth what he contendeth for but he findeth it easier to suppose this than to Prove it It was said by his Antagonist that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors which Presbyterians do not the Bishops being none of our Pastors He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians in their Erecting Altar against Altar Answer 1. That is not all that we plead for as is clear from what hath been said I have shewed § 8. Cases in which even lawful Pastors may be forsaken and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them But I say 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule And I am willing that Matter be Determined 1. By the strength of Argument if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to we must yield 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church which was positive plain and unanimous in this that the People should chuse their own Bishop and other Church-Officers see Instances Enquirie into the Constitution c. of the Primiiive Church c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog Test veritat p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation in any Man to a People on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical and without their own Consent This is our case the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government the Magistrat not the Church made a Change and set Men over the People to be their Bishops whose Office they could not own and whose Persons they had no concern in I Question whether the Primitive Church I mean the first Ages would have counted it Schism to disown such and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors who had been called by them setled by Church Authority among them and laboured among them to their Comfort and Edification His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris is contrarie to Petavius rationar tempor lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him his Assertion p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church is so false that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it If he understand it of Preaching Deacons he should have said so and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church § 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks is from the Doctrine of Cyprian of which he is so confident that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator not a Diocesan to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings If I had read much more than either he or I have I should not so often nor so superciliously vilisie others If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now undertaketh to refute Which Book I have Answered with such reading as I could attain both of Cyprian and other ancient Writers in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written before I saw it I am not willing to Transcribe it being the most part of that Book He may read it if he thinketh fit and if he or any other will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age I shall be willing to be Informed by him His Triumphant Conclusion p. 225. evanisheth into smoak if what hath been said be duly Considered He begineth another Debate about Preaching Moralitie which he passeth in a Word overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head While it was told him that not all the Clergy but he and such as he was so blamed Also that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured but Applauded and lookt on as necessarie but what we Quarelled was that some do only Preach Moralitie and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit by which they should obey the Law acceptably and the Righteousness of CHRIST on account of which they and their Works that are moraly Good should be accepted and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed to shew his Mistakes in that Matter to all which he maketh no Return but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print nor heard him and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it but much more occasion was given for so thinking from a large Discourse in his Book that I was then Refuting Vindicating their way of Preaching in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST and the influence of his Spirit by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing as he hath done the Third time an Error of the Press which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author this I say sheweth the Mans temper I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious than it will on the Person whom he would Defame SECTION XI Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed whether by Bishops or the Pastors of the Church acting in Parity We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way in this Matter because of the Silence and Defectiveness of the History of these times and therefore it is a Mis-representation when he saith that we hold that they were Presbyterians if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense as made up of Kirk-Sessions Presbyteries Synods and General-Assemblies we suppose they had a Government in that Church and that it was Managed by Church Officers and directed by the Word of GOD as they then understood it for this we can bring no other Proof but that they were Christians and we owe them that Charity having
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
the Worship of God he owneth no such Ceremonies if we speak properly what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony it is a Civil Rite and may well be used in Religion he repeateth also his former Mistake as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion but not Church Authority our Opinion in which I have made plain to them who will understand what we say I have also Answered his Question how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent while a Religious Ceremony appropriated to Religion if it be of Humane Appointment whether by the Authority of Church or State is not so I deny what he so confidently asserteth p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing is of Humane Appointment neither is his Proof of it sufficient viz. that it hath no Divine Institution for what is brought in and gets its Use and Significany by Civil Custom is a Middle between these 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies with which he filleth several Pages with a nauseous saying the same thing in Words little different The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church which he insinuateth as an Argument cannot justifie it if it be appropriated to Religion and had no Divine Original We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath whether it came in by Civil Custom or Ecclesiastick Authority Let them who use it Answer such Doubts or rather let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature from Civil Custom or from Divine Institution if it be destitute of all these he should prove not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it It is absurd to say that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction are under that Reduplication to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament when enjoyned by Law it is not the Civil Authority but Rites being used in Civil Actions and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom that giveth them that Denomination § 8. He Starteth a Scruple p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said nor any where else that I know but in his Imagination It is If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions and another in Religious Worship Quaeritur Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship A. No. Because its â—awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities tho in a different Signification If he find any Body asserting that let him call such Persons Absurd Ridiculous Foolish c. at his Pleasure as he very freely calleth us on that Imaginary Account but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us I shall give him no Epithet but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries that might Fright us into Silence as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God little and idle frivolous Impertinencies And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain I never met with it before and I have seen few that are of less weight It is that the Apostle Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. To strengthen this Argument he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews and by Christians that it is founded on no Divine Institution but on the Practice of the Jewish Church and thence derived to Christians and was never established by any other Authority but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical He telleth us this Custom was so known that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking of their Circumcision but not one Word of Immersion He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions That Scripture Example for it is but the Consequence of itâ— being Pracâ—ised and supposeth it At last to make all sure he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools with which this Soaring Eagle thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted that is to put his Argument into â—â—gical â—orm and â—igure thus a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Divâ—… Institution and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self But the Ceremony of Immersion in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution and yet alluded to by Saint Paul is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church Ergo such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God founded on no Divine Institution is in it self lawful I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument than he hath framed it If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising I should observe that he flyeth so high as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form for all his pretending to it for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism only he hath altered the Word putting such a Significant Ceremony for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul other Informalities in it I pass it is below him to mind them Aquila non captat Muscas For a more material Answer I first deny the Major as thus universally proposed Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness as I have proved § 6. Next I deny the Minor I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution which I prove 1. Because it is here mentioned as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism which Ordinance Christ had appointed it were a strange â—ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism and not told them who were to Administer it what He meant by it or what they should do Next Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution tho we be not obliged to that Exactness yet I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded every one knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to Dip or Plunge in Water and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing or â—insing as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be
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
which are the Work of the Minister not of the Elder § 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it is that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted for it not only was the way of the Apostolick but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages as I have shewed Rational Def. of non conformity § 6. p. 197. c. and should now further have Debated it with him if he had insisted on it He misrepresenteth our Opinion while first he saith we maintain this Right to be unalterable whereas we think a People may lose it as to its present Exercise by their inhability or negligence and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church While 2dly He insinuateth p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People without due Restrictions and Limitations We think the People in this as in all their other Religious concernments are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery Congregational or Classical Instead of Arguing against this Way he laboureth to cast Dirt on it which easily may be wiped off I have proved in the Place Cited that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent or Objecting against them but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe for the 36. Canon of the Apostles it is Mihi 37. which he Citeth not only we Reject it with the rest as not Authentick nor Probative but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office and Charge Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent as well as without theirs that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike either on the part of the Pastor or of the People after Ordination which should not excuse them from mutual Duties and so it is nothing to our purpose How popular Election would hinder Uniformity more than the Patrons Election doth iss hard to be understood That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals doth not always hold People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning and more Religion than themselves And if they be of such perverse Inclinations they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery What he saith of the scandalous effects of Popular Election I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions were far more visible frequent and horrid when Bishops were otherwise chosen there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops in the Later Primitive times after that Office was settled in the Church What are we concerned more than his own Party is in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another Is any Church accountable for either the Follies yea or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members further than to Rebuke or Censure them according to the degree of Offence given when they come to be known I know of no such Wagers laid among our People tho may be there is too much of being Puffed up for one against another as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive timeâ— is most absurd if he mean that a great regard was not had to it as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church if he mean that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians and no more lookt after it is false and injurious § 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one Pâ—esbyterian and which had been sufficiently wiped off but he is resolved not to be satisfied I am wholly indifferent whether he be or not And yet this Charge he only mentioneth and therefore I shall not insist on it neither but it seems this was but Introductory to what he intended which is he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops I have abundantly Cleared this Matter and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius in 3d. Sect. of this Work § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh He telleth us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signisiâ—â—h properly to help one that is ready to fall this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith and higher in Authority of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop the Praeses A most ridiculous way of Arguing For 1. It supposeth the Question that Bishop or the Praesides Presbyterii are higher in Authority which we cannot yield 2. It can be far better applyed to Deacons who relieve them who are ready to Perish Next saith he Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of A. What Grotius saw I know not nor am concerned to know Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue that we must know these that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet may be might one say the Apostles by Baptism by casting out of the Church c. understood some other thing than we do at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek and we know what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth in that Language if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now he should have Proved it and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue he should have shewed it and not thought us so â—ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess built on a Possibility where he cannot shew so much as Probability His Advice hath been followed before it was given in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design He hath another Argument from the Context which yet is the same above-mentioned and Answered that the Apostle having in the preceeding v. he should have said in the same v. distinguished the several Offices c. that were then