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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
Right quod autem saith he Jure Divino Episcopi sint Presbyteâ—is superiores si non ita clarum est è sacris literis c. And he provetâ— it by the Authority of some Popes and Councils As also Lombard 〈◊〉 supra fetcheth the Original of the several Degrees of Bishops from the Heathen Flamins Archi-flamines and â—roto-flamines not from Scripture Bellarm citeth Medin condemning Jerome as erroneously holding the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter this Bellarm hath lib. 1. c. 15. de Clericis Object 6. Medina doth there affirm August Ambros. Sedul Primaâ—â—us Chrysost. Theodorat AEcumen and Theophylact. to be of the samâ— mind and he addeth alque ita illi viri alioqui sanctissimi sacrarum literarum consultissimi quorum tamen sententiam prius in â—erio deinde in Waldensibâ—â— postremo in Wiclefo damnavit Ecclesia c. It is here evident that others as well as the Scots Presbyterians held the Opinion about Parity to be no Noveltie Also Sixtus Senens Biblioth Sanct lib 6 Annotatio 324 looketh on Jeromes Opinion as being for the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter and citeth as agreeing with him Ambros Chrysost Sedul An selm Thom Valdens against Wiclife who refuteth him as being of Jeromes Opinion in this and of Alfonsus Castrensis he saith non veretur fateri Hieronimum hâc in parte errasse to these Schoolmen I shall add some of the Canonists as plainly against this Jus Divinum of Episcopacy Gratian dist 60. cap ult Ad verbum Papa sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum Presbyteratum hot quidem solos primitiva Ecclesia habuisse dicitur Joan Semeca Gloss in Jur Can dist 95. Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat Officium Episcoporum Presbyterorum nomina erant communia Ibid. c. olim Et officium erat commune sed in secunda primitiva coeperunt distingui nomen officia So Owen of ordination p. 108. who also citeth to the same purpose Concil Aquisgr can 8 Concil Hispal c. 2. Canon 7. and Concil Constantiens where Presbyters were determined to have decisive voices with Bishops because in the Law of God Bishops were no more than Presbyters I am far from inferring from what hath been said that all these were Presbyterians But it is evident that some of them did not hold Episcopacy to be Juris Divini as this Enquirer doth and that none of them lookt on Paritie as so late an Invention as he doth SECTION VI. His Answers to our Citations from Jerome and Augustine examined THis learned Author hath singled out the Testimonies brought by Presbyterians out of these two Fathers and promiseth p. 65 to examine them more narrowly as being the chief strength of the Presbyterians that is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients I shall adventure to examine his Examination He taxeth Blondel for inscribing his Book Apologia pro Sententia Hieronimi as if the Presbyterians Doctrine had been certainly espoused by Jerome and bringeth this Argument against this Conduct of Blondel At this rate saith he his Contemporaries were very much to be blamed who placed Aerius among the Hereticks and yet on all occasions make honourable mention of Jerome if he taught the same Doctrine for which Aerius was condemned for a Heretick This reasoning is of no weight for it is well known on how small grounds some in the fourth or fifth Centuries were listed among the Hereticks 2. It is no rare thing in the World to heighten the same Action or Opinion in one person which they excuse or extenuate in another We know how the Pope condemneth the same Principles as Heresie in Calvine which he passeth no such Censure on when they are taught by the Jansenists and how Alvarez chargeth Calvine with Heresie for the same things that he himself holdeth and is at much pains to shew the difference where indeed there is none Jerome was a man of great esteem so as it seems Aerius was not 3. It is thought by many that Aerius managed his Principle more unpeaceably than Jerome did that he opposed himself more fiercely to the growing Usurpations of that time and made a Schism about the Matter And it is evident that many of them who are by Epiphanius called Hereticks were at most but Schismaticks Neither do I by this yield that Presbyterians now may be called Schismaticks for I know not that Aerius was justly so branded on account of that Opinion Nor do I think that Episcopacy was come to that intollerable height when Aerius opposed it that it is come to in our days and came toâ— soon after his time 4. Magdeburg cent 4. c. 5. p. 399 4â—0 edit Baâ—… 1560. sheweth that Epiphanius maketh him an Arian So August aâ—… Basilâ— say he was the Author of the Heresie of the Syllabici which wâ—… indeed Arianism from which Magdeb concludes that we have littâ—… certainty about him 5. Some men of great worth excuse Aerius 〈◊〉 Whitaker Reinolds and affirm that he was innocent of these Heresies they charge him with only he had angered some great men of tâ—… Age by questioning some of their Usurpations and also by zealouâ—… opposing some of the Superstitions that were then creeping into tâ—… Church and had too much Countenance from some eminent Men such as Praying and offering for the dead and Praying to Saints 〈◊〉 Aerius was not esteemed a Heretick by all the Fathers of that or tâ—… following Age none call him so but Epiphanius and Augustine wâ—… implicitely took it from Epiphanius Neither Theodoret nor Socratâ—… nor Sozomen nor Euagrius have any thing of the Aerian Heresie § 2. He maketh a Collection of the Citations we bring out of Jerome and then giveth us his Remarks on them I must also transcribâ—… them that the Reader may have them before him while he is upoâ—… this Debate about them The first is out of Hieron on Tit. 1. Diligenter saith Jerome Apostoli verba attendamus dicentis ut constituas per Civitates Presbyteros sicut ego disposui qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari 〈◊〉 sequentibus disserens hoc ait si quis est sine crimine unius uxoris vir c. Postea intulit oportet enim Episcopum sine crimine esse tanquam Dei dispensâ— tor idem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam Diaboli instinctâ—… studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego autem Cephae communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecelesia gubernabatur Postquam vero unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi in toto orbe decretum est ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret Schismatum semina tollerentur Of what followeth in Jerome the Enquirer giveth but a lame account telling us that Jerome proveth the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Acts 20. 1 Pet. and Epistle to the Hebrews But I shall
his sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani sumus qui claves regni coelorum habentes quodammodâ— judicii diem indicant Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant And a little after mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet it seems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained though they both were afterward Illâ— si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae in interitum carnis ut spiritus salvus 〈◊〉 in die Domini Jesu § 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted and consequently whether Jerome be on our side or on the opposite side I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there waâ— a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consiliâ— But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this and in that Period which he taketh to be in the Apostles time before Bishops were setled in the Churches the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed that when the Apostles by their preaching had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies and had no Officers to teach and govern them they managed the Affairs of these people by their own Authority and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches who might teach them but not rule them and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them this is a groundless Fancie nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this we shall consider it We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies both for teaching them and ruling them and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction by the infallible Spirit both what they should teach and how they should govern the latter needeth no proof the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12 14. by which it is made appear that these Elders ruled the Church as well as instructed her as at Corinth and at Thessalonica and else where Another mistake is that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled and had Presbyters among them The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches and from this that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him whether they had Officers or none but it doth not thence follow that he ruled them all or any of them personally his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled by them who were appointed to that Work over all whom he and every one of the Apostles had a Superintendency A third mistake is that the Apostles in their time made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church by setting up Bishops where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters and had ruled the Churches themselves and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there as this Author hinteth p. 69. Can he or any man else give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles we should have had some hint of it in their Writings or in the History of their Acts. § 5. This Author hath an other observe in the same page as wilde and wide from the Truth that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth so he thought that this Remedy of Schism was appointed by the Apostles themselves and that it was not the Invention of after Ages but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie and therefore appointed that unus praeponeretur caeteris This is strange Confidence and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel and other Presbyterians Can he produce any Word or Passage in Jerome from which this may be inferred Yes he pretendeth to prove it after he hath stated this as the present Debate whether it was Jerome ' s Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy because Parity was apt to breed Schism The former he maintaineth we hold the latter That Blondel saw that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy is a strange Assertion when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary And the proof of it is yet stranger Blondel entereth a Caveat that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome Is it not a good Consequence This is an absurd Thought saith Blondel ergo I believe it was Jerome's Opinion Blondel maintaineth and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie but that Jerome was not of that Opinion § 6. His first proof that such was Jerome's Opinion is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiastiâ—â— Government were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth and therefore 〈◊〉 change made must needs be Apostolical they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and they were zealous to prevent Confusions No other Decree could be meant by Jerome ' s toto Orbe decretum est for no other Deâ—… could oblige all nor would have been so universally received neither was thâ—… any Council that had so decreed This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 his Commentaries on Titus consuetudo Ecclesiae which he distinguisheâ—… from dispositio Divinae veritatis meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest aboâ—… many was introduced rather by Apostolical practice than the personal mandâ—… of our Blessed Saviour Such Discourse from a Presbyterian would be exposed by this Author with great scorn but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason 1. That Jerome did not say nor mean that the Apostles made this change in Church Government is manifest For 〈◊〉 He saith it was done paulatim whereas apud veteres â—idem fuerâ—â— Presbyteri qui Episcopi so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres cannoâ— be the Apostles but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called but whatever he in that an
the Tumuits at Corinth and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them § 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days from his words Epistola ad Luagrium Nam in Alexandria à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heracleam Dionysium Episcopos Presbyteri unum ex se electum c. Here he saith Salmasius leaveth Jerome and doubteth of the Truth of this History which he need not think strange seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator or primus Presbyter began at Alexandria as the Name of Christian did at Antiâ—…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words Whatâ—…er may be said of the Evangelist Mark who founded the Church of Alexandria and it is like by his extraordinary power ruled it at first by himself and that but for a small time for he left Alexandria and preached and planted Churches in Lybia Marmorica and many parts of Egypt as Beronius sheweth That Jerome did not include Mark as Dounam absurdly saith among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria is evident for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head who had an extraordinary Commission and had been the Instrument of converting them and who by his extraordinary power had setled them in a Presbyterie for the rest if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose he must make him flatly contradict all that he had said and laboriously proved concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters wherefore they who came after Mark and were chosen by the Presbyterie were only set in excelsiori gradu they had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Moderators and had the Name of Bishops given them usually whereas the rest were called Presbyters but that they had so early as Marci tempore Jurisdiction over their Brethren the Presbyters who chused them Jerome doth not say nor can it be gathered from any of his words And I do not question but that in other Churches as well as Alexandria the Presbyters chose a Moderator and may be he continued during Life only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses If this Sense that our Author dreameth of were put on Jerome's words they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one till Ministers contended among themselves and a Superiority came in paulatim upon that or it maketh Jerome to say that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose but at Alexandria was Prelacy which we cannot impute to Jerome without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter and not such Discord It is further evident that Jerome did not mean that there was a Prelate with sole or superior Jurisdiction set up at Alexandria in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves and ordained also by them he had no Prelation above them but what they gave him whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops again this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do as being of Divine Institution but what themselves chused § 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament Where saith he two things are asserted 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition This is an absurd Inference Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first was founded on Apostolical Tradition contained in the Scripture but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy in the Prelatical Sense that he opposeth that and pleadeth for Parity The second thing he observeth is that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the Temple and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church Here are diverse things to be examined 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church I shall not now determine I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House to build a new one he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions the Form nor number of Stories or Rooms yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new he will readily observe We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform or patch the old Jewish Church Fabrick Such methods in Building use to impare the Beauty as well as usefulness of the Fabrick It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation I mean as to what was instituted and not of the Law of Nature as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood and also of the Law And it is certain that the use of Priests and of Levites to whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices ceased as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all Wherefore as there was a new Priesthood to speak in his Dialect to be set up which had another sort of Work to do to offer up spiritual Sacrifices So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful and convenient for that design and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament he gaineth this Argument but this I hope he will not attempt The High Priest was a Type of Christ as He is the Head of the Church and as He offered up that one Sacrifice which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority were especially employed in Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church to represent a Saviour for every Diocess under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest is not only said without all Scripture Warrant but is most absurd for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God but the Bishops are many in
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
superfluous neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence and Church Canons but from Christs Institution built on natural necessity He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City and in every Church § 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles whose Office he had taken so much pains to what purpose let the Reader Judge to describe and fixeth the Debate in this Question Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority which they exercised in particular Churches to single Successors duely and regularly chosen or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs in perfect Parity and Equality And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie and so do I if some of his Prejudices and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it For correcting this State of the Question let it be observed first that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office particularly that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them This our Author supposeth whereas he should have proved it That all that Power that was necessary for the Church was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors we acknowledge such as Power of Preaching Administring of Sacraments Ordaining Ministers Ruling the Church this they left in the Church whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations or to many equally is the Question I join all these Powers together because our Brethren with whom we now debate our Jure Divino Prelatists put them all in the Bishops hands alone to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth So that Presbyters may not preach baptize nor do any thing else in the Churches without his allowance they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches He taketh it for granted we deny it and prove what we say 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being and extent and that toward persons and things or actions by an immediat Call The Lord by himself without any act of the Church interveening pitched on the persons made them Church Officers and told them their work and set the bounds of their Power Now if any pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power they must instruct the same immediat Call or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word for clothing some persons with all that Authority but this neither the Bishops nor none else can pretend to Not to an immediat Call for then they must shew their Credentials Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles where is their Warrant for going through the World in their own personal and intrinsick Authority to order Affairs in all Churches where they come or for instituting Gospel Ordinances and appointing new Officers in the Church that were not in it before or even for ruling over their Brethren This last I know they claim and we shall debate it with them but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word for Men to Teach and Rule the Church and these things are necessary to be and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World but for other Powers that the Apostles had they were only needful for planting the Gospel not for Churches planted neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church § 10. Another Argument The Apostles in their own time divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers they appointed Elders some for Teaching and Ruling as hath been proved some for Ruling only 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons to have a care of the Poor which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power This Conduct they could not have used if they had been to have such Successors If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him All which was done by the Apostles and if they have not told the Church that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one who is over them as the Apostles were over all how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church by divine or Apostolick appointment who hath all the Power that they had and to whom all must be subject as to them 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles but they say the same of all Church Officers Ergo they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power The consequence is evident for parcelling out their Succession and one enjoying it in solidum are inconsistent the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies Ignatius Ep ad Trall Presbyteros vocat conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi jubet ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos Ep ad Smyrnen and Ep ad Magnes he saith expresly p 33. edit Vossi that the Presbyters succeeded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the place of the Council of the Apostles Irenaeus advers Haereseslib 3 c 2. saith traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri and lib 4 c 43. enjoineth ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt ab Apostolis successionem habent auscultemus And c 45. Uhi saith he charismata Domini posita sunt ibi discere oportet veritatem apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio Cyprian lib 4. Ep 4 affirmeth omnes praepositos and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere Jerome who was no Bishop owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles dist 35 cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus non solum sermonem eorum imitemur sed seorsum abstinentiam And ad Heliodorum absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt per quos nos Christiani simus August ad fratres in eremo calleth them expresly among many glorious Epithets Apostolorum successores And Ser 33. He hath these words non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt sed vicariis Domini vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent which ye see he saith of all the Clergy § 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches I have above
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
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
them only this Reply I return to them all what if he Misworded the Article though he did not Forge it the other Historians have the same Article only they have not the Word Bishops in which lyeth the whole force of our Authors Argument § 8. His next Argument which beareth positive plain c. Evidence is from another Petition of our Reformers set down in the History commonly ascribed to John Knox p. 131. a large Portion of which he Transcribeth I shall Compendize it without taking any thing from its Strength on his Side they require that the ill Lives of Prelates and the State Ecclesiastical may be Reformed and Declare that they envy not their Honours nor covet their Possessions but desire their Reformation and they add that we are content that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament but also the Writings of the Ancient Fathers and the Godly and Approved Laws of Justinian the Emperor decide the Controversie betwixt us and them and they earnestly desire that notwithstanding the long Custom they had to live at their Lust they may be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration or discharge their Duties as becometh true Ministers Let us now hear what Improvement he maketh of this Passage to his purpose he telleth us that here our Reformers lay down a Complex Rule for Reforming of the Church and we refuse not to try it with our Opposites in the Controversie about Prelacy by this Complex Rule but with these two Limitations which cannot be made appear to be inconsistent with what is there expressed by our Reformers one is that all the Parts of this Complex Rule be not lookt on as of Co-ordinat Authority but that the rest be subordinate to the Holy Scripture we are not afraid of the Verdict of the Fathers of the first Ages but if they should be found in any thing to recede from Scripture we reject them The other is that the Laws of Justinian which our Reformers mention be rather lookt on as a Rule concerning the Temporalities of Church Men than their Spiritual Jurisdiction He next saith that our Reformers were content that the Clergy should live and rule and discharge their Trust as they did in the days of Justinian and now saith he if they who so Petitioned were for Parity and not for the Continuance of Prelacy I must confess my Ignorance to be very gross Ans. I shall not determine whither Ignorance or somewhat else hath led him into a gross Mistake of the Meaning and Design of these Petitioners but a Mistake seemeth to be evident They were not so absurd as to make the Roman Civil Law the Rule of Religion we know how that hath been altered and reformed oftner than once whereas the Rule of Religion is unalterable by the Authority of Men wherefore they can mean no more but that they are willing that Prelates should enjoy their Benefices this for Peace sake they yielded too as they were setled by the good Laws of Justinian where a Limitation even in that is insinuated and that the Lives and Authority of the Pastors of the Church should be regulated by Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers in Subordination to that Justinian lived in the sixth Century when Prelacie was far advanced in the Church wherefore they had Acted very absurdly if they had been for that way and yet so quickly settled among themselves contrarie to the Inclinations of their Friends in England to whose Assistance they owed very much a way so opposit to that Our Reformers the Nobilitie Gentrie and Ministers were neither so unfaithful nor so changeable as to be influenced by one or two Men to such an absurd Course I add to all this that it is most absurd to say that the Church of England took the Writings of the ancient Fathers for the Rule of the Reformation or for any part of it for indeed by that Rule there will be found a Canonical Nullitie in the Power of all their Bishops on account of their being chosen by the Magistrat and sitting in Parliament for Canon Apost confirmed by Concil Constantinop 6. Canon 29. revived by Con. â—il Nicen. 2. Canon 3. condemneth the one and Can. 6. and 80. the other § 9. After mentioning another Petition of the Reformers which containeth no new matter he cometh from p. 119. to prove that the first Church Government that our Reformers settled was not Paritie but Superintendency All that he saith on this head hath been often answered and it hath been made plain to the Conviction of them who will see that Superintendency as set up in Scotland was nothing like Episcopacy that it was never intended to be continued but used for the present Necessitie and that it was never lookt on as inconsistent with their being for Paritie in Opinion but we must submit to the Drudgerie of Repetitions seing he will have it so I take notice of his forgetting what he had said a little before as I observed § 2. viz. that the Laird of Dun was made a Superintendent though it doth appear that he was never in Holie Orders whence it evidently followeth that on this Authors Supposition the Reformers lookt not on Superintendency as a Government any otherwise warrantable but by the Force of Necessitie Two things he undertaketh about Superintendency 1. To shew their Power and Disparity from other Ministers 2. To dissipate the Mists cast on this matter by Presbyterians For the former he telleth us of a considerable Stock of Prerogatives or Preheminencies above other Church Men. As 1. They had larger Districts 2. They were to be Nominated by the Council and Elected by the Nobility and Gentry c. within their District 3. They were not to be Censured but by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province over which they were Appointed 4. They were to be Admitted which our Author calleth Ordination by other Superintendents 5. They were to be Translated by the whole Church 6. They must be two years at least in the Ministry before they be Superintendents 7. He had a greater Benefice than other Ministers 8. Every one of them was a constant Member of the General Assembly 9. He was to try Candidats for the Ministry and â—…eaders 10. He had the Power of Collation on Presentations 11. He had Power to plant Ministers in the Churches where the People were negligent 12. He had the Power of Ordination 13. Ministers were subject to him in all lawful Admonitions he was to be obeyed 14. He had Power of Visitation of Churches 15. He might depose Ministers 16. He might translate Ministers 17. He might nominat Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly 18. He had Power to hold Diocesan Synods 19. To appoint Fasts within his own Bounds 20. To modifie Stipends 21. To receive Appeals 22. He had Power of Fineing in case of undue Appeals 23. To determine intricate Cases of Conscience or Government 24. To judge of Divorces 25. To enjoyn Pennance
one of these Articles it is desired that Qualified Ministers might be provided for vacant Bishopricks This proveth no more but that the major part of this Assembly thought fit that seing Men bearing the Name of Bishops for little more they had were for an Interim tollerated in the Church their Places should neither be vacant nor filled with insufficient Persons All this may well consist with a Dislike of that Lordly Power of Bishops that some were Aspiring to and that my Antagonist pleadeth for § 27. Our Author thinks he hath now done his Work and proved that Prelacy was privatly and publickly liked from the beginning of the Reformation it seems he hath argued himself into a Belief of it such is the Efficacy of Prejudice which few else will be perswaded of He thinketh his further Work needless and I think it had been more for his Credit to let it alone it is to prove that Presbytery met with Opposition and I could seldom observe that any good Design was carried on but Satan raged against it and found Instruments against it his former Historical Discourse he justly calleth Nauseous p. 216. But what followeth is much more so and yet worse for he falleth to downright Railing against Master Andrew Melvil in not only a nausebus Gingling Strain of Words but with such Unmanly Bitterness as a tender Conscienced Christian would abhor yea a Person of common Morality would be ashamed of and is only fit for the Scolding Women that have lost all Shame The foull Misrepresentation of Matters of Fact which have some Semblance of Truth in them that this Narrative aboundeth with I leave to the History that I hope may appear ere long to correct them I am no further concerned than with what is Argumentative of which I can find nothing here for we deny not that there was then as now an Episcopal Party who were loath to let go their hoped for or enjoyed Church Preferments That after Master Melvil appeared was the first time that any appeared for Presbytery in Scotland or against Episcopacy is a daring Assertion after which we may expect whatever he shall think to be for his Interest considering what hath been already adduced out of the Book of Discipline One who readeth this his Historical Discourse may easily perceive what Shifts he is put to for proving the Regent Mortons Change from Episcopacy to favour Presbytery and to prove his Intentions in some of his Actings and that by a long Train of Arguments To prove that England though Episcopal did endeavour to promote Presbytery in Scotland To prove the Ignorance of the Clergy of Scotland at that time To prove Beza to be ignorant of the Government and Constitution of the ancient Church p. 248. and that not out of his own Book which it seems he had not read but out of his Adversary Saravia and indeed he proveth Beza's Ignorance by such Instances as will serve for any Presbyterian and conclude them all to be Ignoramus's which I know is this Authors Opinion oftner than once or twice expressed I pass with a transient Observation his bitter Sarcasm against Days of Solemn Fasting and Humiliation often appointed by Presbyterians p. 254. It had been good his own Party had used them oftner and that they and we had improved them better I take notice also of his making so very great a Difference between the Meetings of Ministers and Elders for Exercises that is for Interpretation of Scripture and Presbyteries which were set up on account whereof he representeth it as a great deal of Ignorance in one who affirmed that the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed in the year 1572. I deny not but that there was a Difference between these two Sorts of Meetings as there is between a Child and a full grown Man viz. The Meetings for Exercise or Presbyteries call them what ye will did at first meddle with fewer Acts of Church Power than afterward yet they Acted with Authority For the Ministers and Elders met to interpret Scripture I hope the Elders were not Interpreters by publick Teacâ—…ng as well as the Ministers the People no doubt were also present at these Exercises as Hearers but the Elders are mentioned as Constituent Members of a Meeting wherein the People had no Share which must be an Authoritative Meeting King James the sixth was far from his Opinion about these Meetings who in the Conference at Hampton-Court 1603. in the second days Conference p. 78 79. when Doctor Reynolds moved that the Clergy might meet once every three Weeks for Prophesying as Bishop Grindal and other Bishops desired of her late Majesty the King being stirred at this said that they aimed at Scottish Presbytery He looketh on it as ridiculous that G. R. had reckoned that Presbyteries were from the beginning and fancieth that he hath no other ground for so saying but that Calderwood had said that the Kirk of Scotland had four sorts of Assemblies ever since the beginning of which this must needs be one But I can tell him of other Grounds on which he might reckon this Meeting a Presbytery one is the General Assembly 1579. as the Manuscript he so often citeth hath it p. 95. did expresly determine that these Meetings were Presbyteries another is what is above said and a third is that even in times of Episcopacie in Scotland these Meetings were called the Exercise and yet they pretended to Presbyterial Power in them though it was in Subordination to the Bishop That Calderwood sayeth that Presbytries succeeded to these Meetings importeth no more but that Presbytries were after set up with more Power and Freedom than they then had under Superintendents or Bishops When he cannot contradict Matter of fact with respect to the prevailing of Presbytrie he falleth to down right railing at the Assemblie which condemned Prelacie for boldness folly iniquitie preposterous Zeal if more Reproaches had then occurred to his Fancie it is like we should have had them it is neither good Manners nor a token of a good Cause thus to fall from Reasoning to Scolding I leave him now after he hath again mistaken the Question to please himself with re-counting his Exploits and to tell the World what he hath made appear in not a few pages After which he bringeth two Witnesses for Confirming what he had so long insisted on The first of them is an Author with whom I am not acquainted but seemeth to be of his own Sentiments So that what he sayeth of the Opposition made to Presbyterie in Scotland is no more to us than what A. M. D. D. himself hath said especially seing we have not the Reasons but the bare Assertion of that Author The other is King James the sixth to whose Testimonie brought also by the Author of the Ten Questions I did then Oppose and still do his own Explication of what he sayeth in an after Edition of his Basilicon doron that he
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
Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All
no cause to think otherwise of them and I think this will not be Contested between him and me All the Question that remaineth is whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power and Ruled in Parity or had Bishops set over them who had the Power of Ruling the Church the rest having only Power to Teach We are for their Equality of Power my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been even then in the Church of Scotland I do agree with him that this is questio facti and must be determined by Testimonie and that of Credible Witnesses who might know the Truth of what they Assert I have brought Credible History for what we say all which he Rejecteth as fabulous some of his Party particularly Spotswood bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland at that time without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth Which of us then go on the best grounds Our Author had in the Apology which I take to be his pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head First Vindic. Question 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology I Answered Deff of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me endeavour to Answer part of what was said as he had also done in the Apology overlooking what he thought not fit to touch I shall now Consider what he here saith omitting nothing that is Material He hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks Boetius and others or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan nor any Monk save Fordon who was far removed from his Age wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated nor Answered by any thing said in this or his former Book It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought as incompetent Witnesses was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation which he Answereth by shewing that it is the Establishing not Razing of History to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe This is to divert into another Question what was blamed in him was not that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive must be Competent but whether these adduced by me in the Debate were such I only Mark here not Examine being aside from our present Debate what he saith p. 230. that if History be Destroyed and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony he must mean Humane Testimony then the Authority of Revelation falleth and Atheism is Introduced at least boundless Sceptecilm and uncertainty Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony let it be Considered If the Vindicator said that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent he Pleaded that Buchanan Boetius Major Fordon Usher the Centuriators Baronius Beda and Prosper had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church and if none of these be Competent Witnesses our Historie is lost and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians who spake of our Affairs obiter § 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains from p. 231. to Prove that no History is to be Believed unless it be â—ttested by sufficient Witnesses who had occasion to know what they Affirm I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body so far as I know nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits I mean without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses which are thus incompetent for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Passages by Consequences drawn from Scripture in his Excellent Book Historia Patriarcharum Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work de Authoritate Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti to be of good use and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused I confess also that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius because not sufficiently Attested Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History a little more clearly than he hath done And 1. I observe that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined The contrarie of which I have already shewed viz. that it may be Determined in some cases by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact Next he saith ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate about our ancient Church-Government this is Questionable if it be not downright a Mistake it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time the Question is either whether they were Bishops or not we hold the Negative or if he Word it thus whether they were any more than Presbyters we say no or whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees or not we are still for the Negative wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative I further Object that in the end of the same page he insinuateth that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded We do not so with any thing of Moment far less with all things Yea we do not so in the Case now under Debate Another Remark I make on what he hath page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said â—o have happened it is to be lookt on as a Fable and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China This may suffer a little Correction and must not be taken as a Principle neither on his Authority nor Du Launy's more than a Storie of 200 years old can be 1. It is hard to fix a Period how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie especially if it be not about the Credenda of Religion If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old from a grave and wise Author whose veracity I do not Question I know not why the Addition of 50 or a 100 years more should make it incredible if it come from the same hand Wherefore this is too peremptorie a Decision there are on the other hand many cases in which Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than
alone will lead Men to Worship the DEITY but that Worship will not be such as even this Author will think sutable to Gospel Purity but will have worse Mixtures than those that we Contend about He concludeth that the Reverence we owe to GOD must needs bring along with it these outward Significations of respect that are made Decent by Custom and Authority to whose Decision alone GOD left these exterior Rituals of Worship Thus he still endeavoureth to lurk under ambiguous Expressions we confess the Decision of some exterior Rituals in Worship is left to civil Custom and others to Divine Authority but that the Decision of any Rituals in Worship is left to Church Custom where the Thing hath no Decencie but in Religion or to Humane Authority this is what we Question and he should Prove He speaketh p. 153. of Rites in the Worship of GOD among the Jews that were only Significations of Reverence and Uniformity which were still retained as they were transmitted to them by Patriarchal Custom and Traditions though only founded on Humane Appointment But he hath not thought fit to give us any one Instance of such Rites If he mean Religious Ceremonies that is Actions peculiar to Worship I think he can give no Instance of such in the Jewish Church before its great Apostacie except these that were Instituted by GOD and taught in the Law of Moses § 5. He cometh next p. 154. to renew the Arguments he had managed in his Apology p. 155. c. and were Answered Def. of Vindic. p. 38. He telleth us of a General Medium he had used that there are several significant Ceremonies mentioned in and alluded to in the Scripture which were Practised in the Worship of GOD under the Patriarchal Jewish and Christian AEconomie which had no other than Humane Appointment The first Instance he giveth is Discalceation Exod. 13. 5. He had in his Apology joyned with this looking to our Feet when we go to the House of GOD Eccies 5. 1. But he hath now wisely left out this last and Insisteth only on Discalccation What was Objected here with some freedom that was bad Logick he representeth as reflecting on Mr. Mede who discourseth of that Observation among the Eastern-Nations I have as high Esteem of Mr. Medes Learning as he hath and have said nothing that can import the Contrarie The Answer given to this Instance was this was Commanded of GOD and so is no Argument for Observing what is brought into the Worship of GOD merely by the Authority of Man All the Reply that he bringeth is that this Command was no new Institution of a Ceremonie whereas he saith what GOD said to Moses was only an Advertisement to Observe a Custom that he knew to be used in the Eastern-Nations so that had Moses put off his Shoes before that Advertisement he had done nothing amiss and so this is a strong Confirmation of Ceremonies that express our Reverence though founded on Humane Appointment Here I remark 1. Whether this was a new Institution of a Ceremonie or not is not to our Purpose Moses had express Divine Warrant for what he did if he can shew the like for our Ceremonies we shall Observe them The LORD might Enjoyn what he would either for that time or for perpetual Observation either what was used among the Nations or what was not so used Let us see an Approbation of any of our Ceremonies that is Paralel to this and we shall lay our Hand on our Mouth 2. It is evldent that this was a Civil Custom and made expressive of Reverence by that Civil Custom and therefore the LORD is not here either Instituting or Approving a Religious Ceremonie but requiring to express profound Reverence in the Ordinarie way and that on such an Extraordinarie Occasion Corn. a lapide saith Minus enim audacter curiose accesserat Moses That this was a Civil Custom and had its Signification not from Man's Authority Appropriating it to GOD'S Worship which is the Foundation of the Ceremonies we Debate about is clear from Mr Mede and what my Antagonist bringeth out of him Also the same Learned School-Man I mean A Lapide saith his ritus a mancipiis descendit qui nudis pedibus incedebant in signum subjectionis and therefore he Paraphraseth that Text Exod. 3. 5. ut totus in Dei jus obsequium transeas It is Observed by Ainsworth on the same Text that this was a Civil Sign of transferring our Right to another Deut. 25. 9. Ruth 4. 7. It was also by Civil Custom an Expression of Sorrow 2 Sam. 15. 30. Isai. 20. 2 4. Ezek 24. 17 23. Now if he can shew that the Ceremonies have by Civil Custom such aptitude to Signifie what we ought to express in the Worship of GOD we shall not Oppose them It is 3. Evident from his own Words p. 55. where to my Question why do not they Observe it if it be a fit Ceremonie to express our â—everence in Worship he Answereth what is so Expressive in one Age or Countrey may be not so in another Surely this Change can only come from Civll Custom what is peculiar to Religion is the same every where If then this Action was brougâ—t into Religion by the Significancie and Aptitude it had been got by Civil Custom it is no Praecedent for such Ceremonies as that cannot be Pleaded for § 6. Another Instance he had brought was Sackcloth and Asheâ— as signifying grief and sorrow in their Solemn Humiliation To these 2 Things were Answered The One Why do not the Prelatists use these This he Rejecteth as unparalelled Nonsense because if they were still in use in our Countrey who would refuse them that was not resolved to be singular A. I should be none of these singular Persons If they had now Significancie by civil Custom I should be willing that they should be used in Religion when Humiliation and Sorrow were Solemnly to be exprest but when they want that I think our Brethren do well not to use them in Religion Yet I must say still that if they were Religious Ceremonies of Old that is peculiar to Religion they should be still used without any Dependence on the civil Custom of our Time I see not what Nonsense is in this If he did not look on them as Religious Ceremonies but only as used in Religion from their Signification that they had by Civil use the Nonsense was in bringing this as an Instance of Religious Ceremonies of Humane Appointment for they had no Authority but from Men therefore they never were nor now should be Religious Ceremonies His next Instance is as he saith ad hominem Lifting up the right hand to Heaven in Swearing the Covenant It was Answered that this â—ite not only hath Warrant from Scripture Example but is the Civil Custom of the Nation the like cannot be said of the Controverted Ceremonies His Reply is a Ceremonie being mentioned in Scripture maketh it not only allowable but
for using the Words and if he can shew us a Command for using them we shall Obey it He saith it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples If he mean that the Words should be Recited we desiderate the Proof nor do we find that any of the Apostles in their Publick Administrations so used it It is true the Presbyterians formerly used it and if they should do so still I should not Reclaim but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it gave the first Occasion for disusing it It is an unaccountable Fancy that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism this is the general â—â—nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable and groundless in it self there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be so Common Observation and Experience sheweth that the Atheism that we all should Lament is no more visible nor common among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms than among them who are fond of them I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows p. 290 291. but that the Author was when he Wrote these Things in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion to see his beloved Forms neglected Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People and the Humour of Schism hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore whereas it is evident and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of Lâ—ndonderry that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations and People is made more acquained with them than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture I cannot Answer for their Practice and we make the People understand the Reading as Ezra did Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland but Men who had no Authority nor were Teachers in the Church were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation He next blameth us under the same Epithets of Madness Dreams Humour of Schism that when Children are Bâ—ptized the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated and this because they are not made to repeat the Creed I first ask him what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Crâ—â—d which they cannot understand by our Conduct seing some of them understand it not and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own from Socinianism Poperie Antinomianism and several other gross Errors Next I Answer that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into but pains is taken so far as Ministers can to make them understand that Faith and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it and it is told them what Faith we mean by designing it from the Scripture the great Rule of it and the Confession of Faith of this Church drawn out of the Scripture If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a â—ovenanâ—â—r which he would have us believe tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things we give no ground for such a Thought but endeavour to present things otherwise to them § 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known for in Scotland even among his own Party the contrarie is well known But all this Noise is because we have no stinted Liturgie without which we follow the same Rules both Divine and Humane as I shewed before we all teach the same Truths and Administer the same Ordinances and in the same manner except that we use not the same Words wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie as he injuriously Asserteth His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied It may be some of them did so either from insufficiency or lazieness but I am sure neither the greatest nor the best part of them did so but what ever be in that both on his side and on ours they who did not tie themselves to the same Words at all times managed their Work with as much plainess gravity and coherence of their Words and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts His calling Praying without a set Form Rambling and Ascribing to it no Order nor Dependence but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits I neglect as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture or Reason against him whom he Opposeth in this but to Rail at him And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon I shall wave it too Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie out of one of his Epistles which he so Citeth as no Man shall find it unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used which I have not had he named the Epistle by its Number or the Person to whom Addressed I might have found it by some pains I oppose Calvine to Calvine he said of the English Liturgie and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument even in this Debate that he waveth The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator A. This is provided against by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted by setting the Word and the Acts of the Church before them as their Rule and Directorie and by Watching over them and Correcting them for mismanagement These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising without any Warrant or Footstep of it in the Scripture Another of his Arguments every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance A.
Iâ—cumbred with the Affairs of Humane Life putteth them out of Case for attaining the Knowledge that we Debate about What he further hath under this Head is made up of Harsh Words and bitter Censures not to be Answered that the Catechism was only designed as the Badge of a Partie as if the Prelatists met at Westminster designed a Shibboleth for the Scots Presbyterians to be distinguished by this is wise talk he calleth it such Words as Monks and ill natured Zealots pitched upon it is nothing else but to lift up a Banner for Faction Ignorance and Superstition They the People are Taught by their Leaders to baule against the Ancient Methods of the Christian Church and that which they set up in Oposition to it leads them naturally to Pride and Enthusiasm Let any Man whose Tongue is under any Restraint from the aw of GOD or regard to Man tell us how this can be applied to the Catechism More stuffe of this Stamp he hath which I am wearie to Transcribe He saith this Charge may be fairly managed against the Catechism in general as well as against this Question And I am Confident all such Attempts may receive a full and plain Answer He is pleased also to Reproach the Homilies of the Presbyterians so in Contempt he calleth their Preaching of the Gospel with the same strain he must mean unintelligiblness from which he falleth into a new Fit of calling his Opposites by what ill Names he pleaseth Such an Indefinite Charge as this is not to be Answered but by Denying it and I am sure he can never Prove it the Stories collected or devised by his Friend the Author of the Presbyterian Bloquence are not Probative where Sense or Reason or Candor have place no not among his own Party who know the Presbyterians § 21. His next Charge against us is a Repetition of what he brought and I Answered before that the Scripture is not Read in Publick and this he saith is pursuant to the Design of keeping the People in the Dark He saith the Canonical Scriptures as well as the Apocryphal a double Grievance in his eyes are laid aside from publick use which he calleth a bold stroke of Atheism and Enthusiasm But wise Men will think that there is far more of Atheism in such a Bold Publick Unlimited Assirming of what is an Evidence of having no regard to Truth If there were any thing Argumentative as the whole is most Abusive and destitute of Truth in his Harangue that he seteth off these Falsehoods with I should be at the pains to give them a fair Answer see what is said of this § 14. He next p. 317. Quarrelleth with our Ruling Elders which he Introduceth with a Falsehood that is palpably such viz. that we have put away Deacons as well as Bishops the World knoweth the contrarie and if this Author do not know it he is very unfit to talk of the Presbyterians who is such a Stranger to their Way and Constitution We have Deacons whose Work it is to take Care of the Poor according to Apostolick appointment It is true our Deacons are not allowed to Preach and Baptize as these who in the Episcopal Church go under that Name for we find no Warrant for giving them that Power except it be immediately and extraordinarily given them by the LORD as it was to some not to all of the Primitive Deacons It is also true that in some places the Office and Work of Ruling â—lder and of Deacon is in the same Person which hath Warrant from the Word but that we have no Deacons is said without any Semblance of Truth Tho he knoweth that that Controversie about Ruling Elders who have no Preaching Power hath been much agitated between his Partie and us and his Antagonist whose Writing he never failleth to Oppose when he thinketh he can hath Written on that Subject yet he is pleased here to content himself with setting his Nigrum theta on this our Oppinion without endeavouring to Refute it except he will call it an Argument that he saith it is a Sacrilegious Usurpation on the Ecclesiastical Authority He hath Two Quarrels with them One is that they are not set apart by Imposition of hands I have no other Answer to this but that some among our selves are unsatisfied with this but they are Solemnly and Pubickly set apart for their Work and taken Engaged to it and therefore that want doth not Nullifie the Office That such an Office should be in the Church by CHRIST'S Institution I hold tho I will not undertake to justifie the Practice of our own or other Churches in some things concerning these Elders His other Fault that he findeth with them is that the Preachers encroach so on them that they never suffer them whose sole Office is Government to interpose in the most Essential Points of Jurisdiction viz. the Solemn and Authoritative Imposition of hands Administration of Sacraments and Absolution of Pâ—netents This Objection amounteth to no more but this Ruling Elders by Divine appointment have a Share in the Government of the Church for curbing of sin for they are Inspectores morum populi Ergo they have also all the Authority that CHRIST hath given to the Pastors of the Flock such Reasoning is not only in it self weak and fallacious but it doth ill suâ—e the Principles of this Author do not his Party at their own hand give some part of Church Authority to their Deacons as Preaching and Baptizing and withhold from them all the rest of it why then may not we with much more reason allow that CHRIST hath given part of Church Power to these Elders and yet not the whole of it But I consider his Objection more particularly the first Power mentioned by him as denyed them is Imposition of Hands on the Pastors of the Church If he can Prove that any other than Pastors have that Power by Divine Warrant he shall gain this Point Neither is it consistent with Reason that Imposition of Hands by which the Authority for dispensing the Word and Sacraments is conveyed should be done by them who have not that Power themselves for nemo dat quod non habeâ— The next is Administration of Sacraments This is not due to them because they are not the Pastors of the Church and because they are only Rulers of the Church whereas this Administration is no part of Government The 3d. is Absolving of Paenitents to which he might have Added excommunication and other Church Censures A. This belongeth to the Government of the Church they have a Hand in it nor is it done without them for both Censures and taking off Censures are Decreed in the Consistorie where they sit and vote only the Pronouncing or Executing of these Sentences in the publick Congregation is the Work of the Pastor both because publick Administration of CHRIST'S Ordinances are in his hand and because these Administrations are intermixed or conjoyned with the Word and publick Prayer
that a great Change there was by compareing the Practice and some Canons of Cent. 5 6 7. c. with the Apostolick Writings 2. We think there is no impossibilitie in such a Change as I have acknowledged considering the corruption of Men yea the sinful infirmities of good Men some of whom may be apt to Usurp and others to overlook evils that are not easily observable in their Progress And considering how suddenly Changes to the worse have fallen out in the Church see Moses Praeâ—ictiâ— Deut. 31. 27 28 29. see also Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent Apostacies of Israel after the death of their good Kings made this so evident that it can never be denied nor ought to be wondered at 3. This Change did not come suddenly nor all at once and therefore was not so obvious to everie ones Observation that it was not complained of by any we cannot say not having the compleat and distinct Records of the first Ages farre less can it be affirmed that it was not observed by some who might Lament it in Secret but for Peace sake and because the things they had to Complain of were dark and doubtful and but small and almost insensible Declensions from what had been before they would make little noise with their dissatisfactions It is well known that thus Degeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of the Church and I wish it be not at this Day Verie often a well Reformed Church doth thus degenerate whose Maladie is like latent Diseases which are little observed till they be past Remedy § 43. I adde 4. The true Account of this Change of the Church is given by way of Praediction by our Lord himself on the Parable of the Tares of the field Matth. 13. 24. c. this with other Corruptions grew while the Guids of the Church slept which case in some degree or other is incident to the best of Men and as in process of time the Ministers of the Church grew more remisse this evil had the more advantage to grow Of this I have Discoursed else-where Rational Def. of non conformitie I shall now attend my Antagonist endeavouring to Run down this apprehension of things with many hard Words which amount to no more but this that it was impossible to be brought about because of the observablenss and suddeness of the Change and the Faithfulness of the Guids of the Church that then were set over her All which is already Answered His ingeminating his Question about the possibility of this Change P. 142. his saying that this cannot be imagined if we believe the other parts of Evangelical History are but words that evanish into nothing on supposition of the Account that I have given of it for we deny that the Evangelical History whether Sacred or Humane giveth us Account of such a constitution of Episcopacy as he imagineth in the first Ages That no Historian took Notice of it though it was most memorable p. 143. is still his rotten Hypothesis that this Change should have been made suddenly and all at once and I adde the History of the time of the Rise and Progress of this is defective and uncertain as I have shewed Sect. 32. We do not say that it was Agreed upon by some ambitious Ecclesiasticks as he P. 144. such Men might carrie it on in their several places without Consultation Nature and a corrupt Heart prompting them to it and the World and Satan tempting them yea it might in some degree be promoted by better Men than these unawares taking that for their Due which was not so for its being submitted to tamely which he mentioneth ibid. that was not to be wondered at because of the Humility of some and minding other work for the Peoples Edification leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it and their not observing this Change which by in insensible Degrees made its Progress so in the dark § 44. He p. 145 c. draweth some absurd Consequences by which he laboureth to load our Assertion that the Apostolick Government of Paritie was in after Ages changed into Prelacie The 1. is that they who were marked for the Sacred Function by the Lord Christ after some Experience Judged it necessary to Change Parity for Prelacy 2. That this Change was brought about not in any of the ordinary Methods by which things of that nature are transacted among Mankind but instantly and in a miraculous manner 3. That the immediate Successors of the Apostles were all Presbyterians this we hold but that these Presbyterians most of them Martyrs for Christianitie preferred Prelacy to Paritie 4. That in their Opinion there was no other Remedie againstSchism and Confusion He saith these Conclusions are evident and necessarie if their the Presbyterians Hypothesis be allowed Such Consequences from our Opinion we utterly deny and Challenge him to Prove their Dependance on it The judicious Reader will easily see that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit that we hold that this Change was made suddenly openly and all at once if he find us Maintaing that let him load our Opinion with as many absurd Consequences as he can devise And we neglect his triumphant Repetition of his continual Cant p. 145 146. about the Universal Consent of the Christian Church and its being received without Contradiction But to establish this last Notion he telleth us that none before Aerius opposed Episcopacy of whom and his Actings he taketh the liberty to give such Account as he thought sit for his design that his Motive was Ambition and missing of a Bishoprick was dull had no Parts This in this learned Authors opinion must needs be the native Consequent of his being a Presbyterian for he reckoneth them all such I have given a more true account of Aerius § 16. of § 6. Established on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendeth to which is none but his own He needed not to spend a whole page to tell us what he meaneth by the Impossibility that he ascribeth to the Change we speak of let him understand it as he will we are not concerned who have given account of that Change which maketh it both possible and easie to be understood p. 148. He hath another Argument if it be different from what he hath said before we must not say that the primitive Church immediately Succeeding the Apostles so soon Apostatized from their Original Establishment else we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine and what is Suppositions in the whole frame of our Religion This he enforceth by telling us they might Change other things and if the first and best Christians were not to be trusted in matter of Fact they are less to be trusted in matter of Opinion Here we have yet more plainly expressed the Popish Principle that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith we do not so Trust the first and best Churches except the Apostles as to make them the
rule of our Religion either in their Historical or other Writings We give that Deference to the Scripture alone Again we impute no such Apostacie to the first and best Saints but to them who at some distance Succeeded them as hath been declared and we know that in after Ages even among them who go under the name of the Fathers other things were Changed as well as Church Government § 44. That our Reformers from Popery whom he calleth the first Presbyterians p. 149. did not plead a Jus Divinum is no Argument against us for few of his Party to this day plead for a Divine Right to be on their side as he and some few others do And himself and his Complices made no noise with it when the Oath of Supremacy and the Test were in Fashion our Reformers did not disowne it and they had not the Occasion and may be not the Light to assert it that after-times had Whereas it is palpable that Interest maketh some of his Side to change their Note If Beza wrote smoothly to the English Episcopal Clergy and some more freely to Mr. Knox and Mr. Melvil I know no blame in that piece of Civility unless he can say that Beza ceded in many of his Principles to please the English Church which cannot be alledged His imputing Force and Violence to us and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us we pass as angry and empty Words but no Arguments we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be such whether they be for us or against us but build not our Faith on any of them except such as are contained in the Scriptures of Truth And here he bringeth in p. 150. the Controversie about Ignatius's Epistles and imputeth to Dally and others that they reject them on no other ground but because they owne Episcopacy It is not fair dealing to impute such Prevarication to a Person of Monsieur Daillies Worth after he is laid in the Grave He will not pretend p. 156. to debate the matter about the Authority of these Epistles but p. 150. and what follow runneth out in a high Commendation of Doctor Pearson on that Subject and many confident Assertions that what he hath said cannot be Answered I shall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author But am not convinced by his Arguments I am sure there is not that Evidence nor Certainty in them that is sufficient for us to build on in a Matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in as is the Government appointed by Christ in his Church He telleth us Monsieur L'Arroque attempted to Answer the Bishop of Chester but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party and his Collections are Answered by Nourry The truth is L'Arroque was prevailed upon by some of the Episcopal Party as witnesseth the Translator of L' Arroques Historie on the Eucharist in his Life p. 5. by some specious Arguments from the Unseasonableness of Debates among Protestants to desist from that Work and it never was perfected therefore it might be the more easily answered and we cannot judge what Esteem it would have obtained it seems they dreaded the Strength of it Whether we ever were able to bring one plausible Argument for that Cause the Reader must judge we will not in this stand to his Decision which he confidently maketh p. 141. he declineth ibid. renewing the Debate about these Epistles wherefore I hope I may be excused if I do so too And he asserteth that their Cause loseth nothing by their being laid aside as I also affirm that our Cause may be maintained if they be allowed to be really what he would have them to be Some Citations out of them I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examined And if he had thought fit to produce moe it is like they might be found to do no hurt to our Cause Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius he might have received what should satisfie about it A Distinction between Bishop that is Moderator and Presbyter and Deacon we owne as well as these Acts do which is all he mentioneth as making for him in these Acts. He citeth Wal. Messal p. 153. asserting that these Epistles were written in the beginning or middle of the second Century this is but the Guess of the Learned Salmasius but our Author doth not tell us that Salmasius in the same place setteth forth that they could not be written by Ignatius from some Absurdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them This Gentleman mistaketh when he saith he that wrote thom could not represent Ecclesiastical Policy different from what it was in the days of Ignatius that is to say he could not mistake He should have proved this by demonstrating that that Person tho he knoweth not who he was had the Gift of Inerrability and if he ascribe that to a Person whos 's other Characters he knoweth not he might as well say that no Writer of that Age could misapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former Is it not possible that this Person might be another Diotrephes who while there was some Tendency to a Declension from Parity did zealously forward it and run a little before the soberer and better Men of that time and that his Zeal for the Opinion he had taken up might make him misapprehend or misrepresent what was the Opinion of the true Ignatius it is a Dream that it followeth from the Concession or Guess of Salmasias that that Author gave 〈◊〉 a true Idea of the Ecclesiastical Policy of the beginning of the second Century and another that he must represent Church Policy as those in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writings so visionaire to use his own word as this is For could not this unknown Person differ in the Apprehension of this Matter from most yea from all his Contemporaries and it is strange that our Author should suppose that this personate Ignatius was a Martyr or a Bishop as he doth p. 154. He pleadeth next for the Epistles of Ignatius from the Diligence and Authority of Eusebius and saith that he hardly could be imposed upon in an Affair of this Consequence A. This is to beg the Question to say that the Church was in this imposed upon he should prove that the Churches then thought these Epistles to be written by Ignatius for Eusebius I think few who are vers'd in Antiquity will lay so much weight on his Historical Authority as this Author doth Himself giveth ground to suspect some things that he wrote as I shewed before and others have observed yet more ground for it It is a pleasant Argument the Church was careful to gather up some hard Bones of Ignatius that the Lyons had left Ergo they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind