Selected quad for the lemma: scripture_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
scripture_n	tradition_n	word_n	write_a	3,323	5	10.7817	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A57857	The good old way defended against the attempts of A.M. D.D. in his book called, An enquiry into the new opinions, (chiefly) propogated by the Presbyterians of Scotland : wherein the divine right of the government of the church by Presbyters acting in parity, is asserted, and the pretended divine right of the hierarchie is disproved, the antiquity of parity and novelty of Episcopacy as now pleaded for, are made manifest from scriptural arguments, and the testimony of the antient writers of the Christian-church, and the groundless and unreasonable confidence of some prelatick writers exposed : also, the debates about holy-days, schism, the church-government used among the first Scots Christians, and what else the enquirer chargeth us with, are clearly stated, and the truth in all these maintained against him : likewise, some animadversions on a book called The fundamental charter of Presbytery, in so far as it misrepresenteth the principles and way of our first reformers from popery, where the controversie about superintendents is fully handled, and the necessity which led our ancestors into that course for that time is discoursed / by Gilbert Rule ...	Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.	1697 (1697)	Wing R2221; ESTC R22637	293,951	328

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

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

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 Anti●…h And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words What●…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

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

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

viz. his Epistles If we have no more Certainty about the Epistles than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Martyr and other Popish Relicks few wise Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them That Polycarp made a Collection of these Epistles and Irenaeus cited them proveth no more but that good Men may be imposed on by Forged Writings Eusebius rejected some suppositions Books after accurate Enamination were a good Argument if it could be made out that he rejected all such the contrary whereof is well known For his Belief that the Orations of Cicero are genuine let him enjoy it but if he build his Faith on any Article of Religion or his Practice of Piety towards God on that Certainty I cannot do so too Whether Cicero wrote these Orations or not is neither a Matter of such Moment nor so contested by plausible Arguments as what we now Debate is § 45. What remains of my Antagonists Discourse on this Controversie about Episcopacy is a Recapitulation of what he hath already said in nine Questions which he seemeth to set down as so many Trophies of Victory over all his Adversaries and a few other Hints for strengthning his Cause His Questions need litle Animadversion all that is contained in them being already Answered and his Opinion in these things disproved whether concludently and solidly or not the Reader will judge His first three Questions do all suppose that we are against Prelacy merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy used in Scripture which is a false Supposition I have proposed our Argument with more strength Sect. 4. § 5. so as it is no way touched by what he here saith wherefore it is no loss to our Cause if we give a negative or affirmative Answer to these Questions whether he shall chuse To his fourth Question I Answer that Apostolick Power as to its permanent Branches was perpetual and successive my Answer must be Tautological because his Question is such but not so as to all its Essential Branches As to its necessary Branches if he mean what is necessary to the Beeing or Idea of an Apostle I deny these to be Perpetual and Successive To the second part of this Question I Answer negatively that this Power was not transmitted in solidum to single Successors in particular Sees but to a Colledge of Presbyters Question fifth Where Superiority is forbidden is most impertinent to our Debate seing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it he should bring either a Command for it or what is equivalent The Popes Monarchy over the Church is not more forbidden than the Superiority of one Priest as he speaketh over another both of them must be Juris Divini in his Opinion I retort his own Argument if Parity be not plainly forbidden which I am sure he cannot shew then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Episcopacy such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government is Groundless and Chymerical It is enough to us that Christ hath instituted Parity and he hath not allowed Men to change it we think this a sufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pleadeth for His sixth is a heap of Questions to which I Answer we deny the universal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth and say a more universal Tradition might be demanded We deny also that the Argument from universal Tradition exclusive of Apostolick Tradition if he can bring that he hath done his Work is in this Case either the most proper or most necessary Scripture Command or Example is both more proper and more necessary For the seventh we do not pretend there was such a great Change so suddenly as he fancieth we do and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Possibility of it I have said enough on this head § 41. To his eighth we affirm that Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly represented by Presbyterians and have answered what he saith to the contrary Sect. 6. § 7. seq His last Question about Ignatius's Epistles may be retorted on himself whether there be any solid Argument brought for them sub judice lis est Himself declineth that Debate as I also do It is enough to us that even the Testimonies out of these Epistles are not concludent and if the Epistles were Authentick their Authority is but Humane and Fallible and cannot be a Prejudice against Divine Institution and indeed cannot make Faith where the Question is de Jure Divino as here it is § 46. I now proceed to consider some immethodical and incoherent Notions with which he concludeth this Chapter He telleth us p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Praesidency since the days of the Apostles he might have added and in their days too so that the Quarrel is not so much against Episcopacy as against the Extent of their Diocess and Increase of their Power over what it was in the Primitive times Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more absolute than now it is pretended to be for nothing was to be done without the Bishop a Presbyter might not Baptize without his express Indulgence as Tertull witnesseth This Testimony of Tertull. I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examed § 49. By Bishop may either be understood the Moderator not in his single Capacity but with the Presbytery none might act within their District but by their Allowance or a Parish Minister none might Baptize c. in his Parish but by his Consent He next citeth Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth writing to the Gnossians exhorting Pinytus their Bishop not to lay the heavy burden of Caelibacy I suppose that he meaneth by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on the Brethren that is the Clergy whence he wisely inferreth the Power of Pinytus to have done this And citeth on his Margin Euseb. hist. Eccles. but neither Book nor Chapter nor the place of Dionysius where the words may be found A. Euseb. hist. lib. 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epistle of Dionysius to Pinytus and his Answer to him where he checketh Dionysius for that Advice to him But nothing of all this importeth the Power of Pinytus to forbid Marriage he might say on this burden by preaching the necessity of Caelibacy without Authoritative imposing it Yea he might impose it as Praeses by the concurrent Authority of the Presbytery without sole Jurisdiction He mentioneth likeways the Canon Apostol and Ignatius's Epistles but citeth nothing out of them so that he cannot expect an Answer As to the Extent of Diocesses we no further make an Argument from it than we maintain that a Pastor of a Church should have no larger Charge than he can dispense the Word and Sacraments to and that he should not do this by Deputies under him We lay no Stress on the word Diocess nor on the unequal Extent of a Pastors District provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without such Superiority over others

owe their beginning to the Piety and Wisdom of the Apostles or their Successors I gladly would know how he can know that the Apostles gave them a beginning if they be not instituted in Scripture unless he will rest in uncertain Traditions as a part of the Rule of our Faith and Practice to supply what the Scripture is defective in Neither shall we demand of him express Institution if he can shew us Institution by good Consequence drawn from Scripture § 16. His strongest Refutation of another Citation viz. Jer. 9. 31. is to call it a Foolry He maketh the Argument to be Foolish enough indeed as a Wise Man may be exposed as a Fool by putting on him a Fools Coat and Hood and Bells but they are neither Wise nor Ingenuous Men who Treat him so He maketh our Argument from that Text to run thus God did not Command the Israelites to burn their Sons and Daughters in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom Ergo to appoint a Time for the Solemn and Religious Performance of that Worship which he himself commanded falleth under the same Censure This Way of Arguing is none of ours but his own We thus argue God condemneth that Worship of the Jews as on other accounts so on this that he Commanded it not neither came it into his Mind Ergo no Worship devised by Men and not instituted by God is allowable And we have above proved the Celebration of Holy Days to be not only a determining of a Circumstance of Worship which is not determined in Scripture but must be determined by Men but to be an Addition to the Command of God for setting apart some of our Time to his Solemn Service If this Reason be Foolrie Calvin as well as I must be a Declared Fool viz. by the Wisdom and Candor of this Author who on this Place hath this Passage Haec ratio diligenter notanda est quoniam his Deus ansas hominibus praecidit ubi hoc solo titulo condemnat quicquid tent abunt Judaei quia non mandavit ipsis no● est igitur alia quaerenda ratio in coarguendis superstitionibus nisi quod carent praecepto Dei And a little below Ergo magnum pondus est in his verbis ubi dicit Prophet● Deum nihil tale mandasse nihil tale sibi venisse in mentem quasi diceret nimium sapere homines cum excogitant quae ipse nunquam quaesivit imo nunquam voluit cognoscere That the Phrase I Commanded them not hath in it a Meiosis I shall not controvert but this Meiosis doth not hinder but that Literally and in Propriety of Speech this horrid Fact is condemned as uncommanded Worship No doubt this Fact was not only not commanded but forbidden yea greatly abhorred by the Lord but it doth not thence follow that it was not Evil ●o nomine because not commanded seing that Immorality of it is expresly mentioned § 17. Another Scripture for Humane Holy Days had been mentioned in the Apology p. 42. John 10. 22 23. where it is said that Christ walked in the Temple at the Feast of Dedication Which was none of these that God appointed It was Answered His walking in the Temple on that Day cannot be strained to signifie either Joyning or ●pprobation this Answer he is pleased to represent p. 179. as if it had been that Christ went thither only to walk which he calleth an Irreligious Fancy This is not fair Dealing it was neither said nor thought that Christ went thither only to walk We think he had a higher End viz. To take Occasion to Discourse with the People or to Preach the Things of Salvation while they were assembled in the Temple His Refutation of this beside what is said is Christ was at the Feast of Dedication who never separated from the Jewish Worship Answer That he was at the Feast wanteth Proof he was in the Temple on the Feast Day Ergo he was at the Feast id est joyned in that Solemnity non sequitur That he never separated from the Jewish Worship is said without Warrant we affirm he did and give our Reason for what we say viz. he condemned all that Worship that had not Divine Institution as is before proved Ergo he did not joyn in it I think sober Men will judge this a good Consequence Here was saith our Author the most proper Occasion to reprove Humane Religious Festivities Answer Our Lord knew betterwhat was the fittest Occasions for what he had to do than this Gentleman could Teach him He had condemned them in general on this particular Occasion he had greater Things to Treat with them about and things that being uncontroverted were not so like to irritate them and render his Doctrine ineffectual to them That he quarrelled nothing in the Jewish Constitution merely because it was of Humane appointment is to ●ly in the Face of a considerable part of his Doctrine mentioned Matth. 15. from the beginning He is con●ident to say that Christ complyed with such Usages viz. Ceremonies of Humane Appointment among the Jews And he bringeth two Instances of it one is Christ kept the Passover not according to Institution but according to the Custom that then obtained in the Jewish Church viz. With having the Loins girt having Shoes on the Feet and a Staff in the Hand and he asserts that there is nothing in the Original Precept that giveth the least Hint of its being Temporary and Relative to their Itinerary State in the Wilderness but rather that it was of perpetual Force and Obligation yet the Church changed that Ritual of Divine Institution into another that signified more propperly Rest as the other did their Travelling in the Wilderness Here is plain Dealing whereby our Author giveth us yet further to understand his Principles I shall not call this Parcel of Divinity simply New but I am sure it is New among Protestants nor did I ever meet with any of the Prelatick Party who carried the Churches Power of instituting Ceremonies to this Height For if this Reasoning have any Force it will conclude that the Church may not only add to Gods Institutions but may abolish some of them and put others more sit in their Room and if so why should we blame the Church of Rome who though Christs Appointment was that Bread and Wine should be given to the People in the Lords Supper yet have thought it sitter that they should only have the Bread and the Wine should be reserved for the Priest alone and Kings and some others by the Popes Indulgence and they give as good Reason for what they say as he doth here for his Principle viz. That Receiving both Elements was fit for that State of the Church but not for her more Multiplied and Numerous Condition so the Council of Constance Sess. 13. Licet Christus post coenam institueret suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie panis vini hoc venerabile Sacramentum tamen hoc non