Solemn Actions as that they acquire a Civil Decency then are they not Religious Ceremonies id est peculiar to Religion but are Civil Rites tho' used in Religion But this is not what we dispute about I deny not that a Minister may Preach in a Gown it being made decent by Civil Custom in several sortâ— of publick Actions But it is not so with a Surplâ—ce The power of Superiours to determine Circumstances is widely different from a Power to appoint Religious Ceremonies What he saith against Presbyterians sitting in time of Prayer hath no weight They neither injoyn it nor do always practise it And they find that in Scripture Sitting Standing Kneeling Lying prostrate on the Ground are all used And none of them injoyned nor forbidden And therefore it is Superstition in any who would tye us to any of these He calleth us Foolish and Peevish because we say their Ceremonies are parts of Worship But we prove them to be parts of Worship viz. Superstitious Worship because they are appropriated to Religion and designed to that end for which Worship is appointed viz. To give a peculiar Honour to God which is not given by other Actions or even by these parts of Worship to which he owneth them as Appendages He blameth the Vindicator for suggesting a Reason why some of the Clergy do now read the Common Prayer And giveth for the true Reason an open avowing of their Principles when it was visible to the World that there was no uniting with the Presbyterians Is this the Candor with the want of which he here loadeth his Antagonist Is there less hope now than before of uniting with the Presbyterians When the General Assembly hath published terms on which they will receive them and such as can well be defended to be most rational and on which not a few of them have come in among us Why did they not openly a vow these Principlâ—s when they had Church power in their hand and could have done it without any Check and when they saw by many proofs that the Presbyterians would rather suffer the greatest hardships than be brought over to their way If this be not Palliating and Shuffling I know not what is to be so called I have had much occasion to consider this Controversie about Ceremonies and have read many on his side But I never met with any of them who manageth it so slightly nor do I think it fit to insist farther on it at present then his Reasonings do necessarily require if any thing were answered to them § 46. He falleth next on the Letter appended to the 2 d Vindication and blameth the Author of it for saying that some of the Bishops being Re ordained was a Scandal not only to this but to other Reformed Churches He denieth it to be a Scandal to the Forreign Churches or the French Divines All of them saith he the greatest Men among them are Re-ordained when they come to England Here is strong Reasoning For first he maketh all the Forreign Churches and French Divines to be Equipollent and Convertible Terms which some Readers will smile at 2. He falsely asserteth that all the French Divines that came to England in this Persecution were Re-ordained The contrary is well known It is true all who got Places in England were Re-ordained And it must needs be so for none other could be allowed to injoy any Benefice But many câ—me to England who never were Re-ordained How can it shun to be a Scandal to Forreign Churches when they see their Ministers reckoned no Ministers but initiated the same way into the Ministry as they should if they had never been Ordained And consequently all the Baptisms and other Ordinances administred by them to be reputed Null and Void and on the matter their Churches Unchurched He instanceth only in Mounsieur Alix I doubt not but there were not a few others whom either their straitned Circumstances or some other Principle did determine that way For Monsieur Alix there are other Sentiments of that Learned Man which make many to judge his Example to be no concludent Argument That this Re-ordination was never condemned by the Gallican Church A. It is no wonder it was never formally condemned for no such question was ever started among them But that they did on the matter condemn it is evident For they always held their own Ordination without a Bishop to be valid Which is inconsistent with Re-ordination as owning the validity of ones Baptism is with Re-baptization He would have us think that the Church of England doth not absolutely condemn their Ordination in France Only she is determined to preserve an unquestionable Succession of Priests within her own bounds A. Is not this a material and real condemning of their Ordination call it absoâ—ute or by what other Epitâ—ite yâ— please that no man who hath no more than that Ordination may Administer Holy things by the allowance of the Church of England yea I could tell him of a Bishop and he was not singular in that Sentiment in England who said to a Presbyterian Minister that he lookt on him as no better than a Mechanick because he wanted Episcopal Ordination Wherefore it is but a shift â—o palliate their shame when they tell us they do not absolutely deny that Ordination And I believe few of his Brethren in England will give him thanks for his Concession He pretendeth to refute a distinction between a Material Canonical Obedience and a Formal Canonical Obedience But hath nothing against it that is Argumentative It is no great sign of Learning that a Man who hath lived in or near an University as he mocking saith of Mr. M. whose University Learning none that knoweth him will disparage doth not understand this distinction If any Usurper whether in Church or State command me to do what is antecedently my duty I may do the thing so commanded because it is my duty here is Material Obedience while yet I do not own the Power by which such an Usurper doth command me nor would do the thing for his command if it were not otherwise my duty to do it Here is a refusing of Formal Obedience § 47. Our Apologist's last Essay is from p. 58. to let us see the several periods of Episcopacy and Presbytry in the Church of Scotland since the Reformation And this he doth out of a Manuscript of a Person of great Honour and true Learning Collected out of the ancient Records of Parliament I hope it will be no derogation from either the great Honour or the true Learning of that Noble Person whom I always have regarded as so qualified to examine modestly what is there offered Nor to say that this Honourable and Learned Writer hath not shewed all that Impartiality in this Manuscript that useth to commend a good Historian While he entertaineth his Reader not only with some representation of things that may suffer a little Correction but with harsh words against the Presbyterians calling
Men is sophistically alledged I doubt not but there are such among them tho' I never thought what they differ in from the rest of the Presbyterians to be any part of their Godliness But I never called them yea nor any other party of Men universally Godly nor thought that all was well done that is committed among a Body of Men where are many Godly Yea nor that whatever is done by good Men is Good Christs Disciples were good Men yet their forsaking him and flying was no Good Action It is probable enough that some bad Men might creep in among these zealots and might much influence these Disorders as the mixt multitude influenced the Israelits to Murmuring in the Wilderness § 5. But he will prove the Cameronians to be Presbyterians a Conclusion which in the sense given we deny not let us hear his Arguments 1. If they be not Presbyterians to what Communion then do they belong A. This is as if we should alledge that the Arminians in the Church of England are the Episcopal Party and ask them who deny it To what Communion do they belong Surely neither to the Presbyterians nor Independents c. Wherefore I answer directly tho' in most things they agree with the Presbyterians yet in other things they are a Communion by themselves And indeed till the Lord was pleased to abate the heat of that division that was among us they had cast off Communion with the Presbyterian Church and would hear none of her Ministers but cleaved to two or three of their own way His second Argument is have they any Principles Discipline or Government different from the Presbyterian Church A. For Discipline and Government the Arminians of England have none different from the Episcopal Church and yet the Apologist and others might Justly blame us if we should not distinguish between Arminians and Episcopalians For Principles they had principles both with Respect to the Civil Government and as to that Submission that is due to Church Governours which other Presbyterians did never hold And tho' this had not been and if they had been Members of our Congregations our Dislike of the practice and having no accession to it doth clear us from the blame of it and all that can be inferred against us is that some Presbyterians have done ill things And if he can instance in any party of Men of whom the like cannot be said we shall yield to his Argument I hope he will not alledge it of his own party His third Argument is were not the leading men lately owned and received by the pretended General Assemblie without retracting any Articles of Doctrine or disowning any of their practices that they so zealously recommended to their followers in the West A. to say nothing of his Discretion in the Epithet Pretended that he bestoweth on the Assemblie which the King and Parliament indicted and owned as well as it was the representative of the Church of Scotland It is true the three Ministers who had headed that party were received upon promise of Submission to the Church and orderly behaviour which they have since faithfully performed and by that means multitudes of the People that followed them are brought to more sober Courses and do wait on the ordinances of God dispensed by the Presbyterian Ministers which before they could not be perswaded to And was it not wisdom in the Assemblie to so pite these Divisions by lenitie rather than to exasperate and continue them by putting men on formal retractation of what was done seing the same thing was materially performed Will any man who is not fond of picking Quarrels say that by this Course the Assembly approved of what these men have done or that all the Presbyterians are of the same sentiments that these men had been of especially considering that the Presbyterian Church hath received into Ministerial Communion and admitted to a share of the Government of the Church severals of them who had complyed with Episcopacy and are ready to do the same by all good and useful men among them who will not endeavour the hurt of the setled Government without puting them to express retracting of their former principles or practices this considered I hope the Reader will see to how little purpose his Simile is brought from the imagined Apology of the several parties among the Donatists For if one only of these parties he mentioneth were guilty of these Irregularities he speaketh of there is no reason to blame the other factions in those things whatever blame might be fixed on them all in these things wherein they agreed § 6. What he asserteth page 3. That the most intelligent among them the Presbyterians did contrive and manage the irregular Heats and Motions of their own Partizans I suppose he means the Cameronians This we deny and shall consider the proofs of this assertion in its place But before he cometh to this he pretendeth to oppose the vanity of this Apology more closely How he performeth what he promiseth tanto hiatu let us now hear he saith that the knoweth no Opinions that Mr. Cameron propagated which were peculiar to himself He followed most closely and ingenuously the Hypotheses of the old and zealous Presbyterians A. We know that he and they who joyned with him and they who succeeded to him held that they owed no alledgeance to the King because he had broken the Covenant That they might not lawfully hear any of the Ministers of Scotland because either they had received Indulgence from the King or owned such as Ministers who had received it or did not declare against them Were these the Hypotheses of the Old and zealous Presbyterians But whatever were his principles his practice in making so wide a separation from all the other Presbyterian Ministers in Scotland is a sufficient Apology for their Innocency who neither were of his way nor had any hand in the Disorders that we now debate about which were committed by that party which he had headed while he was alive Another effort of his more closs arguing is Mr. Cameron was not a proper Man to be the founder of a new Sect. As if profound Learning and deep policy were alwayes necessary to mislead a few of the less intelligent People especially when the severity of persecution had imbittered their Minds both against the Rulers and the Episcopal Church it was easy to set them oft from them And from all that did not make the same Resentments with them of what was then acted I am yet unable to find out his close Reasoning for what followeth is That the Episcopal party first called that party Cameronians and by that name mean all Presbyterians whose zeal for their Faction over-drives them beyond all Discretion and this all along he imputeth to all Presbyterians and therefore he will allow no difference among Presbyterians some will call this a loose Declaration rather than close Argumentation for whatever names he is pleased to give to persons or things
by good Men And even in Parliament it met with such opposition that they hardly carried it Yea the making the Voter in Parliament for the Church perpetual and that he should not be chosen yearly was carried but by three Votes However this was the beginning of that Apostacy that afterward came to a greater height and the design of setting up Bishops did soon appear however they for a time did labour to cover it That which I chiefly observe here is that this stickle that then was made for setting up some Ministers to Vote in Parliament is an evidence against the whole of this Manuscript viz. That Bishops did not then nor always exist in the Reformed Church of Scotland For if they had they were the Men who should have sat in Parliament to represent the Church and there needed not such steps for bringing them into the Church The story of Mr. Dury's Recantation at his Death and owning Episcopacy I find not in any of the Historians that I can meet with neither hath our Author directed us where to find it And if it were true it proveth no more but that all and every one of the Presbyterians were not faithful to the end For the General Assembly at Brantisland 1601 which he mentioneth I have nothing to observe about it For he alledgeth nothing there done toward the advancing of Episcopacy Next he telleth us of an Assembly at Holyrood House and of the Kings Clemency to some Ministers And his proposals for Provisions both for Bishops and Presbyters this was 1602. Here is a great mistake The King did not mention Bishop in his Proposals as they are set down by Spotswood p. 468. The overtures about this were made by the Assembly at the Kings desire Neither are Bishops there mentioned The words are Thaâ— Prelacies should be disponed to actual Ministers Churches annexed thereto being provided sufficiently and the tenth of the Superplus paid to the King or otherwise that all the great Benefices be dissolved thâ— Prelate enjoying the Principal Church and Temporal Lands and the Churches annexed disponed to Ministers Both they and the Prelate paying a yearly duty to the King Where I take notice 1. That Prelate in the Dialect of that time did rather signifie an Abbot or Prior than a Bishop At least when ever it is used in the History of that time especially by Spotswood it comprehendeth all the three Wherefore 2. It cannot be gathered from this passage that Bishops did otherwise exist than Abbots and Priors That is that some Church-men had the Titles and some States men had the Revenues but neither of both had Church Authority above ordinary Ministers And 3. This is clear that before this Men had these Prelacies who were not actually Ministers Which maketh plainly against the existence of Diocesan Bishops with Governing power at that time 4. The dissolution of all great Benefices that is there propounded by way of Alternative doth shew that it was not the mind of that Assembly that either Bishops or Abbots or Priors should continue so much as to enjoy the Temporalities that formerly they possessed so far is it from designing that Bishops should be provided for and advanced as such It only provideth for the Minister of the place where a Lord Bishop once ruled § 57. His Assertion of the activity of hot headed Presbyters in stirring up prejudices against the Church of England And his high Elogies of that Church which he insisteth on p. 66. I shall not stand upon seing he hath neither mentioned particulars nor given any ground for what he affirmeth If Presbyters were then active to preserve the Government of the Church then established it was a seasonable and necessary duty that every one was bound to make Conscience of in his station For then might they rationally fear that the King who had been influenced by some Corrupt Men to oppose the settling of Presbytry would now be more bent and had more advantage to overturn it as indeed it fell out In the business of the Assembly at Aberdeen which he aggravateth with all his Rhetorick I shall not interpose my Opinion I find it diversly represented by divers Historians I am sure whatever he make of it he cannot draw from it this conclusion that Episcopacy then took place in Scotland which is the design of his Manuscript The tale that concludeth the Manuscript about the Chancellour and the Ministers I find not in History nor are we directed where it is to be sought for and therefore I neglect it being assured that these Men who had appeared so much and with so much hazard against Popery would not be guilty of conniving at it § 58. The Apologist having transcribed this Manuscript from p. 67. maketh a number of Inferences from it All which do fall to the ground by the answers already given to the Paper it self which is the foundation of them And most of them are particularly obviated in what hath been said The 1. is answered § 47. where it is shewed our Martyrs had no occasion to consider the Government of the Church being exercised about greater points that needed Reformation That the first Reformers submitted to the Episcopal Jurisdiction of Protestant Bishops is absolutely false For he cannot make it appear that any such Jurisdiction was exercised at or soon after the Reformation The 2 d. That Episcopacy was never legally abolished is disproved § 54. That Presbyterians always watched the difficult Circumstances of the King which is the third is not true They did in all Circumstances endeavour to settle the Discipline and Order of the Church His fourth asserting the Presbyterians pleading exemptions from the Secular Powers as the Papists is not only false but shamelesly affirmed The 5 th is answered § 54 The 6 th Episcopacy was not quarrelled as unlawful in it self in these times Not only is no way deducible from any thing said in the Manuscript But is false and affirmed against the clearest light that such a matter is capable of Doth not even the Book of Discipline in which all the Presbyterians of these times agreed declare Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God while cap. 2 d. it saith He God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with an quality of Power every one according to their Function And there are four ordinary Offices in the Kirk of Christ the Office of Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elders and the Deacon And after no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Church of Christ established according to his word § 59. For the Eighth Whatever he fancy of the Royal Authority being forced to all that was granted to the Presbyterians Let him answer for this Imputation of Hypocrisie and Dissembling in the King that then was It is enough to us that the Church Power was granted to Presbyterians by King and Parliament and that they declared they did it willingly and sincerely The Tenth according to his wonted Charity and Candor maketh the Vindicator's Book to be one intire shuffle from top to bottom And his ground is the Presbyterians of old did some very ill things And yet the Vindicator would perswade the World that Presbyterians are not capable of such Villanies as the rabbling of the Clergy I wish he would learn to speak Truth and to use a little more Reason in his Discourses The Vindicator hath said nothing of the Capacity of Presbyterians They are sinful Men and capable of very bad things if the Lord leave them All that was asserted and it is made evident against all hâ—s attempts is that the Presbyterians did not do such things as he and others of his Gang charge them with For these odious things that he chargeth the Presbyterians of the former age with Enough hath been said for their Vindication by others tho' I had been silent Let him read Mr. Baillies pieces and answer them if he can His impugning of the distinction between Cameronians and Sober Presbyterians hath been answered before but he loveth to repeat rather than to say nothing The Eleventh Inference is That Presbyterians have no principle of Unity because the lesser number may remonstrate against the greater so as to stop the course of Discipline This last Clause is groundless For the greater part of a Church meeting may go on in the exercise of Discipline whatever be remonstrated to the contrary by the lesser part nor doth the Manuscript give any ground to think that Discipline could not be exercised because some did remonstrate against it For the former part of his Inference I gladly would know whether that principle of Unity be owned among his Party that none may remonstrate against what the Bishop or the greatest part of the meeting doth If so then the Consciences of Men like Issachar's Asse must tamely couch under the burden of whatever is imposed And if my Lord Bishop and the plurality of his Clergy decide all the Controversies between us and Papists on the side of the Romish Synagogue no man may mutter or reclaim It was an ancient Maxim even in the Canon Law Cuivis supplicare protestari licet To deny this is to banish Conscience or to bring in that Atheistâ—cal Principle that our Actions must be directed not by our own but by the publick Conscience The last Inference doth not differ from the former but to make up the round dozen he hath put it in other words which labour under the same evil that he there chargeth others with viz. General words which at the bottom have no particular signification For he chargeth us with Tyranny Disobedience poisonous Principles that we slie in the face of Authority c. And all this made out by the protestation against the General Assembly 1651 which he setteth down at length We have now through the mercy of God buried that unhappy difference And the Revivers of it should reflect on the Builders of Jericho I shall only say as before that to condemn all Protestations and Remonstrances against any company of Men who pretend to Church Authority or against whatever a Lawful Authority doth is to take from Ministers and People the liberty of professing and owning the Truth of God I have now done with this Apology The Postscript I meddle not with it is in answer to a Paper The Author of which can make a Reply if he thinketh fit FINIS
they who know any thing of our affairs do know that all Presbyterians did not join with nor allow the courses of Mr. Cameron and his followers It is of the same stampt that cometh next viz. That the Cameronians had better studied their Principles and drawn more natural Conclusions from them than others This is barely and falsely asserted Also that the Cameronians did assert their principles when others were silent This is also false others did always as they had opportunity assert their Principles tho' not the same way that they were asserted by the Cameronians this was done both in Field Meetings and in other Meetings such as then could be had Tho' I confess the Presbyterians made it more their Business to inculcate upon Peoples minds the great truths of the Gospel on which our Salvation dependeth than what belongeth to Church Government § 7. What further goeth with this Author for his close Reasoning is to shew that what the Cameronians did was according to Presbyterian Principles All that I can find for proof of this most absurd assertion is that the people may with their Pastors Reform the Church when the Magistrate is slack or opposit to the designed Reformation and the Presbyterians hold Presbytry to be Juris Divini and the removal of the Episcopal Clergy was necessary for this Reformation A. If he condemn all popular Reformations of the Church as he here seemeth to do he will not approve of many Reformations either from Heathenism or from Popery But I will not digress to demonstrate this the soundness of this principle rightly understood is made evident by the Learned Claude Historic Defence of the Reformation P. 7 c. So that it is not to be lookt on as a principle peculiar to Scotch Presbyterians The principle that they hold is that every Man in his station should endeavour the Reformation of the Church that people may believe the Truth and Worship God according to his institution whether the Magistrat allow it or not But if he will prove that the Presbyterian Church did ever determine that private persons or Ministers may by force of Arms carry on this Reformation then shall we own the Rablings that he is pleading against And unless he can make this appear all his talk is beside the purpose He boldly but most falsely asserteth in the end of P. 4. and P. 5 that the Rable had the best directions that could be had And had exact Intelligence by their Agents what they might venture on This was in the Pamphlets formerly refuted asserted with the same confidence and was denyed in the second Vindication and is still denyed But it is below this high pretender to closs Reasoning to take notice of that or to bring any shadow of proof for it But this the Rablings was not acted by the Parishoners of these Ministers who were Rabled Ergo it was done by vertue of a League and Covenant among the Presbyterians in general or the chief Men of them The meanest in our Universities would be ashamed of such Logick could not a few who had separated from the Presbyterians as well as from the Episcopalians manage such an affair as this without advice from Men of note either in the state or in the Church however this Authors tinctured fancy doth represent the Rabling to him we see nothing in it which looketh like a Combination of the whole Society viz. Presbyterians but rather like the efforts of Passion and Revenge Or at least an undiscreet zeal of a few Persons That some of the Gentrie of the West were scared from opposing these Rablings is like his other Arguments to prove a Combination of Presbyterians in this matter Men of less understanding than this Author pretendeth to may conjecture other Reasons for their forbearance they saw the interest they had fallen in with sinking and they had no heart to appear for it either by defending their Ministers who had led them upon the Ice or by being active in the Elections for the Convocation for setling the Nation that then was in a Convulsion but were glad to Lurk His Charitable assertions of the Presbyterians without exception or limitation I shall not endeavour to refute pitieing the Author who thus doth expose his Temper while he crieth out against others for their want of that Spirit that becometh the Gospel They are that they never forgive any Injury and they never say the Lords Prayer because it is so opposite to their Nature It is impossible to oblidge them by favours that the People of the West are generally Cunning Avaritious and Dissembling beyond measure Of these and many such like Assertions sprinkled as the flowers of Rhetorick throughout his Book I shall only use his own words mutato nomine de te c p. 27 that such Assertions carrie with them all the marks by which a wilful and deliberate lie may be known from modest and ingenious truth or our Author had Causam scientiae of the truth or falshood of these things Let it also be considered how agreeable these imputations are to that Charity and Gospel Spirit that he elsewhere talketh of § 8. After he hath reasserted without farther that is without any proof that the Maxims of our Moral Theologie do allow the greatest Villanies acted on the Clergy he bringeth another Argument of the Rabblings being concerted by the Party viz. Presbyterians That some Presbyterians then at London contradicted the Reports that were sent thither concerning them As well they might deny many of them tho I do not hear any denied all of them He might know that many of these stories which are printed are not only denied but disproved And it is not like that the reports sent to London were more universally true What is Argumentative in his Paper I am willing to consider but am not concerned to answer what filleth up page sixth and seventh which is asserting the 5 th 6 th and 7 th time that what was done by these Rabbles was concerted by the Presbyterians One good Argument would have convinced us more than such bold and repeated Affirmations That the Presbyterian States men and the Church and People also in their wishes preferred Presbytery to union with England is not to be wondered at by any but them who think more of their civil Interests than of what concerneth Religion His out-cries against the Covenant and the Transactions of that time I do not regard what was said more distinctly to that purpose in the Ten questions is answered and he is not pleased to take farther notice of it then to declame in the same strain of obloquie His Marginal note p. 7. Insinuating that Presbyterians do preach against the use of the Lords Prayer is Injurious I have heard many in Sermons asserting the Lawfulness of using it tho at the same time they deny the necessity of using it or that it is commanded to use these words But I never heard any Preach against the use of it §
and Reason sheltering themselves under some distinctions and explications that few Men can understand Tho' our Author will not tell his Opinion directly yet he doth it intelligibly enough While he not only condemneth some late Insurrections about which I will not Controvert with him but telleth us of a Supreme Tribunal which with us is King and Parliament from which there is no Appeal and which may not be resisted by every one whose Caprice is not satisfied running to Arms. I applaud his Wit not debating this question till he understand it better and learn to fix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For I think few sober Men will contradict him in this whatever they may think of the body of the Nation joyning with the Primores Regni resisting the execution of bad Laws and calling to account the Makers and Executors of them I will neither debate this nor determine any thing in it nor take notice what aspect the late Revolution and present Settlement hath toward the determination of this question I shall leave this head after I have observed a pretty pleasant Argument this high pretender and despiser of others bringeth for his Opinion Do not we see every day such as opposed the Government any where Fined Confined or Executed If he had hence inferred Ergo no Government is willing to be resisted the consequence could not have been denied But the conclusion must be Ergo it is unlawful to resist any Supreme Governour Some will say it is pitiful Logick § 20. Because he cannot find sufficient ground to blame his Adversary he thinketh fit to use some Artifices to reach him He p. 21. citeth the Vindicator affirming That the Authority of the Nation in the Convention or Parliament may take away the Legal Right that belongeth to the Clergy But he leaveth out what might vindicate that Author viz. That he expresly leaveth the decision of that question to Lawyers and giveth no Opinion about it Here the Apologist maketh a heavy complaint of the Arbitrary Power acted by the Presbyterian Party in what the Convention now did and what the Covenanting Parliaments had done before I shall here also determine nothing but leave it to Men Learned in the Law to inform us whether the notion of acting Arbitrarily can agree to the Parliament where the body of the People with the King are represented none doubteth but they may act irrationally and wickedly or if it be peculiar to Executors of the Law when they act not by Law but take their own will for their Rule He imputeth to the Presbyterians and to the Author of the Vindication p. 22. This Assertion That the kindness that any hath for Episcopacy proceeds from the Episcopal Clergy their Indulging Men in their Sins and Immoralities And for this he citeth p. 76. and p. 166. In the former of the two places there is not one word to this purpose In the other all that is said is reproving his Antagonist for saying that Presbyterians were dreaded as the plague of Mankind The Vindicator replyeth That they are not so looked on by any but a debauched Crew whom his Faction indulged in their Immoralities to which Presbyterian Discipline is a Terrour Now let the Reader judge whether this Author dealeth fairly Is this Assertion so universal as he maketh it Is it said or hinted at that none have respect to Episcopacy on other accounts tho' I am perswaded that not a few like it on that account yet I never thought nor said that all who are for Episcopacy are of that Stamp I know some of them Ministers and others who hate Immoralities But let us hear his Refutation of this Assertion What we first meet with is this is Spight and Malice They are Sons of Strife who say so it is Impudence it is a senseless Accusation Who can stand before such Arguments The force they have is to shew the Man's Spirit who useth them I only take notice that he calleth the Accusation also indefinite Which is most injurious it is limited to the profane Persons among the Episcopal Party He cometh next to run down this Assertion by this tuant Reason The Episcopal Church hath taught no Doctrine that hath any tendency to breaking any of Gods Commandments As if no Church could be negligent in the exercise of Discipline unless it be also her Doctrine that Discipline should be neglected He hath Supeciliously insulted over the Vindicator when nothing so ridiculous or contemptible was said For another Argument he falleth with a great deal of scorn and bitterness on the Discipline exercised in the Presbyterian Church against Whoredom He hath two quarrels against it the former Bringing Whores to receive a publick Rebuke causeth the murthering of many Bastards the other is Three Women cannot be named who ever mounted the Publick stool of Repentance but they became Prostitutes their Publick appearance rendering them Impudent Can any think that such Stuff needeth an Answer That they that sin viz. openly and scandalously should be rebuked before all is the express Commandment of Christ by his Apostle 1 Tim. 5.20 id est palam in publico caetu graviter severe increpa saith Estius and he was no Presbyterian It is true he saith it is likely the Apostle had an eye at the faults of Elders but he addeth Idem tamen faciendum cum aliis It is a shame for this Author to speak against the strictness of Discipline against publick Scandals which even Papists allow when they consider things without the prejudice of the practice of their Church Yea Tertullian Admonebantur criminosi a senioribus astante audiente plebe magno cum pondere If this publick Rebuke be given we are not fond whether the Person be on the Stool of Repentance or elsewhere in the Church tho' we think it as our Ancestors did a convenient place where the person may be seen and heard by all as the Minister is in the Pulpit It is strange that this Author should speak against pubâ—ick Rebuking of Offenders for it was ever the practice of the Church of Scotland even under Prelacy and under the late Prelacy tho' it was not so frequently used as there was need for it But he is now in England and it seems thinketh himself obliged to rail at all that is not according to the English way That Womens murthering their Bastards is the effect of this Discipline is a strange Assertion and an effort of a confidence not to be reguarded It may enervate that wild conjâ—cture that at the Revolution seven Women were left in prison in Edinburgh for that one Crime Each of them murthering their own Infants Since which time I have heard of none but one or two For his other inconvenience what he asserteth is a manifest falsehood Some have given evidence of true Repentance not only by publick profession but by their after good Conversation And tho' I will not say that never any of them turned Prostitutes yet it is known not
their Morality in their Conversation or for their concern in that matter That they the Presbyterians are obliged by their Oaths to ruin Episcopacy would indeed be to his purpose if he could make it appear that the Covenant or any other Oath doth bind us to tell lies or use any means good or bad toward that end But if that be false as all do know let it be considered what Morality or Argumentative Skill the Man is Master of who doth so boldly affirm this and maketh such inference from it § 23. Another thing whereby he endeavoureth to vilifie his Adversary for that is the professed scope of this part of the Apology is he is for the divine right of Presbytry If he or any of his party could disprove this Opinion which I have not yet seen nor expect to see yet I think few except this Author will think this sufficient to render a man contemptible Many with whom the Vindicator will not compare and to whom I think the Apologist is not equal are of the same Opinion And have strenuously maintained it and if it be so ridiculous to assert the Divine Right of Presbytry what is it to write and think so of Episcopacy as the Apologist doth p. 23. where he calleth it the Apostolical Government if it be Apostolical it must be Divine for the Apostles were guided by a Divine and infallible Spirit If our Authour would have made us ridiculous on this hâ—ad it might have been expected that he should have refuted this opinion and answered what is saâ—d for it with such strength and evidence as was able to captivate the understandings of all men except they were Idiots as he seemeth to reckon the Presbyterians but that was too hard a task for him and therefore he wisely forbeareth to meddle with it What he bringeth to prove the absurdity of â—his Opinion is far short of what others of his Party have said and a very weak bottom to found his confidence upon The first Presbyterians held Church Policy to be variable and for this he citeth the Confession of Faith inserted in the Oath of the Test it seems he knoweth the Confession of Faith of the first Scotch Protestants under no other designation It is evident to any who readeth that Confession â—hat there is nothing said in that place of Government whether Parity or Prelacy but of Policy and order of Ceremonies and Ceremonies here must needs be taken in a large sense for External Rites common to other publick actions beside Church Administrations For they expresly condemn Humane Ceremonies in Gods Worship If another person had reasoned at this rate it would have been improved by our Author as a part of the Character of such a Writer He taketh it very ill p 25. That the Presbyterian Church will not own themselves as Delegates of the State As if they acted against the Sentiments of the whole Nation and against common Sense which do determine that they could have no power over the Episcopal Clergy but what they derived from the State Our Author doth little consider wâ—om he disobligeth by his loose talk Even that part of the Church of England to please whom this and most of their Pamphlets are calculated Tho' he will not read the Books of the Presbyterians because they stir his Choler I wish he would read a late piece about Christian Communion on behalf of the deprived Bishops where it is asserted and strongly pleaded That the Church in matters purely Spiritual and such the Government of the Church is by him asserted to be as much as the Administration of the Sacraments is altogether independent on any other Power whatsoever Wherefore there are other Men as well as Presbyterians so ridiculous in this Writer's Eyes as to deny Church Assemblies for Government to be Delegates of the State For the Presbyterian Churches power over Episcopal Men they have it by their office over all the Members of the Church of Scotland whatever be their opinion about Government Tho' we own it as the favour of the State that we have its countenance in the exercise of this Government Another of his wise reasons is Calvin said Honour and Reverencâ— is due to Prelates etiam hoc nomine if they embrace the Reformation Ergo. His Disciples are absurd in being loath that any other Policy should prevail Here is no shadow of consequent Calviâ— was as unwilling as we are that Episcopacy should prevail whatever respect he or we might have to the person of a Bishop who embraceth the Truth That it is in any part of the Vindication said or insinuated that they who are not for Presbytry or the Divine Right of it are not acquainted with the Spirit of God is most false and injuriously hinted by our Author He might have seen in the page that he citeth it is said of some on a quite different account If he can make it appear that his Antagonist doth thus write at random let him Characterize him as he pleaseth § 24. Another thing whereby he thinketh to make his Antagonist absurd and odious is hiâ— Rudeness and Vanity p. 25. I hope he looketh on these two qualities as distinct And is obliged to prove them both whereas I find nothing that looketh like an attempt to prove the latter But it will not be difficult to retort it on himself by any who considereth the Supercilious strain of his writing and his contempt of his Adversary For the former his proof is The Vindicator representeth his Adversary as a Liar and Villain Tho' he cannot prove that the Author of the History of the General Assembly wrote one Lie If his Informations were not exact he is not to blame But it cannot be proved that any information he got was false A. He should have shewed where he was represented as a Villain for I do not remember it and no place is cited unless he take a Liar and a Villain for the same It is a pleasant Vindication from being his Information was not exact Our Author here would shew his Critical Skill but do we not in ordinary Speech call gross Falsehoods Lies not considering the knowledge or intent of the Speaker And all that was said was that the things wrote were Lies Which was abundantly made evident and is known to most in Scotland Tho' our Author hath the brow to say that it cannot be proved To impute so absurd thâ—ngs to so publick a meeting where were so many Witnesses to attest the Falsehoods of them and to transmit these to Posterity in Writing let every one judge by what softer term it could be called Whether he or his Informers be the Liars we are little concerned But Wise Men will think that neither can be excused Beside are there not many things instanced by the Vindicator as asserted by his Adversary in which it is hard to think that the Mans Mind did not contradict his Thoughts As p. 36. They the Presbyterians and no exception or distinction
of Ross I do not pretend to know it so well as the Apologist doth But one Instance will not infringe the Assertion which speaketh only of many or most part and doth expresly except some When he findeth that the Instances he hath scraped together may prove too weak to prove the Vindicator so horrid and so empty a Person as he would represent him he bringeth as strong an Argument as any yet mentioned and that is he saith it positively and boldly To be short saith he his Book is every where interspersed with the silliest shuffling and Tergiversation Yet another Instance of the Vindicators rudeness and flying in his Adversaries Faâ—e and giving him the Lye when it were enough to say that he is not acquainted with the Matter of Fact Mr. Morer had asserted that some sat in the Convention who were not infest in their Estates This he denieth these are the Apologists words and telleth us this was a sufficient answer because no Person was named Is not this a formidable Argument to prove this Assertion Who can stand before a Man of such a Talent Where is the Rudeness Where is the flying in Mr. Morer's Face And giving him the Lie The Vindicator's Inconsistencies is the Taâ—k he next undertakes p. 30 31. He finds or fancies three or four of them in that Book One is he hath treated his Adversaries as Brethren yet he insinuateth that such Disputes with the Episcopal Party is but struglings between the Seed of the Woman and the Seed of the Serpent A. Where is this insinuated Here is mention made indeed of that struggle But is it any where hinted that he debateth against the Episcopal Party Is it not rather evident from the whole strain of the Book that it is some Writers of that Party that had filled their Pamphlets with Lies and Railing that many Sober Men of their own side are ashamed of And it is shewed in the same place that he citeth § 6. of the Preface how consistent the sharpness that sometimes he useth is with that Brotherly respect that is due to such unfair Dealers Our Lord did not disown Peter tho' he called him Satan to reprove his Errour Yea we may treat even them as Brethren who are justly Excommunicated by the Church Another inconsistency is He is acquainted with but few of the Matters of Fact Yet he taketh not things on hear say or common talk This is pure trifling Where one hath a Matter of Fact on the Testimony of two or three Persons of known Veracity and may be witnessed upon Oath before a Judge Is not here a Medium between Personal Knowledge and Common Talk Wherefore there is here no Inconsistency nor Contradiction which any one can imagine except such a one as the Authors of the Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence who objecteth the same That the Materials of the Vindication are but the Testimonies of them who were the Actors or Abettors of the Western Villanies the civil word that this severe Censurer of Rudeness useth is most false The story about Mr. George Henry was not built on common talk only but on the Testimony of one who pretended personal knowledge and if it were a mistake it can no way disparage the other Historical Passages because it tended no way to reflect on Mr. Henry but rather to vindicate him and no stresâ— of any thing in debate did lye on it Another mighty Inconsistency He telleth us they do not look on King William as an Idolater and yet some Preach that the Church of England is Idolatrous It is pity to trouble the Reader with such stuff but some Mens mouths must be stopped Here is no Inconsistency unless he could shew that either the Author hath said both these Or that all Presbyterians hold them both If farther answer to this were needed it should be brought Lastly He will not allow that the Clergy who addressed the Commission had any wit I know not where that is said or hinted tho' I am sure they did not act wisely in that matter and yet their Contrivances were founded on deep Consults I will not impute to this Reveverend Author that ignorance of a Contradiction that some will gather from this passage May not some who have much wit be far from using it in some cases Again may not Men who have little wit have what they are to act concerted for them by them who have more wit We know also that all deep Consults are not wise Consults I hope our Author hath much more Wit and Learning too then he useth in this and several other passages of his Book And yet I am far from thinking whatever dirt he is pleased to cast on others that he is destitute of either § 29 Our Authors next work from p. 31. to the end of 37. is to disparage Mr. Rule whom he treateth with a great deal of insolent Contempt Some may think this whole discourse impertinent and wide from the mâ—â—ter in hand For the Vindication may contain solid Reason and hard to be refuted yea the Presbyterians may be generally Men of worth tho' Mr. Rule were as bad or as Ridiculous as our Author can call him or wish him to be And if Mr. Rule have said any thing absurdly in a piece he wrote against Dr. Stillingsleet what is that to make either the Histories incredible or the Reasons unvalid which are contained in the Vindication This Conduct will readily make some to guess at what moved this Author so to digress That either he had little to fill his sheets with tho' he often brags of plenty or that he is glad of any occasion given or that can be snatched to meet with a Person whose place he envieth whatever thoughts he have of his Principles I shall say nothing in answer to the civil words he frankly bestoweth on him such as Proud and Supercilious p. 33. Nothing so palpably ignorant and foolish ibid. Resenteth the least contradiction to his Nonsence with Bitterness and Indignation Thrasonical boasting p. 34. Silly and extravagant Impertinencies A Mormo of a Scholar p. 36. Arrogant and Presumptuous p. 37. I neither incline to resent these nor may safely do it considering in what a fit of Passion above Indecency it put him when a very modest Apology was made against some such Defamations before and that not against one Man but against all the Presbyterians That p. 31. ad finem a Presbyterian had rather be accused of Adultery Sodomy or Incest than to be thought Ignorant If these be the words of Truth or Soberness the Reader will judge I shall also say but little of the things that he chargeth my Friend with Nor will I trouble the Reader with a Vindication of him or of my self farther than the interest of Truth doth acquire The first thing he quarrelleth as also his Friend the Author of the History of the General Assembly had done is That Rational Defence of Nonformity p. 164. he had expounded a passage of Jerome contrary
to the Sense that commonly it is taken in And this he insulteth upon as a sign of the most unparalelled Ignorance But as wise as he will think even supposing it to be a mistake and that it cannot be defended that it is consistent with more Learning than ever Mr Rule pretended to or than our Apologist is Master of Some Learned men have had odd apprehensions of some things and which easily might be refuted Grotius the wonder of his Age for Learning and for Critical Skill in particular yet will have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 12.28 to be Diocesan Bishops So also Dr. Hammond but he giveth a ground for his Opinion that is very singular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he Significat curam rei alicujus gerere And so also he expoundeth that word Luke 1.54 which is contrary or at least without Countenance from all Lexicographers Criticks and other Expositors If such a great Light may have a Spot why may not also Dim Tapers without being a meer Snuff Again if Mr. Rule were answering for himself it is like he would say that Veneration for this Learned Father did drive him into that untrodden path who cannot otherwise be defended from contradicting by that expression the whole of that Epistle in which it is found For if Ordination of Presbyters be not in the power of Presbyters but only of the Bishop as the sentence now in debate doth plainly import if it be expounded in the ordinary way This destroyeth the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters Which he had been largely and of purpose proving Or we must say which is also mentioned in the place cited that Jerome wrote sometimes his own Opinion and sometimes that of others and that so intermixed as that it is hard for the Reader to discern them as himself confesseth in a passage there also cited And if he use such Liberty in matters of Opinion why not in taking the same word in divers significations And it is certain that not only all Lexicographers give the signification of ordinare but in the Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is turned ordino 1 Cor. 7.17 And that signification of it is not unknown in Antiquity Cent. Magd 1 lib. 2. c 4. p. 205. Edit Basil 1564. Evangelium non tollit politicas ordinationes per se non impias I hope this is not meant of ordaining Persons to Office but ordering and appointing the due management of Affairs The Reasoning by which he maketh Mr. Rule 's Exposition to be inferred is ridiculous enough But it is none of his but the Apologist's own From what is said all the instances of the use of that word for potestative mission appear to be inconcludent for they only prove that that is the more usual signification of it Which none deny And the Ridiculous Sense that he putteth on this place of Jerome from the use of the Word elsewhere is Inconsequential For the Sense given may and doth quadrat here tho' it do not in some other places Ye may either take Jerome's word Ordinatio in the more Grammatical and proper tho' less usual Sense and make the passage Congruous to the whole of his discourse in which it is Or in the more frequent but less proper Sense and look on this Sentence as none of his own but what others said and he had set down in his Adversaria And so it cannot derogate from his Opinion about Bishops expressed in that Epistle The Reader hath his Option The Cause that Mr. Rule pleadeth and his Reputation are safe either way § 30. He lasheth the Vindicator very severely with all Rods that his Invention and the help of Latin Authors that he had read can afford because when his Adversary complained of the Desolations of Colledges by the late Change and of the Insufficiency of them who were put in the room of such as were Ejected he very modestly denied that they had any thing to brag of did appeal to the esteem of Impartial Men and to the Indicia of Learning any had given this is wound up to the high degree of Thrasonical Boasting As if his Party were Modest and Humble Men when they Monopolize all Learning to themselves and would make the World believe that it will dye with them But Presbyterians are proud if they Mutter and do not tamely assent when they are trampled on with the greatest Insolency I doubt not but the Apostle's Enemies said the same of him when he maintained his Zeal and Diligence nor that Job's angry Friends did the like when he pleaded for his Wisdom and Understanding He should also have considered that there was no Comparison made of any one Man with another but of one Party with another and that he cannot fix Self Commendation on any Man so that his Citations to that purpose are wholly impertinent but one Man commending those of his way And I am still confident to say let him make what use of it he will that tho' the Person he sheweth his great displeasure against were as insignificant as he imagineth yet the rest who enjoy Places in Universities in Scotland need not be ashamed of their Sufficiencies whether considered with respect to their Work or with comparison to their immediate Predecessours His three Instances of Mr. Rule 's speaking false Latine as himself calleth them Impertinencies p. 36. so do I judge them If they were all true they are nothing to the determination of the debate between the two Parties of the Church now in Scotland and tho' he doth not think himself above a possibility of such escapes and hath heard some who pretend to more Volubility in the Latine and in the English too and value themselves upon it lapse into as sensible blunders for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet he doth positively deny that to his knowledge or what he hath ever heard from any Person there is truth in any one of these Instances and that this Apology gave him the first notice of them Beside it is evident that the Apologist's Eye and Ear Witnesses have misinformed him as to the first Instance For he having had Praelections for some time de Idololatria hath insisted on the Idolatry of the Heathen of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times and of the Papists ◠but hath not meddled at all either with the Superstition or Idolatry of the Church of England Only the Contriver of the Story was pleased thus to circumstantiate it For the other two Instances our Apologist sheweth as little Skill in Critical Learning as he thinketh others to have in speaking of Latine tho' he could not forbear the pedantry of trying it by a sought occasion For if he consult his Lexicons he will find that Requiro doth signify to require or demand Whatever it signify beside tho' I deny not but he who is accused might and I am perswaded did express the thing in other terms more common than this His Criticism on the third Instance is also Childish For
For we do not pretend to any knowledge in these but what we build on Scripture and Reason we plead no immediate Revelation If he can prove our Grounds to be insufficient he may conclude our Opinions false but not that they are Enthusiastick All the Divines that I have read on that subject take Enthusiasm for a pretension to immediate Revelation or Inspiration or Instinct or Afflatus of things that they who pretend to it can give no other ground for And even Plutarch calleth it Instinctus divinus de defect Oracul c ' 67. If he can either prove that we pretend to this or that we bring no other grounds for what we affirm let him brand us with Enthusiasm at his pleasure That all the subdivisions of Dissenters in England are for Anniversary Holy days is so well known to be false that I wonder he should insinuate so much without blushing That the Anniversary day for the burning of London is observed by them all with Fasting and Prayer is not true for any thing that I know And if it were true will he also say that they have sequestred that day from all Civil Employment and dedicated it to Religion If he say not this the Case is not paralell to what we now debate about § 35. His conclusion of what he had discoursed is That it is dangerous if not impious to separate from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the name of Jesus hath been worshipped Such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times Here are big words If the strength of his forgoing Reasons were but proportioned to the confidence of his Assertion our Cause must fall to the ground But the Reader will judge whether any one word of this Thrasâ—nick triumph be true or have sufficient foundation in what he hath proved He telleth us but I know not to what purpose that the knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the light of Reason Therefore such Constitutions as the reason of all Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the purity of our Religion It is tedious to refute or to read such loose Arguings of which the meanest Logician might be ashamed We deny not the use of Reason in Religion viz. For understanding what is revealed and for drawing Native Consequents from these great truths But that the use of Reason is to appoint new Ordinances or Means of Grace that Christ hath not appointed we deny And if our Author do not assert that he saith nothing for his Holy days And if he do not prove it his Argument is insignificant For Holy days are such means if we may believe this Author who speaketh of them as the means of propagating the Christian Faith That these Constitutions are agreed on by all Mankind is a supposition as far from Truth and from Modesty as any thing can be He hath not yet done with this subject but falleth on it afresh in a discourse two pages long which he calleth a short digression Wherein any thing that looketh like Argumentation hath been many times to far greater advantage proposed by others of his way and as often answered by Men of our side So that I wonder that so high a pretender is not ashamed so to trisâ— Some things indeed he hath that are new viz. Some Historical passages which are as far remote from Truth as Darkness is from Light Let us hear the particulars He pleadeth p 41. that Anniversary Solemnities may be used in the Worship of God tho' they have been abused to the Worship of Idols A. We have better Arguments against these and other Human Ceremonies than from the abuse of them by Papists and Pagans But even this wanteth not its weight only we never used this Argument against the use of things necessary and therefore the Author doth unwisely mention the Sun and the Seasons the use of which we must not lay aside whoever abuse them But of things that are of no necessity such as all Human Ceremonies are acknowledged to be by the most Learned of the Patrons of them Our Argument hath yet greater strength if we consider not only that the Holy day now debated about was kept by the Heathens in Honour of Julius Caesar and hence called Yule in Scotland And is still abused by many Superstitious Fopperies among the Papists But is generally by the far greater part of the Protestant Observers of it spent in Idleness Feasting and Playing and by very many it is horribly profaned by all manner of Excess and Debaucheries It is a wonderful confidence Do we not see saith he all Nations agree in this that Publick Solemnities and Anniversary Festivities and Fasts are necessary to the Being and Beauty of Religion So p. 41. and p. 42. we ought to remember that the stated Festivals and Fasts of the Church do preserve and increase our Mortification ibid. The stated periods of Fasting oblige the most stubborn and impenitent to think of his Soul and the visible practices of the Church preach Repentance more effectually and make more lasting impressions then the loose and indefinite Homilies of Self conceited Men. And p. 43 he imputeth to the neglect of Fasting among Protestants the hinderance of the Reformation of the Grecian Churches And ibid. The publick seasons of Devotions are the Catechism of the People A few Remarks to expose these flights of his Fancy First What could be more said of the Word and Sacraments and other Ordinances instituted by Christ What greater Elogies are given to them in Scripture For indeed he saith as much as Christmass and other Holy dayes are the power of God to Salvation 2. This is contary to the Sentiments of all that ever wrote on this subject Who agree that these Ceremonies are indifferent things And yet he will have them necessary and that not only to the beauty of Religion but to the being of it 3. Then it seems there was no Religion in the Apostolick Church nor among the Waldenses nor in Geneva and several other Reformed Churches I add not the Presbyterian Church of Scotland in all the Ages of it because he will hardly allow any thing of Religion to be among us This is his Christian Charity of which he talketh He doth indeed damn all them to Hell who observe not Christmass He is the first of this Opinion and I hope he shall be the last 4. If all this were true it were impossible that Irreligion Impenitency or Immorality could be at least be frequent and abundant in a Church where these forms are used Which I hope none will say who have lived in England or in Scotland or in the Romane Communion It is but suitable to his Genius to vilisie the Preaching of Presbyterians as the loose and indefinite Homilies of Self conceited Men But it had been fit to have told us whether there be any Preaching that can equal these forms in
from the Presbytry with their Moderator under whose inspection we ought to be let him call us what he will But we disown the Bishops in Scotland from being our Bishops We can neither own their Episcopal Authority nor any Pastoral Relation that they have to us § 40. The next Controversie in Divinity that he underdaketh to manage is about Preaching Morality p. 47. He chargeth the Vindicator with censuring the Clergy for preaching Morality And citeth his p. 62 and p. 63. And in his Refutation to this Imputation he is pleased to treat his Adversary with a parcel of harsh words such as Spite and Ill Nature p. 48. his hiding places and little subterfuges p. 49. This waspish Accusation ibid This is another stroke of his Good Nature and Civility All which I let pass For the Reader will by comparing what is said by him and me especially in this place easily find whether of us do best deserve these Epithets What I have to say in answer to this charge is that there is no truth in what he saith But on the contrary there is a double falsehood in it One is that this censure is passed on the Clergy I know some of them Preach the Gospel foundly and usefully what is said is evidently aimed at the Writer of that Pamphlet and some others who are of his Kidney In whose Discourses little of the Righteousness of Christ and that strength and influence from Him by which we must obey His Laws is to be found Another falsehood is that any Man is censured for Preaching Morality That which is taken notice of is that some do so preach Morality as to neglect that which is Divinity That is so to Preach the Duties that are required of us as not to open to People the mystery of Christ and Salvation by him In shewing them that we can do nothing that is acceptable to God without an interest in Christ as our Righteousness and without the aids of his Spirit It is our daily work to Preach Morality and the necessity of Holiness in all manner of Conversation But we look on this but as the half of Gospel Preaching And that even when we press a Holy Life and particular Duties on these excellent Motives taken out of the Scripture which he at great length insisteth on about which I am far from controverting with him Only I must tell him that the Gospel which we must Preach and by which we look for Salvation is not only Morality even Christian let be Pagan which he describeth to be Evangelical Obedience and Holiness without which no man shall see God tho' that be an essential part of it but it comprehendeth also knowledge of and Faith in Jesus Christ as our Righteousness and Strength Of which there is little in the Sermons of some of his Party And not a word in his long Discourse on this Head tho' it be designed to shew how fully they Preach the Gospel And I still affirm that this is not that Divinity that Christ and his Apostles taught And I hope the Reader may by this time see that there is no nicety in distinguishing between his Christian Morality and the Christian Divinity that Ministers should Preach He saith p. 48. That there are no Socinians among the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland In which I do not contradict him For I know them not but if he had said there are no Socinianizing Arminians I could have made the contrary appear He is angry with the Vindicator p. 50 that he saith May be we understand what the Pagan Philosophy is as well as our Neighbours But we shall not quarrel with him tho' p. 49 he saith May be we have read Seneca with as much attention as he did and can give as good account of the defects of the Stoical Philosophy I do not envy his Learning and I do not pretend to have any such degree of it that may provoke others to Envy He defendeth p. 50. an Argument used for the Orthodoxy of the Clergy That they could sign the 59 Articles of the Church of England And is displeased that it is objected that some do so who yet preach against what they have signed I hope this is no judging of Mens Hearts as he wisely commenteth on it but of the inconsistency of two overt acts Neither is it a refutation of this that the Clergy cannot by hardships now be brought to comply with the Presbyterians For some of them are more yielding and others are more fixt in their way which may be imputed to Conscience in some and in others to other Motives § 41. What he next chargeth on his Adversary p. 51 is a Censure on the Author whom he is Refuting who insinuateth that the Presbyterians talk every day to the People of Gods Decrees and Reprobation by denying this to be the practice of Prelatists And it is answered by the Vindicator that this is impertinent if he mean as he expresseth it For who saith the Vindicator ever blamed any Man as erroneous because he insisted not always on such subjects The Apologist first representeth this as if it had been expressed that we do not require that one should always talk of Decrees and Reprobations I know no design in using such senseless expressions but to expose his Opposite as Ridiculous Whereas these silly expressions are his own The Vindicator's words are these abovementioned He refuteth also this passage as what sheweth little Skill in Logick because every day doth not imply doing nothing else I answer neither doth always signifie so much What was asserted is that Presbyterians do not only not preach constantly on these subjects but that they do it not frequently which he himself alloweth as the signification of every day The fault that he next findeth with the Vindicator is of more moment it is that p. 66. he speaketh of the absolute Decrees of Election and Reprobation both praeteritum praedamnatum Heâ—e he trâ—umpheth and trampleth on as Adversâ—ry and he alloweth of praeteritio his rude praedamnatio but not decretum praeteritum praedamnatum I confess here he hath more seeming advantage than any where else Neither can I blame any thing in this his observation save his defect in Candor and Charity For no doubt there is in these expressions as he observeth complicated Nonsence and Blasphemy But the best is it is purely an Errour of the Press not of the Author which any Man might have observed who readeth the passage without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I do solemnly declare and I hope some will believe me tho' I hardly expect such Charity from this Author considering what diminutive thoughts he hath elsewhere expressed of my Morality as well as understanding that I never thought so that I never spoke so that I never wrote so The words in my Manuscript are Praeterition and Praedamnation § 42. Another Theological debate or Historical about a Theological head he beginneth p. 52. where he leaveth the second Vindication and picketh