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
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
not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious p. 257. l. 16. r. sound p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted p. 309. l. 16. r. Things p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings If there be any other Mistakes of the Press it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them THE Good old way defended c. IT hath been observed by some who have read this Book that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists not only for his Arguments but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions there had been less blame in it and even the imputation of Noveltie of the Opinions of Presbyterians with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine which in their ordinary cant is the new Gospel If he hath proved or shall prove that our Principles for Paritie and against Prelacy is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles he hath some advantage against us Yet if our way have been owned and practised in Scotland before the Papacy and among the Waldenses for many Ages The edge of his prejudice against it will be a little blunted The former I have already debated with some of his Partie and may have occasion to resume that Dispute before I have done with this Book The other may be easily made appear For in their Confession of Faith after they had fled to Bohemia called Confessio Taboritarum Joan. Lukawitz Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny that By Scripture warrant Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops and that Bishops have more Authority than single Priests Perin Hist. of the Vaudois p. 53 62. cited by Owen of Ordination p. 4. Sheweth that they had no other Ministers for 5â—0 years than such as was ordained by Presbyters Walsing Hist of England pag. 339. Telleth us that the Lollards the same Sect with the Waldenses had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops Now of this Sect even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius an Inquisitor in his Book contra Haereticos sayeth that it had continued longest of all the Sects For some say these are his Words they have been from the days of Pope Silvester 1. who was in the time of the first Nicen Council others from the dayes of the Apostles § 2. It may also be made appear that his own opinion of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours not only by the Fathers as will after appear but even the Church of England was not of that Opinion till Bishop Lands time and but few of them after it Spellman p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin hath these words Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi Catal. test verit To. 2. saith of Wicklif tantum duos ordines minâ—strorum esse debere judicavit viz. Presbyteros Diaâ—onos Fox Act. monum T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him hath these words p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church there was no more Officers in the Church of God than Bishop and Deacons as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly He citeth also Jerom for this After the Reformation in the Book called the Institution of a Christian man made by the whole Clergy 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament to be preached through the whole Kingdom it is said That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders Presbyters or Bishops and Deacons Cranmers and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book it is said that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers not mentioned in Scripture For the same Opinion Owen of Ordination p. 114 115. citeth Jewel Morton Whitaker Nowell and the present Bishop of Sarum § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie and against the Divine right of Episcopacy is as old as the Reformation from Popery is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici signed by Luther Melanchthon and many other Divines as they are set down lib. concord Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors without Bishops And cite Jerome saying Eam Ecclesiam Alexandrinam primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris Ministris communi operâ gubernatam fuisse These articles were agreed on An. 1533. After p. 324 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio Potestas excommunicandi absolvendi that liquet confessione omnium etiam adversariorum nostrorum communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores sive Presbyteri sive Episcopi And they cite Jerome as holding the same Opinion and from his words observe hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum Presbyterorum sive Pastorum tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse idque res ipsa loquitur quia officium mandatum plane idem est quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum Pastorem c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes Palsegrave Saxonie and Brandenburg by 45. Dukes Marquesses Counts and Barons by the Consuls and Senates of 35. Cities Yea to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked even in England Bucer and Fagius who subscribed them were brought into England by Cranmer and employed in promoting the Reformation The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book It is then a confidence beyond ordinary to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion § 4. It is further to be considered that as Antiquity is not by it self a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors and this sort of Arguments hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide It is Divine Institution not humane practice Custome or Antient Opinion that must be a Foundation for our belief and when they expose our way as new they should consider that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing and Gods appointment may be new in respect of its discovery and observation What is old in it self may be new to us because by the corruption of many Ages it hath been hid and at last brought forth to light again So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers and by them treated with disdain and mocking on that account
Reply but the words of Psalms 12. 3 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said with our tongue will we prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us and Psal. 120. 3 4. What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee O false tongue We can answer his Arguments and are willing to be Instructed by him and attacked that way But who can stand before this kind of Topicks I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure only by Division and Singularitie save this Author p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author But it is evident that the strain of both is the same I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate But I cannot overlook his suposing that we reject certain Ritualls and practises which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture and the uniform Belief of all Christians If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such we shall correct our Opinion about them § 8. He layeth some Foundations p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute which we cannot allow as first that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order and Discipline under which Head he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church It is to be lamented that even in Doctrine there was not that Unitie that was fit in the Primitive times we read of many Heresies early broached for Order it was not the same among all there were sad Schisms as well as Heresies and for Ritualls we find no General Rule they agreed in for Ordering them save the Word of GOD contained in the Scriptures For General Councills that medled most with these were later than the times we speak of And it is well known what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them such as the time of observing Easter Yea the first Churches had different Ritualls about which they made no Divisions but used Christian forbearance Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this which is C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi Iraeneus reproving Victor for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And at large sheweth that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were from uniformity in their Fasting Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat in the frequency of Communicating about the time and manner of Baptising about the time and degrees of publick penance placing the Altar or Communion Table c. It is evident then that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of They minded things of higher moment and greater necessity § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals they the Primitive Christians strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks This Assertion with respect to Rituals is wild and absurd not only because such Uniformity was not found nor much regarded among them as hath been shewed but also because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion could afford them no strength more than an Army is the stronger by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour It was their Unity in the Truths of God their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule and their Love and forbearance of one another in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ in these as the Means did their strength ly Yet another strange Position he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians which never hath yet been proved and affirmeth that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family His Supposition which p. 11. and often else where he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate is groundless as I hope will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition His Assertion is false and dangerous For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches where several of the Constitutions he talketh of were practised by some and neglected or despised by others as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio and many others 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God there were Debates in the primitive Churches and some differed from that which was generally held and yet they were not Excommunicated but dealt with by more soft Means and born with till the Lord should enlighten their Mind according to the Apostles direction Phil. 3. 15 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church but of few others to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing even in Rituals this is not the Spirit of the Gospel If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians his Assertion cannot be contradicted yet it may be Ridiculed for that is impossible for any who is a Christian to do but if he speak of what is commonly received this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine or Ceremony even though they Dissent never so modestly and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them § 10. What followeth doth surmount all that we have heard p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters must be received as the infallible Truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages from the Combinations of Hereticks And a little below The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors I make here two Observes before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted The former is that may be through oversight he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining or decisive Power about what must be received as the
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading yet approveth our reading in these words Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo quod per hanc Epistolam significo he also and Menochius make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus which could not properly nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle of which more after The Syriack Version as also the Arabick doth read this place as we do 2. The Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bear this Interpretation for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person or thing not to give Notice which is the signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Scapula rendereth the first word which is the word of the Text insignio noto and he citeth for it Graegor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Athen lib. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he turneth signum do significo and giveth sufficient authority for that signification In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident to all who read these places that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing but to signifie or hold forth It must then be to put force on the Text to draw it to express their giving notice by a Letter to the Apostle of the mans faults 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church for he saith not by an Epistle but by the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey but could not bring from them to him notice of what Scandals fell out among them 4. Upon this noting of that man did immediatly and necessarly follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted as is clear in the Text which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves because the Apostle notwithstanding of their informatary Letter might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused either because the Crime was not relevant or the Proof not sufficient but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him § 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline or such as was to continue in the Church by themselves and without the Authority or the authoritative â—oncurrence of the Presbytrie then Bishops may not do it but the former is true Ergo I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed nor can it unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles and give them a Power that is wholly boundless They cannot alledge that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would For that is to be proved and further their not using it was a binding example to them who should come after them from which they ought not to swerve Before I come to the proof of the Assumption I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power by themselves in the matter of Church Discipline or Correption or other Church Acts. First when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power as many think in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus Saravia a great Patron of Prelacy defen Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words Apostolos Evangelistas rebus Ecclesiis jam constitutis in Parochias Episcopis distributis nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis invitis locorum Pastoribus Episcopis me firmiter credere That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves but with the Presbyterie I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary First Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself but with the Presbyters though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet that the Presbyterie concurred is clear 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie as well as to that of the Apostle which is a clear Indication of a joint Power 2. The Apostle did not by himself Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian as hath been shewed 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses Acts 15. by themselves but with the Elders and Brethren They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan It is to be proved by the Objecters first That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church 2. That if so the Apostle did this by himself without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie neither of which can be proved § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest in any sort of Church Officers Ergo it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither The Antecedent is clear if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture there was no Apostle had power over the rest as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy No such Disparity among Prophets or Evangelists or among the Governments or ruling Elders nor among Deacons I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders and invented new ones it was no wonder then that an Arch-Presbyter or Bishop was brought in too but no Foundation in Scripture which alone can found a Divine Right for any such Disparity or Subordination The consequence cannot be denyed unless our Adversaries can prove that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be which they shall never be able to do It were strange if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another and yet not Hint that Disparity when he is setting down all the Officers in his House and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers this only should admit of such Subordination I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie and against Prelacy that the Reader might see how slightly and unfairly my Antagonist dealeth with us when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments because he hath refuted one or two of them which he was pleased to single out as easiest for him to deal with SECTION IV. The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator who presided among them and did with the rest authoritatively Consult and Determine this we grant but it maketh nothing for him 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie I cannot well guess If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest that is what we hold If that he had a negative Vote so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent he ought not to call for Proof from us against that the Probation is to be expected from him who affirmeth it If that he determined by himself and the rest were but his Council this we deny also and he must prove it It is enough that we prove that others with the Bishop Moderator or Praeses did manage the Affairs of the Church for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient What followeth in several pages is to prove that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests so of the Bishops from the Presbyters This would indeed weaken our Argument if it had no more force than he giveth it If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons without distinguishing Bishops or Presbyters among themselves But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some but in all places where they are mentioned and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices Work Qualifications or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use make nothing against our Argument unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters they ascribe also a superior power to them which he often asserteth but never proveth We confess that after the Apostles age the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone nor had superior power to the rest I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author when he shall please to attempt this proof Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. where he engageth with another of our Arguments than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative wherewith his Discourse is interspersed § 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power upon all occasions with great Courage and Assurance What my last Antagonist brought for this end out of the Writing of that holy Martyr I have endeavoured to Answer with what success it is not mine to judge if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations or bring new ones I shall not decline the Debate with him That Polycarp as he hath it p. 32. distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters while he inscribeth his Epistle Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him Who saith our Author if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren This reasoning I say is so remote from Concludencie that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it For first whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred as Polycarp being an older man than the rest or Praeses in the Meeting it is ridiculous to infer from this either Superiority or solitude of power 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle and the rest Assenters to it that might give occasion to his being named 3. Will any say that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie for N. Moderator and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named Such stuff is not worth refuteing P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church there was no ground for his Reprehension Apage nugas Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church like that of the Lords among the Gentiles Yea we deny not all preferment in the Church may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister or an Elder yea or a Deacon All which are Preferments if compared with the people and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction That Blondel Salmasius and Dally laboured to support this Argument as our Author represents it is falsly asserted p. 35. As is also that this Opinion about Parity was never heard of before the days of Aerius If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig whose Memory is venerable in the learned World must here also be lashed as ignorant of Divinity and of the Fathers because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument as stated by us in this his Discourse only his unmannerly as well as false Assertion p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling He may see if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute that they have other yea better Arguments and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument represented in its full Strength SECTION V. Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me Vindicated HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side he might have found thrice as many more and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say But this and the two Arguments above debated with him are all that he will allow us to have on our side His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name while he calleth them who possessed the Government and Revenues of the Church Atheists and Enthusiasts and that without exception or Limitation Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England as well as others charactered by him We will not retaliate but the learned and religious world had and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry and judge that Atheism and other sinful Evils have been diffused into the Church after that time though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves and all
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
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
familiar to him that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority Before I consider what he saith on this Head I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity not Jurisdiction partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit sed which jam obtinuit He speaketh not of universal Practice nor of perpetual Practice but for a Practice that in his time had become common I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie of which they knew the Original but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally in all Churches from the very first preaching of the Gospel these he always considered as Sacred and inviolable and of Apostolick Authority and of this sort he saith Austine thought Episcopacy to be and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church could have no beginning latter than the Apostles his words are quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer as much as repeating it can do that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church which obtained in all Ages and in all places and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority And hence he pleadeth that unless we can shew what Council Provincial or AEcumenick introduced Episcopacy it must be purely Divine To all this I oppose a few Considerations First that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial are not only to be distinguished but differently regarded I think it is very reasonable and this learned Father did wisely observe it but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction that every thing is to be accounted Divine the first Rise of which we cannot account for I cannot assent to that nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion There were Customes even in the Apostolick Church which he will not say were of Divine Institution and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began such as the Love-Feasts to which I may add the osculum pacis which though the manner of it was enjoyned by the Apostle that it should be done holily without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness yet I think few will say the thing was enjoyned for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it And if there were such Customes that then crept in why might it not be so afterward § 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical of which the Original or time of beginning could not be shewed because that were to make Custome and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church not only in her Decrees but in her Customes which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves If this Doctrine be true no Custome of the Church can be contrary to yea nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition it is not to be thought that Austine thought so who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice The words cited cannot be so far stretched but are to be understood in Subordination to the Scripture where a Custome hath always and universally obtained and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes as a Rule of Faith and Practice yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age together with that of after times for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine is a bold Assertion If while the Apostles watched over the Church some Weeds might grow much more after their decease while men slept it might be so 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general were never so unexceptionable how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome or that Augustine lookt on it as such Herein lyeth our present Debate and he fancieth Austine is on his side because he extolleth Custome if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters we shall part with this Argument and lean no more to Austines Authority This he hath not attempted and we are sure he can never perform it 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy But we can prove first that it might come in an other way as the Tares grew when Men slept he might with as good Reason when we see Tares growing among Wheat prove that these Tares are good Wheat because we cannot tell when or by what particular Hand they were sowen Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church by this Parable of the Tares Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice and to Scripture rule it must needs be evil though it have come in by no Council if we find a Thief in the House or a Disease in the Body we may look on them as such though we cannot tell how the one got into the House nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other now as to what we contest about if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth or that the Apostles allowed we must yield the Cause Before I proceed to what he further offereth I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother and yet it looketh like an Argument p. 86. about the middle he saith Austine intended no more but that now under the Gospel by the constant and early practice of the Church from the days of the Apostles the Character and Dignity of a Bishop was above that of a Presbyter He putteth now in a different Character and expoundeth it by the days of the Gospel This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text for if now be so understood he must tell us when the time was that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula Episcopatus Presbyterium were not in use Were they one and the same under the Law Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years or there
about speak so of that Distinction if it were no newer He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome nor the Churches of Christ doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule as having the Head bare or covered wearing long or short Hair it doth not thence follow if the Apostle did there make it the Rule that it must also be the Rule in other things p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church from the Custome of particular places and he maketh the one mutable the other not so He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction I know no body that doubteth of it nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal unless they clash with Scripture But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church or that Austine meant such a Usage by his usus Ecclesiae § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh for vindicating Austine is to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome did begin at Peter and thence argueth against the Donatists that their Error was a Noveltie because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist if saith my Antagonist there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles in which the Church was governed without Bishops by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers the Donatists might evite that Argument by denying such a Succession This is one of the silliest of all Arguments it is captio ab homonymia there was a Succession of faithful Men who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time among whom was no Donatist it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie but doth it follow that in all that Interval that Church was governed by Prelates with Jurisdiction over Presbyters unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself without the joint Authority of the Presbyters he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand He cannot be ignorant that the word Bishop signified in the Scripture Dialect and in the Age that followed any Church Ruler and therefore that these men are called Bishops cannot prove their sole nor superior Jurisdiction Austines Argument from this Succession is equally strong against the Donatists whether these called Bishops were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time it would have seemed to have more of sense But even so it would not be so concludent for naming of one who might be the oldest the most eminent or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest From this our Author inferreth p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae in Austines sense is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter I think none else can see this Consequence for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters in the other place and they are different Books he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other He further argueth that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter This I have taken notice of above § 1. It is no way to our present purpose Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius as contrary to the Sentiments that then prevailed Ecclesiae usu doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper and Veracity or of his Skill in close reasoning I leave it to the Reader to judge His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops p. 91. doth not make it stronger When he can say no more that looketh like Argument he according to his laudable Custome concludeth this part of the Debate with Railling and abusive Reflections and confidently asserting his Conclusion ad nauseam usque Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients they consult Blondel and Salmasius and go no further than Smectymnus he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences torn from their neighbour places when they have neither the Patience nor good nature to consider what the same Author saith else where he calleth them bauling People and their way Confusion and aequality It is not only new but absurd supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity Thus he bantereth his Adversaries when he cannot beat them out of their Principles by the force of Argument in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men or Women who fight with this Weapon SECTION VII The Authors Arguments examined which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively In his second Chapter p. 94. seq he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy He placeth his main strength in this that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles and that when the Apostles went off the Stage they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People as themselves had done And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy which he should have done before he had so largely debated it we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time and neither understood against whom nor about what we contend He sheweth his wonted Benignitie and good Temper in his Preamble to his stating of the Question when he saith such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book but leave that to the unbyassed who read it and consider his Strain and his Arguments To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on that 〈◊〉 Government is not ambulatory I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side we were alway◠of that Opinion but so were not they generally otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did He saith we are likewise agreed
ordinary Power exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops compared with the Apostles Whitaâ—… I say bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle from these Characters of an Apostle and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself proving his own Apostleship that he was not called by men Gal 1. 1. Now saith he the Pope is called by men so say we of Bishops that he had his Doctrine not by mens teaching but by Revelation Gal. 1. 2. Eph 〈◊〉 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope nor Bishops that he had seen Christ 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists that they giâ—e other Characters of an Apostle which they make essential to him and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have Calvin Inâ—… lib. 4 cap 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle his universal Charge and not being tyed to a particular Church and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19 20. where he observeth that there was no bounds set to their Labours but the whole world was given them to labour in and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ but how he had travelled through a great part of the World preaching the Gospel He mentioneth also another Character that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architecâ—â— qui â—jus â—und 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 or be 〈◊〉 They were the first Planters of Churches of which afterward If it be objected that these things belonged to the first and extraordinary Apostles not to these that are secondary and permanent or ordinary Apostles This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church but giveth no account of other Apostles therefore these other are not Apostles except in the general Notion as they are sent to do Church work Gersom Bucer dissert de gubern Eccles. Episceps 70. p. 269. proveth that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers from 1 Cor 12. 29. are all Apostles so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus making the Apostles such a distinct Office to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office that their Calling was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediate The same hath Paul Bayâ— Dyoces â—ryal p. 52. Didoclav altar Damascen C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker and Junius to this purpose and even Tilenus who was no friend to Presbyterie Petrum saith he unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere de Pontif lib 2 C. 4. Not 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not 7. he hath these words neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati tanquam globae ascriptus fuit quod Gregarli est Episcopi non Apostoli Also lib. 2. C. 12. § 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church now deceased which by an accident hath stuok in the Birth I mean the Press for some time the design of which is to prove and I think he doth it solidly that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way to gather and to plant Churches and to institute all Christs Ordinances in them to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded So he p 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it and administring the Ordinances of it And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church Ministerially under Christ whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all inferior Officers He further sheweth that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church in the beginning of the Gospel particularly the Evangelists whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles the one was immediatly from Christ the other was from Him by the Apostles though their Gifts were sometimes immediate and extraordinary 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit as the Apostles were but were directed and ordered by the Apostles 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly as the Apostles as appeareth from the Epist to Tim and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands as the Apostles had My design in all this is to shew that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office how ever confidently asserted by him on his bare word seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith we look on it as a groundless Fancie that he can never make out I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops and some of them call Presbyters Apostles in a large sense that is Christs Ambassadors but that some of them think or say that the Office of them who now rule the Churches is the same with that of them who at first planted them I find not when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform they shall be considered § 6 I cannot pass over without correction an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour but by the Apostles who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World A. It is most absurdly said that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle why made they use of Lots They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it his words are Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum prout Presbyteros ordinabant sed sorte utuntur quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum Nor doth it make against this that it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Dr. Hammond who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be and understood as well what could be said for it saith constat Matthiam
sorte delectum fuisse non per hominum suffragia And Corn à Lapide in locum verbum hoc loco Catachrestice usurpatur de qualibet electione idemque significat quod eligi accenseri annumerari Not only Beza but Corn à Lapide expoundeth it q. d. hic sortis eventus communi omnium sententia comprobatus fuit And it is certain that a Lot is a Divine Determination Prov. 16. 33. Cartwright Mellis Hebraic hath this Note on the Text quod sortem appellat judicium docet non nisi in rebus gravioribus ad sortem esse recurrendum maxime cum per sortem Deus ipse in judicio sedeat It was not then the Apostles but Christ himself who chose Matthias to the Apostleship nor was ever any Apostle chosen or called by Men which the Apostle Paul denyeth of himself as not agreeing to that Office Gal. 1. 1. He telleth us p 100. that the ordinary and perpetual Power that Christ gave to his Apostles was derived by them to their Successors Here he supposeth that the Apostles had an ordinary and perpetual Power which is that we now contend about for we maintain that their Power was extraordinary and ceased with them and that it was an inferior sort of Power which their Successors got He telleth next that the name also was derived to others beside the twelve That hath been already granted that that Name in a large sense was given to others yet in another sense it was restricted to the Twelve But he is very unhapy in his Proof of this uncontested Truth by Instancing Phil. 2. 25. where Epaphroditus is called the Messenger 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church of Philippi for it is plain from the Text that he is so called as being sent by the Philippians to Paul and not as sent of God to them tho we deny not but that in that sense he might be called an Apostle for in that he is said with the same Breath to be he that Ministred to Pauls wants and seeing it is as evident from the Text that he was then with Paul and not at Philippi it appeareth that he had been sent by them to Paul with some token of their bounty for the Apostles subsistance Thus Grotius expoundeth this Place who saith that they who gathered and carried the sacred Money were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and likewise he saith that the Philippians had sent Money to Paul by Epaphroditus which he received because being in Bonds he could not then work with his hands For the same interpretation are Beza Piscator Zanchius Uorstius yea Estius who citeth Thomas Aquinas for it and Cajetan But he undertaketh to prove his sense of the word by this Assertion that an Apostle in the New Testament never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always a Messenger sent from God to men This he extendeth to other places as 2 Cor. 8. 23. This assertion is wholy groundless yea it is false as I have already proved with respect to Epaphroditus Phil. 2 26. for 2 Cor. 8. 23. The word is not so to be taken there neither for all his confidence in saying that our Translation is certainly a mistake Grotius is here also against him and saith they were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of their carrying Aims to the Churches of Judea And it is evident from the Context which telleth us of Pauls sending Titus about this Affair v. 27. and v. 18 19. Another Brother is chosen by the Churches to travel viz. to Judea with this Collection and v. 22. Yet another Brother is sent with Titus and that Brother formerly mentioned Now the Apostle giveth a Character of these Commissioners as for Titus as well known to the Apostle being in high Station in the Church and an Evangelist he telleth that he was his Partner and Fellow Helper as for these other Brethren he insinuateth that they must needs be very commendable persons being chosen by the Churches and so entrusted by them in that they made them their Messengers What he excepteth against this is frivolous for they are not called the glory of Christ on account of this Employment neither could they be called the glory of Christ simply on account of their being sent by him to the people yea or being Bishops but they are so called because of their holy conversation and faithful discharge of their Office what ever it was in the Church Another Scripture he bringeth Rom 16 7. where some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where saith he the Greek Phrase may be rendered inter primaâ—ios Apostolos This is a Blunder that he would have thought sufficient to ruine the Credit of a Presbyterian for ever as ignorant of the Greek and of good sense for neither can the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie Primarius or Chief but may well be rendered of note noted or eminent nor can 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agree as Substantive and Adjective as this learned Author maketh them to do contrary to all Rules of Grammar The meaning is plain that these men were noted or eminent in the Church and so esteemed among the Apostles or by them nor doth it at all import that they themselves were Apostles So not only Beza and Piscator but Toletus Vatablus Grotius The falshood of his Assertion p. 100. That the word Apostle never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men but always one sent by God to men is evident from Joh. 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 greater than him that sent him where the word is taken at large for any one that is sent by another And the Verb whence it is derived is often used for a Mans sending as Mat. 2. 16. and 21. 3 and 27 19 2 Tim 4 12 passim § 7. He took notice it seems that his Adversaries make Universality of Apostolick Jurisdiction to be one distinguishing Mark of their Office which Bishops cannot pretend to and therefore Bishops have not the Substance of the Apostolick Office Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way p. 101 102 103 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrowness of the Limits of these Provinces assigned to the secondary Apostles he meaneth the Bishops did not alter the nature of their Office from that of the twelve Apostles more than the Kings of Juda lost the Honour of sitting on the Throne of David after the Revolt of the ten Tribes Here is a gross Mistake of the Question which is not whether the largeness or narrowness of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath do alter the nature of his Office but whether a limited and particular Charge do not so differ from that which is universal and extended to the whole Church of Christ as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the other is not in the same Office Will any Papist say that the Universâ—â— Bishop who sitteth at Rome hath
shewed that this they did not ordinarily in Churches already planted and furnished with Officers A third thing is that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs This I also cleared S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity though not a Jurisdiction in our ambulatory Moderator These things being cleared the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles and is now necessary to continue in the Church The Question is whether when the Apostles setled Churches and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church they committed that ruling Power to a single person or to a Colledge of Presbyters He saith it was committed to a single Bishop I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters without any Disparity of Power or Jurisdiction among them And I further add that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest neither did they allow them to transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another and suffer him to rule over them Some light Velitations he hath before he came to his main arguments for proving his Point And 1. From Christs promise that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually and this promise was made to them not in their Personal but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat 28 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had It respecteth their power of Teaching Baptizing and Ruling and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed but it saith nothing directly nor indirectly how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have His second Hint of an Argument is that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them but it no way followeth that the Apostolick Power in all its Latitude must continue because though that was needful for planting the Church it is not needful for her watering and her continuance That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years as he saith p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations which must stand for Argument to his easie Believers § 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors both by Scripture and by the Ecclesiastical Records The first Scripture Proof is from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus and Titus at Crete This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly but we must follow whether he leadeth He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus when himself was going into Macedonia 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20 3 4 5. And then after taking off as he fancieth one of our Exceptions against his Argument he proveth that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop The Exception that our Writers commonly bring is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus and travelling with Paul His refutation of this p. 107 is that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus did often wait on the Apostle Paul his spiritual Father to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria as when he served Tables at Jerusalem The Presbyterians have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks when they are imployed to visit the Court or Forreign Churches The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection for Concil Chalcedon Act 11 reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days The Reply to all this is easie 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly nor in its full Strength for then this his Answer would appear trifling We plead that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus as Pastor of that Church but that he was only sent to it as Pauls Deputy for a small time to do some Work there I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus 1 Tim 1 3. cannot import a fixed Charge but on the contrary that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge and in a Pastoral Relation to that People that was to end only with his Life such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent Again the Strength of our Argument lieth in this that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places Labouring in the Work of the Gospel that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was to be imployed else where and we have little or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia himself staying at Ephesus Acts 19 22 After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again and returned thence unto Asia we find Timothy with him not at Ephesus Acts 20 1 4 After which we never read that Timothy wrote came or returned to Ephesus We find that Paul sent him to Corinth 1 Cor 4 7 and 16 10 2 Cor 1 19. And to Philippie Philip 2. 19. And to Thessalonica 1 Thess 3 2 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians which was written at Philippie and was sent as also the first from the same Place and in that to Philippie written from Rome and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens and in the second He is also mentioned in these Epistles as being elsewhere but we read no more of his being at Ephesus He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians from Rome He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans Rom 16 21 with the Postscript of the Epistle He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written Heb 13 23 But in the Epistle to the Ephesians which was written from Rome long after the time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop no word of him neither as being at Rome saluting them nor as being at Ephesus saluted by Paul And it is strange if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum Acts 20 17 that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop Beside he telleth
acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy and that in his presence he being then with the Apostle Also from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus From his telling them that they should see his Face no more Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them but laying it on the Elders but I shall not enlarge on these § 15. He alledgeth with the same Confidence and as little Strength of Argument that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus in Crete And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea that Titus we say the same of Timothy was an Evangelist which he very discretly more suo calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists 〈◊〉 Saith he It is no where said in Scripture that he was one of them who were called Evangelists A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists The word is divers ways used in Holy Write neither do we argue from the Name that either he or Timothy to whom this Name is expresly applyed 2 Tim. 4. 5. were Evangelists but we argue from their Work and Circumstances together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church in the beginning of Christianity There are others beside them whom we can prove to have been Evangelists who may be get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture Next he argueth the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop Presbyter or Deacon What if all this were yielded what gaineth he by it Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him tho he were no Bishop and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist what we design is that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop seing he was an Evangelist who hath all that power that Titus is said to have Beside Saravia who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath de Ministr Evang. grad C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae Prophetae Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri ita Titi Timothei qui Presbyteri Episcopi erant major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops if then Titus was an Evangelist is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist or a Bishop to a Presbyter or he to a Deacon unless some of these were degraded for some fault Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop Further he describeth an Evangelist out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it at least were not converted by it Eusebius is not by him fairly cited C. 33. not 37. he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles as his own words bear therefore they did not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists that is saith he they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations as Apollo did after Paul 1 Cor. 3. 6. also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted or any way to preach the Gospel His at last is his own addition to Eusebius not the words of that Historian It is evident then that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels and on that account be called an Evangelist in a large sense as may also every on that preaches the Gospel but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church distinguished from Apostles Prophets Pastors Teachers c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about that it is more than insinuated He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist which is a Truth but very impertinent to his purpose because Daniel did the Work of the King who was no King but much lower than a King a very wise Consequence indeed That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm or ordain he affirmeth p. 112. which is both false he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise For the power of Confirmation we know none had it there being no such Ordinance in our Authors sense in the Apostolick Church It is also wide from this purpose for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be sent elsewhere on another Errand and yet both be Evangelists That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists is true in the large sense as before but not in the strick sense neither is this to our present purpose for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists in the Primitive Times were Bishops But what followeth is wholly false that any Bishop or Presbyter who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times If it were so every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct â—…m all other Church Officers for there were whom the Scripture doth particularly call Evangelists Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished § 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops and not Evangelists I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist whence it will appear plainly that Timothy and Titus were such and that there is no ground from what is said of them in
even in this matter Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion wherein we either please God or sin against him on such a Sandy Foundation Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro in the Church of Antiochia lib. 3. ad Autolycum near the beginning he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods and hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not do as it were beat the Air his work is to be found Biblioth Patr. T. 2. This Passage is p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles is defective dark and uncertain This is not only found now at this distance of time but it was early complained of by Eusebius who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things than we have lib. 3. C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how many and what sincere Followers or Successors have Governed the Churches planted by the Apostles it cannot be confirmed but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church on Scripture and not on the Fathers And in his Preface to his History he telleth us he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way having only some small Tokens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and there as it were Also that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer who unto this day and it was the Interval of three hundred years have in this behalf he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops imployed any Diligence Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this or any other Writer concerning these times that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium quo tracts Quadratus Ignatius florebant plane cum Varrone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari potest is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit praeter admodum pauca quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant Swetonius Tacitus Plinius quem hiatu◠ut expleret Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clementis nescio cujus non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippi non melioris scriptoris sine delectu ea deprompsit Tilenus no Friend to Presbytery saith full as much he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times and that a fine actorum Apostolorum ad Trajani tempora nihil habemus certi Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House § 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself and all others beside the Prophets and Apostles from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion not exempting that about Church Government This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct for the same Arguments that our Author and his Complices use in this Debate they improve in the other Controversies and with the same advantage For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the one case it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined to which I shall now add August lib. 2. contr Manichae of the Scriptures he saith 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed aut codex mendosus est aut interpres erravit aut tu non intelligis In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas longe tamen est impar authoritas Jerom is much and often in this strain Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr Scio me aliter habere Apostolos aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror quo modo Tertull. Novatum Arnob. nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos ut bona eorum eligamus evitemusque contraria juxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est eligite The same he saith also of his own Writings in Hab. Zech. Si quis melius imo verius dixerit nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus Ambros. de incarnatione C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur non ego dico a me quia in principio erat verbum sed audio non ego affingo sed lego c. Cyril Hierosol Cat. 12. Meis commentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non attende possis enim forte decipi sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis c. Yea the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please and teach in general that they are not always to be followed as Dally and Turretin shew out of Cajeton Canus Maldonate Petavius and Baronius who often reprehendeth the Fathers even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact and doth not this very Author so far forget himself as to say that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age p. 73. as I above observed and if Jerom did mistake why might not the rest also the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward de Causa Dei lib. 2. C. 3. corroll p. 601 602. is consonant to what I have said He sheweth that the Fathers did often seem at least to favour Hereticks particularly Pelagius and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate
semper muniri sed posse quandoque ab hominibus emendari and instanceth in Origen Jerom Cyprian and Augustin Our Authors Exception against this in his Distinction of Matters of Opinion and Matters of History that the Fathers might mistake in the one not in the other I am afterward to consider § 34. For further Confirmation of this Truth I shall transcribe a few heads of Arguments out of a Manuscript written by a Learned Divine of this Church Entituled Some Propositions collected out of the Writings of Divines about Church Government because few can have access to read the Manuscript it self He proveth 1. That the Testimony of the ancient Historians is not in every thing and particularly in that point of the Hierarchy probably true because 1. Even Episcopal Writers of the best Note deny their Testimony to be universally true Sutliv de Pontiff lib. 2. C. 11. p. 148. Multa de Petre Paulo aliis sanctis hominibus narrantur fabulose quibus nemo necessario tenetur credere ibid. p. 153. About Peters being at Rome Ad testimonia Patrum quod attinet expedita est Responsio quae fama acceperant narrant sed dubia incerta Whitaker of Peter and Pauls being buried at Rome Hoc totum nititur fidei humanae ex historiae veritate pendet at fides Religio nostra certiori fundamento nititur testimonio scil spiritus sancti Baron Pref. p. 3. Nulla res hactenus in Ecclesia magis negligi visa est quam Ecclesiasticarum rerum narratio quod si Historias consules magnam eorum classem essâ— intelliges quae absque delectu perceperunt aniles fabulas 2. They relate many things that are generally disbelieved as the Letter of Abgarus to Christ and Christs Answer Peter being twenty five years at Rome as Bishop of that Church is questioned by most Protestants Sutliv saith Credo eum Romam nunquam vidisse Reynold Colla with Hart bringeth strong proofs that Mark was not Bishop of Alexandria 3. Many of these old Histories are lost as that of Egesippus as Bellarmine confesseth others are vitiated some carelesly written as Socrates testifieth of Eusebius's History lib. 1. C. 1. That he took more care to praise the Emperor than to describe the Acts of that time Also several things are in Eusebius which he did not write for he citeth Sozomen lib. 3. C. 20. who lived an hundred years after him 4. The Testimony of most Ancients about the Hierarchy is in causa propria 5. Many of them whose Testimony is brought lived an hundred years after the Apostles times and therefore had things by Tradition which useth to grow by being often rehearsed for saith Socrates lib. 5. C. 9. Nulla fabula narratur bis quin duplo major evadat 6. The Testimonies of the Ancients in this are not harmonious He further proveth 2. That these Testimonies cannot found a Theological Conclusion For 1. They are no part of the Canon of Scripture on which ground Protestants reject Testimonies from Apocrypha 2. Their Writings contain some things that neither Party assenteth to 3. Their Sayings were not probative in their own time Ergo neither in ours seing we and they have the same ground of Faith 4. A Theologick Conclusion must be built not on Topick or uncertain grounds Reynold Colla. with Hart C. 6. Praeter authores sacros nullus Historicus certus esse potest i. e. Idoneus ad faciendam fidem in Theologia Sarav de Pontif. l. 2. p. 151. Quis Ecclesiae status fuerit antequam Apostoli tradiderunt rationem gubernandi Ecclesiam nemo dicere potest nisi ex sacris scripturis Sutliv 12. T. Probatur nostra sententia that Peter was not at Rome 1. Quia nusquam ex scripturis probatur nihil ejus seripsit in Epistolis suis Petrus nihil Paulus nihil Lucas qui res Apostolorum diligenter prosecutus est A Theologick Conclusion must either be founded on some evident and clear Demonstration or some infallible Authority neither of which is in the Sayings of the Ancients for the Hierarchy § 35. Let us now hear what he bringeth for this his Opinion where in he is so positive and confident one might here expect strong Reasons but behold pro auro paleas He telleth us p. 128 129. The Apostolical Churches had their own Fasti in which were recorded the Succession of their Bishops and the Names of the Martyrs and that there are many Apostolical Monuments beside in which Egesippus c. could not be mistaken A. 1. Euseb. was of a contrary Opinion he could find none of these Fasti but was forced to go in an untroden Path as I shewed § 31. 2. He should have given some evidence for this confident Assertion for we know not where to find these Fasti without his Direction I deny not that in some after Ages they began to keep Records in Churches but that in the Apostolick and next succeeding Age they had them we find not and these are times of which we with Eusebius and others complain of as to the Uncertainty and Defectiveness of History 3. The Memory of the Martyrs was early Recorded we do not find that the Succession of Bishops was so 4. Suppose the Records of both had been early and exactly kept this can give no Light in the present Debate unless they had Recorded what Jurisdiction they whom they called Bishops did exercise which he doth not so much as alledge out of these Faâ—â—i 5. It is confessed by all that Hegesippus was a very Fabulous Author and took many things on Trust which he neither found in the Fasti nor any Apostolical Monuments For Irenaeus and Tertull they say nothing for his Cause but what we are ready to contest with him even supposing their Authority to be as great as he will make it For Clement he is mistaken about him as I shewed before out of Scalliger § 36. Next he advanceth a Distinction and ingeminateth it of Theorems and Matters Fact he confesseth in the former that the Ancients might mistake but not in the latter that it is impossible that they should mistake and they would not impose upon Posterity seing such things were obvious to the Knowledge and Observation of the meanest Christians we must not think that they Lied in these or Conspired to propagate a Lie to Posterity for they were Men of such Sanctity defended the Truth with their Blood many of them had miraculous Gifts they were Unanimous in delivering this their Testimony A few Considerations will easily dissipate this Mist 1. He supposeth the Unanimity of the Ancients bearing Testimony to Episcopacy being the way setled by the Apostles which is utterly denyed he taketh it also for granted that that was universally practised in and since the Apostolick Age till of late which is also said without all ground if he will prove either of these we shall insist no more on either Arguments or Defences from Antiquity If he will take it for certain
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
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
but never received into Holy Orders by any thing that appeareth whence I infer that in the Opinion of that time a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop which our Brethren use to plead for I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry they amount to no more but that there were but few Ministers and many Reformers were Lay Men to all which I Answer this sheweth that Presbyters and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had It was far otherwise in England where the State carried on the Reformation whereas in Scotland the greatest both in State and Church opposed it as long and as much as they could and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth did rather comply with the Reformation than actively promote it notwithstanding of all which it is unbecoming a Protestant to call our Reformation violent and disorderly as he doth p. 7. out of Spotswood § 3. The second Enquiry is Whether the Scots Reformers what ever were their Characters were of the present Presbyterian Principles whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment and try his Critical Skill on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle In which it is not my Province to interpose I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry if it be granted that Parity and not Prelacy was the Church Government that they chused If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren it will make more against themselves than against us for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity but they chused this and rejected that notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it under Popery We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity that they shewed so much Zeal for it as they did though they had not that Light about it that after times afforded It is certain that that Dispute which had so long by the Tyranny of the Bishops been buried and forgotten except among the Church in the Wilderness which few knew of the Waldenses could not at first be so fully understood as by further Enquiries it came to be Notwithstanding it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini though they did not much insist on the Debate about that for in the Book of Policy Chap. 1. they have these words this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirk gathered not to a single Bishop and hath ground in the Word of God to be put in Execution by them unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk by lawful Calling is committed Here it is plain that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government and chap. 2. There is this Article and to take away all occasion of Tyranny he that is God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with equality of Power every one according to their Function And after there are four ordinary Functions or Offices in the Kirk the Office of the Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elder and the Deacon Where it is evident that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right § 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie for if it were yielded it doth not hurt our Cause And his Arguments are verbose tedious and insignificant I shall only point at them and the Answers that may be made to them There is p. 9. c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe the Popes Supremacy was Debated but not Prelacy Ans. nihil sequitur our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists He doth falsly assert p. 10. that Churches when they are Reformed set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State as in Geneva which was a Common-wealth they set up Paritie For who readeth Calvins Writings may see that they built on another Foundation even Divine Institution and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary Paritie was in the Church and Monarchy in the State He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government he will soon see on whose side the impudence is He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful If Christ hath instituted a Form as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form inconsistent with that to be absolutely or simply unlawful He telleth us ibid. that Beza saith that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable if duely bounded by the pure canons of the ancient Church and I say the same for then it would be no more but a Presidencie which doth not destroy Paritie He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church which is not our Debate If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal no more are we unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us His second Proof is our Reformers had no peculiar Motives or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy nor interest to determine them to Paritie nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments seing most of them except England set up the same Government Thirdly He argueth thus none of the Confessors or Martyers or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection have given that as their Opinion And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times but what is that to the Order p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops against Presbyters as well as Bishops p. 19. And he hath a long Debate with some of our Historians about the Opinion of John
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
suppose also that there are so few Ministers that there cannot be Men got to supplie Places but such as are palpably insufficient for the Work here is a Dilemma either Gospel Ordinances must be neglected or unduely managed by these Men or on the other hand they who are Qualified must be set over these for a time to Preach now and then in their Places to Direct and injoyn them what is right to Plant the Places with Qualified Men when they can be got all which is supposed to be cross to the letter I do not say to the Meaning and Design of the Institution in the first Case the Church should sin in neglecting that which is the main Design of all Gospel Institutions viz. Edification and Saving of Souls therefore she doth not sin on the other hand by crossing the Letter of the Institution otherwise she should be under a Necessity of sining without her own fault bringing her under that Necessity 2. Although our LORD did forsee all the Cases and Circumstances in which his Church was to be unto the end of the World and could have fully Provided for them all by giving distinct Laws suted to every one of them yet infinite Wisdom thought fit to give Laws for regulating the ordinary cases of the Church leaving these that are rare and Extraordinary to be Managed according to the general Rules of Scripture and sound reason because distinct Laws for all possible Cases would have swelled the BIBLE to a bigness which would have made it less useful to us and of this it may be said as of a Case not unlike to it John 20. 30 31. The World could not have contained at least Men could not have Read and Retained the Contents of all the Books that should have been Written no doubt when GOD made the Law forbidding that the Shew Bread should be eaten by any but by the Priests he forsaw what case David and his Men would be in but he thought it not fit to provide for that Case by an Express Exception from the Law but left it to be Ordered by his more general Laws Even so it is in the Case that we Dispute about § 21. I shall now Answer his Reason brought against this yielding to Necessitie in cases of Divine Institution which is that if Necessitie can oblige Christians to forsake or to cross Institution in one Case why not in all Cases The Consequence that this his Question implyeth we simply Deny And I may Confidently say that himself in his cooler thoughts will be ashamed of it at least he will have few Men of Sense whether Learned or unlearned that will allow such a Consequence Farless that will Joyn wit him in what followeth viz. that crossing Institution when forced to it by the Law of Necessity what is it else than to open a door to Gnosticism to Infidelity to Apostasie and to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidie and Villanie To clear this Matter and to still this Noise and that the Reader may understand this Debate about the Force of Necessitie better than this learned Author seemeth to do I shall shew when Necessitie may warrant an Action which without such Necessitie were unwarrantable and when not 1. It is not feigned or pretended Necessitie that can have this Force we are far from thinking that it is a sufficient Excuse when on hath done an evil thing to say there was Necessitie for it I could not shun it if our Reformers did but pretend Necessitie for setting up Superintendents or if we do but pretend it for them if my Antagonist can prove as he hath alleged that there was no Necessitie for it but that if they had been for Paritie they might have Promoted the Gospel without thus diverting from it for a time we shall quit this Argument GOD is Judge in that case whether the Necessitie be real or only pretended And in many cases Man may Judge and Punish them who break the Law and pretend Necessitie for their Action 2. It must be a Necessitie of GOD'S making not of our own bringing on as I hinted before If either a Church or a Person do sinfully bring themselves under a Necessitie of Transgressing the Law the sinful Cause maketh the Action sinful which is consequential to it 3. The Necessitie that we shelter our Actions under must not only be of the Means nor only of the End but of both I suppose a Man cannot save his Life his Libertie or Estate but by doing what is sinful or omitting what is a Moral and perpetual duty or is such hic et nunc Here is the Necessitie of Means but it cannot excuse him because there is no Necessitie of the End it is not necessarie that we should Live be at Libertie nor that we have Estates there is neither an absolute Necessitie of these nor comparative Necessitie none of them is so necessarie as it is to keep a good Conscience and to please GOD and shun sin Again suppose the End be necessarie V. Gr. to advance the Interest of Religion but this End may be attained to by means that do no way cross any of GOD'S Institutions to do what is cross to Institution in that case is no way Excusable For there is no necessitie of the Mean If my Antagonist can shew that either the End of setting up Superintendents was needless or that that could be attained without encroaching a little on Paritie for a time then shall we no more plead Necessitie for what they did but judge that they were not for Paritie in their Principles 4. We distinguish with respect to the Force of Necessitie between these Actions which are Moral from their Nature and these that are Moral only by Institution How far Necessitie may Warrant or not Warrant an Action against the Moral-Law I shall not now Dispute our present Debate not being concerned in that Question it is evident that there are some cases in which Necessitie even in such Actions hath place as Adam's Sons Marrieing their Sisters of which Lyra and Menochius in Gen. 4. 17. say Initio mundi necessè fuit Sorores Fratribus nubere And it is also certain that no Necessitie can dispense with some other Actions that are naturally Moral such as Blasphemy Lying c. but in Matters of Institution the LORD hath not so strictly bound his People nor made his Institutions to clash with the natural and indispensible Commands that he hath laid on them as is evident in David's case above-mentioned If Institution in some Circumstances that the LORD hath cast his People in do clash with the Moral Dutie of saving Life this Moral Dutie superceedeth the Obligation of Institution in that time and in that case much more when present Circumstances make Institution to clash with the great End of Institution as in the case in hand without dispensing with Paritie in this case the End of Church Government had been lost viz. the Edification of the Church and Promoting
for it was not used either for its Advantage or disadvantage but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church however it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments Our Author now p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for about the Principles of our Reformers with respect to Church Government proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into But as an Introduction to this he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation Their weakness he exposeth in two things one is that they went on this Principle that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion what else was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture if it was i◠fashion in the Popish Church was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as 〈◊〉 Corruption as having been abused as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry Here is a false representation of our Reformers and that in three things 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men as on other Grounds so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition and having been so used but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it whether it were of greater or lesser Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice 3. They always were willing to receive what could be by good consequence proved by Scripture though it were not positively and expresly Commanded I advise my Adversarie if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own by speaking what is not Truth For the Principle it self duly stated according to what I have said I am willing to Debate it with him but that is not his business but rather to expose it by Invectives The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak is they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie to be Imployed still for the Churches use I think this Debate is little to our purpose and therefore I wave it § 24. His next Attempt is to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland after the publick Establishment of the Reformation and that this was Episcopacy And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History in which it is hard for any Man to follow him rejecting what ever disliketh him and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation not sparing Spotswood himself when he doth not please him only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript out of which he alters adds and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church whence that Manuscript came what Authority it hath whither it be his own or any other Mans he is not pleased to tell us He calleth it his Manuscript whether he would have us take him for the Author or for the Owner of it I cannot determine nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account I have the present use of a Manuscript which as I am credibly informed is the very individual Copy that he had which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow Whether any other Copies of it be extant I am uncertain It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive and other things relating to Church Affairs I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it for the former it will be evident to them who without Byass consider the following Passages Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone but they with the Ministers and Elders are to expone to the Kirk the State of the Kirk among them and note Offences that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly so also p. 8. and almost every where This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents to transport Ministers but with this express Limitation that it be done in the Synod and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry it is said this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops as others pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk Where even the Name of Bishops as then used seemeth to be disliked and their Prelation disowned and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed at their Entry by Learned Men of the Kirk such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office and Power is disowned they for the present not always were to do that Work also that their Power is derived from the Assembly not Divine Institution is plainly insinuated Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk Ibid. Bishops Abbots c. warned by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell a Divorced Adulterer On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction The Manuscript giveth a very
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
to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
taxeth some who count Fornication indifferent and contend about Holy Days as it were for Life and Death they despise the Commands of God and establish Canons of their own I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers and the Protestant Church of Scotland in her first State and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth p. 264 265. libro primo disciplinae cap. 1. Censetur Festa Nativitatis Circumcisionis Epiphaniae c. Apostolorum Martyrum B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur rogandus itaque Magistratus ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur excepto Articulo de diebus Festis porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae licet Festa illa celebrent a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant evidenter colligitur omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit quod Pastores quidam Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse Deo sacrum Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet nam inquit colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis Paschatis qua autem authoritate id faciant ipsi viderint This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition and we desire the like Forbearance from others if we cannot use them for which I shall now give some Reasons before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject § 4. Our first Reason is these Days were not instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor did they injoyn them to be instituted nor give Power or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward Ergo there is no sufficient Warrant for them And it cannot be rationally accounted for that either the Church should impose in the Matter of Religion especially or People should be obliged to submit to what hath no sufficient Warrant That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles is beyond doubt our Adversaries do not pretend that they were for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought and if it could be made appear the Case were changed for then they were not the Days that we Debate about That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution we must believe unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture or sufficient Consequence from Scripture or strong Reason if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact if it be Answered the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification and for Decency and Order and these Holy Days are such Ergo. I Reply it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace and of Edification and the Church must not devise new Means for that End but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient in the Way of outward Means And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing Beside that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual as is hinted Luke 16. 30 31. If Moses and the Prophets Gods Means cannot perswade one to believe the Preaching of one risen from the Dead a Mean that a Man contrived could not do it As for the Decency Order and Policy that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days these are a necessary or needless Decency c. If this last there can be no warrant for what may effect it if the first the former Argument recurreth that God by his own Institutions hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church Again if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary if it be alledged that the Holy Days are thus necessary either they must instruct this and shew us that Scripture or Nature hath made them necessary and that the Ordinances of God are undecent disorderly c. without them or the Church doth so determine because she will and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God If it be further Answered that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days as for appointing occasional Fasts or Thanksgivings Reply Not so For the Lord himself by his Providence calleth to these Exercises to be Solemnly gone about on such Occasions but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday in this Week or the next here is a Circumstance of Time which must be determined by Men Nature it self maketh it necessary supposing the Providential Call of God to the Work on that Occasion it is not so with the Holy Days there is no special Providence occurrent which calleth to these Solemnities at one time more than at another Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church and not of the other also Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture for all Times Places and Occurrences without Swelling it to a Huge and Burdensome and less Useful Bulk the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible it is actually done in the Old Testament and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament § 5. Our second Argument Either the Apostles had Warrant from God to institute these Days or not if they had not how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church who came after them had such Power granted by God Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous and Absurd Height yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say that the Bishops in that do what the
the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed and his Answers refuted § 5. of this Section § 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth p. 185. He had in his Apologie required that we should tell when they began to be Observed and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles It was told him this is Iniquum Postulatum and the Consequence is naught Both because of the Defectiveness of History and they came in by insensible degrees Next it was shewed from the silence of Scripture and of the History the first Ageâ— that Christmass for of that was the Question was not Observed for 300 years after Christ which was Conâ—â—rmed by Easter being much noticed but it not and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem and ancient Histories cited by them also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it all this he thought fit to overlook only he Examineth the Assertion which he doth falsifie by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter And laboureth to prove out of Origen and some others that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not for if they were then used and injoyned by the Church scripture silence of them is enough to us and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them I searched no further but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it But now when I have further considered that Matter I â—â—nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame he first citeth Origen contra Celâ— mentioning the Christiaâ— Festivities but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work where this Passage may be found that it might be Examined The like Omission in another about a Word of Augustin he agregeth at great length p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths which are not forbidden Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place Col. 2. 15. also of Easter that in and before Origins days was observed and contended about His other Citation Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find though I lookt over that Homilie May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated as most of the Writings of the Fathers have His next Author is Hippolitus as he is Cited by Photius all his Proof out Hippolitus is he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam and a Conjecture that himself layeth no weight on it is NIAC is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus the rest of the Line being defaced The Answer to all this is easie 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie if he had it 2. Photius who lived â—n the Ninth Centurie may be rejected by an Argument Ad Hominem which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories concerning our Conversion from Heathenism p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theopâ—aniam cannot prove his Point unless that he can Prove that that Word from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation or GOD manifeâ—â— in the flesh which is the proper Import of it but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery which was its current Signification when Photius wrot For his Niac it is so wide and groundless and a strained Conjecture that few wisâ— Men will be fond of mentioning it much less of making an Argument of it he supplieth it I know not by what Authority 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles the Authority of which we cannot own unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum I denie not that in Process of time they did degenerate into Holy Days such as he pleadeth for and becoming so Numerous they became a Burden to the Church and were diâ—used till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized but at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them made after the ordinarie Service of the Church and that Age and some that followed were so respectful to the Martyrs for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges whence it may be Inferred that from these Commemorations to other Holy Days is no good Consequence He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie It is no consequence the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres who Succeeded the Apostles Ergo they could not forget the Apostles themselves if they understand such a way of Commemoration the Reason I have already given § 21. He Inferreth p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed because Easter and Pentecost were so The Consequence will not hold and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost the Feast of Weeks may be added but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own He Answereth an Objection that was brought that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth there was no need to determine that Question and all Christians he excepteth some Presbyterians are agreed that this Determination was not Neâ—essarie and that Christians in different Nations make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live they Commemorate the Mystery but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact He sayeth the Vindicator left this Consideration alâ—ogether untouched In this he is in the Wrong and is Guilty of what he blameth another for There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is all which he hath left untouched They are it was never heard of that the Birth day of any Person was kept but on the Day on which the Person was Born That if this Determination be needless the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration which none ever affirmed It was also told him that others particularly Master Hooker pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers whereas no more was intended but that Master Hookers Arguments which are lookt on as the strongest on his side are inconsistent with his Notion while he
sayeth Eccles. Polic. lib. 7. 3. 69. that GOD'S Extraordinarie Works have Sanctified some times Advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD more Holy than other times and afterward as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Presence Sanctifies some Places so His Extroordinarie Works Sanctifie some times from this the Author of Dâ—â—f of Vind. inferred justly that the Church in chusing another Day acteth Arbitrarily and unwarrantably and Absurdly neglecting the â—ay so Sanctified It was also told him that it is a probable Argument at least that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Observed on account of CHRIST'S Birth seing He hath concealed from us what Day it was that CHRIST was Born especially seing He hath Instituted the observation of the Day of Christ's Resurrection viz. the Weekly Sabbath He hath told that it was the First Day of the Week all this my Adversarie hath overlookt as either not worthy of his Notice or as easily Answered I look on his Citation out of Austine as not to this Purpose when he sayeth nos Dominicam diem Pascha Coelebramuâ— alias dierum celebritates sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant non tempora observamus sed quae illis Significantur temporibus this indeed Proveth that Augustin thought that these were not to be Observed for themselves but for the Mysteries that were Commemorated on them but it no way evinceth that he thought there was no need of chusing the Days themselves on which the thingsCommemorated were Acted but one Day of the Year might be as fit as another as the Church should Determine § 22. It is unreasonable to put it on us to disprove that Christ was born Dec. 25. as he doth p. 192. For that we cannot do so well as by fixing on some other Day and proving that to be the Day of the Nativity which we pretend to be uncertain it rather is his part to prove who affirmeth that our Lord was born on that Day And yet if it were needful for our Cause probable Arguments might be brought whicâ— may incline us rather to think that he was born at another Season of the Year some of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity was in September or in October But whatever may be the Concernment of our Adversaries it is no Concernment to us what was the Day it is enough to us that the Mystery it self is firm and sure The Reader may find this Question about the Day and Moneth of the Nativity Learnedly handled by our Countrey Man Master Bailly operis historici Chronologici lib. 2. quaes 7. p. 42. seq where he concludeth with Spanhemius Mensem Diem Natalitium a nemine determinari debere nec posse cum de iis Scripturae silent nec quicquam certi primis Ecclesiae Christianae seculis a quopiam prolatum sit He had been charged by the Author of Def. of Vind. with Shuâ—â—ling in that he had pleaded God's Appointment for Holy Days because God hath appointed that we should obey the Apostles and their Successors as our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers because though we are to obey the Apostles whom we know to have been Infaâ—â—ibly Guided we are not to obey their Successors real or pretended further than they bring Divine Warrant which cannot be shewed for Holy Days He endeavoureth to clear himselâ— from Shuffling by telling us that there was no more meant than that the â—hurch may by that Power which is perpetually lodged in her Regulate the Publick Solemnitieâ— of Worship and when she enjoyneth nothing but what is lawful we ought to obey Here is Shuffling to Excuse his former Shuffling he is entangled by Wrestling to Extricat himself For he supposeth the whole Question that there is a Power perpetually lodged in the Church to appoint Holy Days otherwise he saith nothing to the purpose Again he supposeth that appointing of Holy Days is as much in the Churches Power as other Regulating of Publick Solemnities whereas he should have considered if he would have Explained and not Confounded and Darkened the Matter that there is a Regulating of Publick Solemnities which lyeth in determining Circumstances which must be determined and yet are not determined in Scripture such as the Time Place and Order of these Religious Actions that the Lord hath appointed his Day to be spent in there is another Regulating which is adding to what the Lord hath appointed more Days to his Day new Religious Ceremonies to these which are of Divine Institution or determining Circumstances which neither are determined by God nor need to be deterned such as are more Holy Days than Christ hath appointed the Churches Power about the first sort we do not controvert her Power about the second is the Subject of our Question and here he either supposeth the Question viz. That the Church had such Power or he saith nothing to the purpose Yet further when he speaketh indistinctly of Apostolick Power and that of their Successors as to this Regulation if he mean no more than such Regulation as is always in the Churches Power he giveth the Successors of the Apostles the same Regulating Power that themselves had the Consequence of which is that their Successors I suppose he meaneth the Bishops may institute new Offices new Government new Discipline and all other Ordinances in the Church as the Apostles might which is full as high as the Papists Screw up the Power of the Church and is indeed to make the Bishops absolute Lords over God's Inheritance And this he confirmeth by telling us that the Apostles made Constitutions that were laid aside by their Successors and other Usages came in their Room but because he saw this lyable to Exception he distinguisheth betwixt greater Usages that are variable unless they are equally subservient to the great Ends of Discipline in all Ages and Countries nisi consuetudine Ecclesiae universae sint roboratae and lesser Usages whose Continuance and Abrogation may depend on the Convenience of particular Churches and he giveth an Instance in the Deaconesses which he saith are not in the Presbyterian Meetings nor any Reformed Churches If he would have Extricated himself from the Shuffling that was imputed to him he should have given us some Rules or Characters by which we might discern what Constitutions of the Apostles are to be accounted Great and Unalterable and what Small and Changeable by their Successors if Marches be not clearly Rid here we are at a Woful Uncertainty yea bold Men may dare to meddle with Episcopacy it self and pretend that it is one of the lesser Apostolical Constitutions if they did at all appoint it The Marks that he hath given us are very insufficient their universal Subservience to the Ends of Discipline will be as much controverted as whither they be great Constitutions or not he saith Bishops and Holy Days are such we deny it and will Debate it with him and so we are still in
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.
his Prejudice against them doth represent them to him and his Hatred of them maketh him so represent them to the World with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations and these Stations he highly extolleth and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are and concludeth that we are bound by the Covenant never to be present at such Exercises of Mortifications c. The Stations were their Meetings on Wednesdays and Fridays for Fasting till Nine of the Clock and for other Spiritual Exercises So Albaspin whom he citeth and his Adnotator Keitombellius Observ. 16. p. 23 24. who also telleth us that this they did primis iâ—is saeculis quibus miseriis persecutionibus undique quasi perpetuis stiparentur I know no Presbyterian who either hath Sworn against or Condemneth these Stations so far as we have a distinct Account of them have not we in great Towns the same thing on the Matter with these Stations Morning Exercises for Confession of Sin Prayer and Instructing of the People and that ofâ—ner in some Places than Twice a Week That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant is falsly asserted indeed in the National Covenant or Confession of Faith which was Subscribed by the King the Nobility and the whole Nation they Renounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines and Practices and his Stations are mentioned among them but will any Man who understandeth what he saith or who doth not look on the whole of Popery as Pure and Primitive say that the Popish Stations under the present Degeneracy of that Church and the Primitive Stations were the same thing the best Account that I can find of what now is called Stations among the Papists is from Onuphrius Panvinius de stationibus urbis Romae where he confesseth that their Original is obscure he maketh them in the Primitive Church to have been Prayers with Standing in Opposition to these with Kneeling to which sometimes Fasting was joyned and he sheweth how several Popes Limited them and others appropriated them to certain Days and sheweth how in his time they were fixed to Days and to Churches in the City of Rome as it may be presumed was done also in other Churches He sheweth also their Number viz. in fourty seven Churches ninety six Stations on eighty three Days and telleth us of Indulgences granted to these Stations by Pope Boniface This Term may also be applyed to their Solemn Processions for Perambulating any Piece of Ground wherein they do often Stand at such a Cross or at such a Turning and Rehearse certain Prayers This Supestition is what is renounced in the Covenant and it is joyned with Peregrinations and such other Fopperies He calleth Superstition a Bastard Kind of Worship p. 305. but Scrupling at Ceremonies hath nothing in it like Worship whether Bastard or Legitimate how will he then Reconcile this with Calling our Scruples Superstition The Jewish Superstitions the Murdering of A. Bishop Sharp the Heathens Superstitions that he hath Consulted Juvenal about none of these touch the Presbyterians tho one of them was Acted by some who bare that Name to the great Dislike of the rest of them He further Argueth p. 307 308. that we Contend for our own Opinions he for the Church and her Catholick Constitutions The same Arguments the Papists use against Protestants the Name of the Church is the Shelter that some flee to when they have no other Cover for the Nakedness of their Opinions We affirm and our Assertion is as Probative as his is that we maintain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture and not such as we have Groundlesly Chosen for our selves § 19. He next p. 309. falleth on the Catechism which is owned and taught in this Church after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condescending to Popular Fancies and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance This is his Strain his Genius and to be Neglected his Reproaches and Praises are of the same Value with us The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechism is it is Unintelligible by the People which were a great Fault if true and that it is Adapted to serve the Hypothesis of a certain Order of School Men he meaneth as is evident by what followeth the Dominicans or Jansenists in Opposition to the Jesuits his Grievance is our Catechism is not Pelagian nor Arminian enough I shall free him of a Fear that he expresseth p. 315. that if the Vindicator as he calleth him take these Paragraphs to Task he will most Zealously Undertake the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff that is Contained in their Publick Catechisms and Write out a whole System to Confute his Adversary Whatever be that Persons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms as intirely Orthodox he need not Fear Writing of a System on this Occasion the Person he Aimeth at will be more Sparing than so of his Ink and Paper and yet more of his Time and Labour unless he saw more Hazard to Truth than can arise from this Authors Attempt and unless there were none who could do it to better Purpose as there are many seing he intendeth not to Question the Orthodoxy of the Catechism tho he often Lasheth it that Way by severe Innuendo's but only to Prove its Unintelligibleness I shall engage with him only in that He Talketh Big of many Instances which might be brought wherein our Catechisms are Unintelligible but he is pleased to pitch but on one which is that Question Wherein consisteth the Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell to which the Answer is The Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell consisteth in the Guilt of Adams first Sin the Want of Original Righteousness and Corruption of his whole Nature which is commonly called Original Sin together with all Actual Transgressions which proceed from it I shall Anâ—madvert a few Things on this his Essay before I consider particularly the Proofs of Obscurity and Unintelligibleness of this Doctrine 1. If I should yield all that he here proposeth to himself he falleth short of his Design which is to Reproach the Scots Presbyterians for tho they owne that Catechism and look on it as one of the best extant yet it is not of their Composure it was done by the Divines Assembled at Westminster few of whom were Presbyterians 2. Few Men of Sense who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion and the Salvation of Souls will prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechism which beginneth What is thy Name Who gave thee this Name c. but will owne that there is more sound plain useful Truth and what is necessary to be known by the â—eople in our than in their Catechism As might easily be made appear if I might Digress to State a Comparison between them from the Beginning to the End 3. We must not imagine that whatever is put into a Catechism must be so plain that the meanest Capacity without Help can sufficiently understand it for there are Truths needful
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
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
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