not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
200 years 2. If this Doctrine be received what shall we think of the Histories of Eusebius Socrates and others which our Author as well as others Citeth often and Considently It is true they give us Vouchers out of ancient Writings but many of these may be Proved to be Fabulous by this same Argument and this they do not always 3. He forgetteth and contradicteth himself in the very next page while he sheweth out of Sir George Mackenzie that the Bards repeated the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages Births and other Solemnities and calleth this an infallible Conveyance of true constant and perpetual Tradition here is but Oral Tradition and it went beyond the Limits of 200 years otherways it could not be a sufficient Evidence for all the Kings that were before Fergus the Second which is the Design for which Sir George bringeth it 4. Good Historians who make it their Business to Search into the Affairs of former Ages may attain to some probable knowledge of what passed for more than 200 years by Comparing one thing with another which others who have not made that their Study cannot easily reach yea they do not always set down all the Grounds of what they Write for that would oblige them sometimes to write a Controversie instead of a Historie I say not this to Oblige any Body to take all on Trust that Historians even of the best Note do Write but to shew the unwarrantableness of Determining so dogmatically about the Credibility of History Neither do I think Defending our Opinion about the ancient Church-Government in Scotland needeth the help of this Observation Before he had peremptorly Condemned the Historical Evidence that we bring he should have Answered what Sir George Mackenzie an Author that he seemeth to value hath Written against the Bishop of St. Asaph p. 311. that History requires nor admits no Mathematical nor legal Proof But is satisfied with Moral certainty inferred from probable Tradition old Manuscripts credible Histories the Testimonie of forreign Authors and probable Reasons 2. That our Histories being already acquiesced in and received by the Generality of Mankind and especially by Criticks Antiquaries and Historians the best Judges in such cases need no Confirmation nor further Proof And he sheweth p. 6. that Livies History hath no surer Grounds than Tradition he Writing long after the time he speaketh of All this he fully Proveth § 3. He doth p. 236. unjustly suppose that I had asserted that the History of our Nation must perish if there was no Presbyterian Church in Scotland so near the Apostolick Age. I said not so nor had Words to that Effect What I did and do affirm is that if none who have written the History of this Nation are to be believed our History is lost for the Collateral Proofs from the Roman Historians that he talketh of could give us but a very lame Account of our Affairs He maketh p. 237. these Recitations of the Bards to be twisted with the Practice and Custom of the Nation and that by a constant and uninterrupted Practice and that from the first Colonies that were planted here now let me ask him what Authority he hath for this is not here an Oral Tradition for these Recitations are not extant but are perished time out of Mind for much more than two hundred years and thrice as many more Nor doth Sir George Mackenzie give better Evidence for the Antiquity of our Kings than we give for what we assert He telleth us against Saint Asaph p. 129. that the Tradition of our Nation might well be preserved for six hundred years which is far beyond our Authors Period That I Reasoned against Christmass from the Silence of the first Ages is no way inconsistent with what I have on this Occasion written for if our Author can prove it from any other Topick we shall not reject it We shall tell him whence the Historians had what we receive and assert from them when we come to Debate with him the Truth of things we hold we are now upon the general Argument of the Credibility of a History We are not obliged to give him Instances of other Presbyterian Churches before Calvin and Beza others have done it What he saith of the Waldenses I have disproved Section 1. § 1. I promised above to state this Question about the Credibility of History more clearly than he hath done for which there is much need for he neither distinguisheth Matters related nor Persons relating nor the Weight that is to be laid on what is related in History 1. Then Matters that are of no great Moment whither they be true or false we may receive with a Historical Faith on more slender Grounds than what is of great Moment or the Consequences of Believing which is of great Advantage or in Convenience Matters that we build an Article of Faith on or that our Christian Practice yea or that any great Worldly Interest dependeth on the Truth or Falshood of what is told us have need to have Credentials proportioned to the Stress that is to be laid on them And therefore I yield so far to this Author that he shall not be obliged to believe what we assert in this Matter unless we bring such Evidences as the Matter requireth and is capable of 2. The Credibility of a Historian must bear some Proportion to the Degree of Assent that we are to give to the thing narrated If our Author will have us to look on any History as an infallible and irrefragable Ground of our Belief he must give us more than the Testimony of Men or the best Historians who are not Divinely Inspired As I have shewed Section 3. § 31 35. on the other hand we talk not so high of the Historical Evidence that we bring and therefore a Probability of a lower Degree than what he talketh of may serve 3. Tho the Credit of a Historian be not by it self sufficient to perswade us of the Truth of what he saith yet if it be supported by the Probability of the Thing by Circumstances that favour it or the Testimonies of others or by any good Topick from which the Truth or the Probability of the Thing may be inferred the History is not easily to be rejected 4. The Persons who write the History are to be distinguished some of them have given Evidence of their Ignorance Negligence Foolish Credulity and Listening to Fables others have manifested great Learning Industry Care to Examine what they narrate or are Attested by others to be Men of Probity Learning Wisdom and Exactness certainly more Weight is to be laid on the one tho living at some Distance from the Period he writeth of than on the other tho nearer to it 5. They who live at great Distance from any Period of Time may give great Light concerning what was done in it if they do not barely Assert what they Fancy nor Measure the Things of that Period according to the Opinions Customs the Dialect
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 one of the Ministers of the City and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH EDINBURGH Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson Printer to the King 's most Excellent Majesty Anno DOM. 1697. To the Right Honourable PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT Viscount of BLASONBERRY LORD POLWARTH of POLW ARTH REDBRAES and GREENLAW c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND My Noble Lord I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns as for the State so for the Church of CHRIST as now Established in this Nation My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rulâ—rs Favour having had for many Years the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church and of the Nation In utraque fortuna and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both But what I aim at is to express the true Sense I have as I know my Brethren also to retain of your Lordships Wisdom Zeal and Fortitude encountering the Greatest of Hazards and enduring the most grievous of Hardships for that Holy Religion that ye Profess and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey The eminent Post your Lordship is now in as it is a Token of your Princes Favour and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service of another Sort and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things when ye have the Occasion and Temptation of seeking your own Things as ye did when ye Ventured and lost your All in this World for him GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble and that ye will be singly and actively for him the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work and Occasions are uncertain There will be great Peace in Reflection when our Work is at an endâ— on sincere Endeavours and Application of Mind to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship and continue your Capacity to do Him Service and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings is the earnest prayer of Edinburgh December 20 1697. My Noble Lord Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant G. R. TO THE READER THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War being for my Age Miles emeritus needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth and right Ways of GOD should be Stopped and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way when I entered on this Work nor till I had finished it After it was in the Press and some Progress made in it I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela Voâ—um Justum wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with are solidly Refuted and the main Subject that I Treat off is Handled which made me think that Bâ—ok might Supersede mine Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self and my own second Thoughts finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected And that the one Work is more Historical the other more Argumentative so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched and that two Witnesses are better than one these Considerations I say determined me not to stop the Press And indeed the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors on the slenderest Grounds should be exposed as much as may be while they Build so Important Truths and Practices and press them so warmly on Phrases Words and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients which signified quite another thing then than what now they are commonly applyed to The Learned Clericus in his Preface to Ars Critica Sect. 3. at the end hath these Words here very apposite Quot quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur in numerato habere qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt nempe Vocabula nuda didicerant aut Voces quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery And in that Case Thou art Peter and on this Rock will I Build my Church and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time doth infer his sole Power seing as our Lord in another Place giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters as well as they several times mention that of Bishops without mentioning Presbyters No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case ERRATA PAge 1. line 16. read Principle p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems p. 50. l. 5. r. James p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses p. 150. l. 36. r. them p. 181. l. 37. r. approved p. 186. l. 37. r. great p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank p. 199.
of one person to wit a Prelate The major cannot be called in question for if it were otherways Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution which to imagine is most absurd For the minor Proposition Christs Injunction is tell it to the Church which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work never a single person acting by himself I need not here debate with Erastians who by the Church understand the Magistrate nor with Independents who hence argue for the peoples Church power these my present Antagonists condemn as well as I do But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy whether over the whole Church as Papists or over the several Districts in the Church as Prelatists both of them agree in this that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person and by the Church must here understand such a person Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self First the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone next that failling of its effect he must take the Assistance of two or three if this prevail not he must bring the Matter to a greater number to wit the Church The learned Drusius on this Text citeth the Passage out of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which sheweth that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church and that as their Discipline as the name of the Book importeth After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step as the Text doth he addeth Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit debet eum pudefacere coram multis ejusque delictum publicare which sheweth that the third Step of Reprehension among them was not to tell the Crime to a single person wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church it is not like he meant a single person however of more Authority than the two or three § 10. A second Proof of this is the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is never so used but always signifieth a Plurality why should it then be so used here 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear he doth not speak of that Church as a single person what ye shall bind and what ye shall loose 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender as what may consist of a very small number two or three v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sutlif de Pontif Rom lib primo c 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a Bishop in his District his words are Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes intelliguntur Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae fieri non potest repugnat enim natura nomen Ecclesiae quae est congregatio ex pluribus in uno consistere si propriè loquimur non potest repugnat deinde Patrum interpretatio qui una voce non unum Pontificem sed Episcopos praesidentes Eccelesiae seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches and not to the Universal Church only and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation is unaccountable It is here objected by some that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim not of the Christian Church and this they pretend to prove because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican To this I reply first if in the Jewish Church where was an High Priest there was not a Monarchical Government much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church which then was presently to be set up is evident because this Injunction is given to the Apostles who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them is expresly given and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven Mat. 16 19 John 20 23 This alluding to Jewish Customes and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans is no Argument against what I have said this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles yea with the Prophets long before to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly without a Bishop set over them Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters is not of Divine Right The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants It is a most irrational fancy that the Apostles in their own time allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone For first this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters that not only they had no right to but which did belong to others by Divine Institution 2. What ground is there to say that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had This is a Fiction that no account can be given of Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument which I must prove by Instances § 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed not only by the Apostles connivance but by his express Direction and Approbation as in the case of the incestuous man 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers and not a single person had power to censure that man is proved first the Apostle v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication they were not duely affected with the Crime and did not mourn for it neither did set about censuring of it both these were the effects of thei◠not being so sensible of the
Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus 2 Tim 2 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there and mentioneth him as sent to them Ephes 6 21 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus as to assign that See to Timothy and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned than of Ephesus § 13. I hope 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria for it is probable that Philip was now Called to an higher Office and so might leave his Deaconship to another or he might return to his Work at Jerusalem seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere as we find in Timothy Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court or Forreign Churches If they be constantly Abroad and especially if they were never more setled in a particular Place save that such a Man was sent to Preach and do other Ministerial Work there for a time we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place If the Council of Chalcedon Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus which I find not in Caranza nor is it said by the Council Bibthoth Concil but by one Man Obiter Leontius Bishop of Magnesia Tom. 4. p. 700. it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church which he might do in the short time he stayed there and from that time there had been so many Bishops that is Ministers or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries during that time This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People nor the sole or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus from the Power he was to Exercise and the Work he was to do there which he asserteth to be all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop And he insisteth at length from the Epistles written to Timothy to shew what was his Power and Work We do not contest with him about this as himself confesseth p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to only we deny his being fixed there and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary fixed Officer but as the Apostles Deputy set there for a time to do what the Apostle might have done if he had been personally there He was an Evangelist and as such Acted in Ephesus and wherever else he was imployed That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus is by some imagined without all ground He was imployed here and there by the Apostle and where-ever he had Work he was to manage it according to these Directions It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus that 1 Tim 3 14 15 It is told him that the Apostle gave him these Directions that if he should tarry longer from coming to him he might know how to behave himself in the House of God For all this may agree to any Church as well as to that of Ephesus and it cannot be said which followeth of Ephesus alone that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Wherefore the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone but for all Pastors of the Church far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour Neither do we now Debate whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus which may be granted while he abode there but whether he had a fixed Relation to it so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop § 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient but successive and perpetual and derived to others in solidum as he received it himself and this he proveth because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also Here is still a Mistake of the Question which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers He demandeth p. 109 110. somethings to be granted to him some of which I freely yield 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus viz. for a time 3. That it was committed to him alone and not to a Colledge of Presbyters This I yield so far that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power that was superior to that of the Presbytery but it is no Consequence Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time Ergo the Presbytery was not ordinary Rulers of that Church I proved § 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations The first part of this I deny the grounds are mentioned in the place cited Beside it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them 1 Tim 3. 1 c. The second part I freely yield that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters nor to any Man except the Apostle who sent him but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop unless he could prove each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person this I yield understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to 6. That this Authority was 〈◊〉 in it self temporary transient or extraordinary but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages This also sano sensu I yield it must always be lodged somewhere but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power I know no lasting necessity for that I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust there is need of an extraordinary Officer A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first till ordinary Men were by him Authorized and Impowered to propagate this Trust but that being done we plead for no such need but Debate against it Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders
The Apostolate included that and more That he might be called a Bishop and was sometimes so stiled we may easily grant for that word is sometimes used generally for all Church Rulers and not only Apostles but their and our great Master is so called 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions nor all of them in Conjunction will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem in the sense of the word that is now current that is that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church inferior to an Apostle and an Evangelist whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District and not extended to all the World Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses particularly Clem. Alexandr and Hegesippus I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr tho I will not yield that all his Adversaries grant it in his sense Salmasius whom he citeth saith nothing but that he abode at Jerusalem The Answer to this Argument is easie the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients or Moderns either ascribe to a Bishop and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle or Apostolick Man as Peter at Rome tho it is certain he did not reside there and it is a Question whether ever he was there And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time in the Dialect that was current among themselves His Argument from this Denomination is naught unless he can make it appear that James had his Authority not from his Apostolate but by his being ordained a Bishop I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James before his Ordination as Bishop had Authority as an Apostle but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place but was a Pastor sine titulo for this strange fancie will infer that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where seing they were no where ordained Bishops nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James § 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James Acts 12. 17. Where saith he very wisely the deference paid to Saint James is visible and taken notice of elsewhere frequently as Gal 1 19 and 2. 1 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion for Peters Supremacy I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning is not ashamed of such an Argument Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace Gifts and his Character but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop but the strongest Argument is yet behind Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority but there was no need of either of them he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case is evident for the rest of the Apostles were present Act. 15. 2 4 6 22. And it was never heard of but among Papists that one Apostle had Authority over another or over all the rest much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority that he will make it break and be contemptible He telleth us Calvin holdeth all that he saith on Gal 2 9 in saying that James was preferred to Peter because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins fortassis which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly and let him make his best of it Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting because of his Residence at Jerusalem and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held not as Bishop but as Apostle this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity but in a Parity with the other Elders with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter when spoken of Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments cannot go out of his Road in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries I do not saith he now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries If they were such they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used § 20. Another Argument he beginneth p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches if they were so the Consequence is that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters This Argument hath been much tossed and in my Opinion urged with more Strength by others of his Party than he giveth to it For clearing the Truth in this Matter I shall give my Opinion and lay down the Grounds of it and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels The first is that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church for this our Author citeth Salmasius Walo Messal p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus is also cited by Smectym and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret his Words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion as is said by August de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in these Epistles but John was commanded to write them to the Churches Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches and not to the Ministers only which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel not that they were the Angel Another Opinion is that of Beza Reynolds and others who take Angel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a single person but maintain that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
Knox in this matter which meerly to save time I shall not concern my self in Ans. It being evident that in our first Setlement of Discipline our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie negative Arguments from the Writing or sayings of private Men are insignificant and it is less to the purpose to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said or Written any thing to the contrarie directly or indirectly For his Debate about John Knox I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing and against Christs Institution That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline is falsly supposed p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it of which after § 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount of what influence England had on our Reformation from Popery whence he inferreth that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England Here he undertaketh two things 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion the Government and Policy of the Church For Ans. to this Argument it is wholly inconsequential if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned except the last about the Government and Policy of the Church and even that signifieth nothing unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy and not for Paritie and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things and shall consider his last Article and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it The Reader without my Animadversion will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey and fawning on another Nation This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England which he insisteth on from p. 7. it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy is less to his Question which is only about Government We never thought that our Reformers at first were all of the same Principle with us in all things I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church Yea themselves had afterward other thoughts of some things than they had at first as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first which afterward he rejected I observe further that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers his best ground for what he affirmeth is it is not to be imagined that they did so and so or it is to be presumed We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy that so it must be If I thought it worth the while I would Examine these Histories more narrowly But I could easily yield him all without prejudice to our Cause seing the Principles of our Reformers are better known by their publick Deeds than by the private Sayings or Practices of two or three of them and these not sufficiently attested These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies by which she had been burdened but that all or most of them were satisfied with their Government and Discipline is the Question and is not Proved by what he hath said It is least of all Concludent that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland which he laboureth to Prove p. 80. and it is unaccountable that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England that they were of the same Religon with us which he puteth in majusculis we say the same of them at this day and I hope they think not otherwise of us and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini If he can find a Contradiction here let him try his Skill to discover it It is an odd method that he useth p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy because it was natural for the English who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it And I Prove they were not for it because de facto they did not setle it but a way inconsistent with it Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent We do not find that the English made such a Demand and if they did not they acted like discreet Neighbours not to impose on their Brethren who had other sentiments of the Matter and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion And if they made such a Demand the Event shewed that it was not listned to For his Citation of Buchannan p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions who can hope to find the place I know not what Buchannan could mean by it but it is evident if the Scots did so subscribe they did not act accordinglie which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way It is nauseous to repeat with him so often the Godly Conjunction the Unity Peace and Christian Concord that was then made between England and Scotland and to set forth this as a Demonstration Yea a Set of Demonstrations that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate in the Face of Matter of Fact that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church § 6. He undertaketh p. 96. and forward to prove that at the Reformation the English Lyturgy was used in this Church If this should be granted it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also they wanted qualified Ministers so that there was need of some help to them in Praying and Instructing the People publikly and it may
to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
qua Ferias Ethnicorum seu clavum clavo pellerent sed quis dicet hunc Zelum secundum Scripturam qui omni adeo verbo Exemplo Scripturae careat moreque rationem humanam secuta est Alting in Exeges Confess August Art 15. p. 93. giveth account that the Lutherans objected to the Zuinglians that they had no Holy Days except the Lords Day I hope here are some Christian Churches on our side Danaeus beside what I have cited out of him before hath these Words Eth. Christian. lib. 2. cap. cap. 10. Nobis hodie eosdem dies observare nihil necesse est And after Itaque neque dies illos colere aut observare necesse est aut operae proetium And below Apparet quanta superstitio postea inducta sit multitudo istorum dicrum Festorum ut omnino tolli satiùs sit Thes. Salmur in a Disputation on this Subject by Capellus commends these Churches which in their Reformation did quite abolish them it is evident then that such Churches there were and we are not contrary to all Christian Churches and he giveth his Reason in religione enim quando vel tantillum a Dei praescripto disceditur homines aliquid sibi licere volunt aut putant omnia tuta timenda sunt siquidem experientià comprobatum est a quam exiguis imperceptibilibus initiis mirus facius sit in Idololatriam horrendam superstitionem in Ecclesia Pontificia progressus And after Ut satius esse videatur bono aliquo utili sed minus necessario carere quam ex illius usu incurrere in grave grandis alicujus mali periculum Here I confess this Author doth not expresly condemn the Holy Days as simply unlawful yet he is far from allowing them Rivet on the fourth Command discourseth to the same purpose I find also cited Constitutiones Dordraci 1578. Where are these Words optandum esset libertatem sex diebus operandi a Deo concessam in Ecclesiis retineri solum diem Dominicum feriatum esse What is said may sufficiently evince that Presbyterians in this are not so Antarctick to all the World as he imagineth though it is their Principle to take the Apostolick Church and none other for their Guide yet with due respect to all other sound Churches both Ancient and Modern § 13. He passeth over in silence not a few of the most material Passages and what is truly Argumentative in the Book that he hath now under Consideration and pitcheth on two Instances that he had given and I had Answered of Anniversary Holy Days instituted by the Jewish Church whence he pleadeth that the Christian Church may do the like the first is the Fasts mentioned Zech. 15. The Answer to this was given 1. God disowned these Fasts and if it be alledged that they were disowned only on Account of Neglect of Seriousness in Managing them that must be proved His Reply is He leaves us to Guess what Word of Scripture he buildeth this Fancy upon I crave him Pardon for that Omission himself supplieth it p. 173. it is verse 5. Did ye Fast to me He saith that imports only that they were Careless c. in their Publick Appearance before God and sheweth that as much or more hath been said of Solemnities that Christ himself appointed all which we deny not neither do I doubt that so much is imported yea and mainly aimed at in that Passage Their Profaneness and Irreligiousness did bear more Bulk in the Prophets Eye than their Superstition I indeed call for Proof that no more is here reproved but their wrong Way of going about these Fasts And I give this Reason for that Demand though it is a Negative that is to be proved as he stateth it He bringeth an Argument from a Practice which God expresly disowneth It is evident that there was Sinful Evil in this Action he must then prove that there was also some Good in the Action otherwise he can draw no Argument from it to prove its Acceptableness the Management of this Solemnity was Evil that cannot prove these Holy Days to have been accepted for on that account expresly they are disowned the Controversie is about the Authority by which they were appointed to wit the Churches we say that could never make them Good he saith it doth here is then an Affirmative that he must prove But to please him for this once I shall prove that these Fasts are disowned on this account also though it be not here expressed This Action is simply condemned viz. their Fasting the Lord looketh not on it as done to Him therefore all the Sinfulness that is in it is to be lookt on as the Ground of this Disowning that want of Divine Institution was one part of the Sinfulness of it I prove because in general under which this Particular is comprehended all Religious Acts or Solemnities which have no Divine Authority are condemned Matth. 15. 9. and by other Grounds that I have above laid down If there be two or more Sorts of Immorality in one Action no doubt both are condemned in that Action though but one of them be expressed as in this Instance Jer. 7. 31. in that Infanticide there was Idolatry and most Unnatural Murther and also Will-Worship the Action is simply condemned but only the Evil of Will-Worship is mentioned which thing I Commanded not neither came it into my Mind will any say that the other Evils of that Action are not condemned nor the Action for them because they are not mentioned in that Place Wherefore from an Action so positively condemned he can make no Argument for its Lawfulness which is our Debate about the Fasts unless he can aliunde prove that this was no Fault in that Action that it had no Divine Authority for to suppose it is to take for granted what is the Matter of our Debate From all this it appeareth that he hath no Ground to say that if the Jews had had regard to the Moral Institutions their Solemn Fasts had been acceptable to God though appointed by Humane Authority neither is there Cause to reject this Exposition as new seing there is such Ground for it He next taketh notice of another Answer given to his Objection The Prophets had many things of greater Moment to reprove and insist particularly on that they contented themselves to comprehend such things as these under general Reproofs Hence he infers that these were not particularly reproved What Advantage were it to him if this were granted is it not enough that they are clearly condemned in general general Terms But this Consequence we will not yield it only followeth that other things of more Moment are in some Places of Scripture mentioned when these are not But there are particular Reproofs of these in other Places as hath been above shewed and will more appear anone § 14. I shall now adduce another Answer to his Argument which might take off its Force supposing that these Fasts were not
condemned by the Lord which yet I do not grant but approved They were appointed under a present Calamity and Providential Call from the Lord viz. the Captivity and Desolation of Judea and the Temple Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion and they only determined the Circumstance of Time which was not determined by the Lord nor any other Appointment was made by God which might superâ—â—de this recurrent Solemnity Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them now that Calamity was over Some might plead long Custom on the one hand others with more Reason might plead that the Cause being taken away the Effect should cease as Calvin on the Place observeth This cannot be said of our Holy Days which are appointed to Perpetuity and without any determined End and also for the Ends these are designed for I mean our Holy Days the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies I add yet another Answer these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time and State of the Church which cannot afford us a binding Example and we have no Ground to think that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time these Fasts were continued what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned which he next examineth p. 175. c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day that God had not instituted His Answer to this is that this is to Disguise Scripture History Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry and Worshipping the Calves but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem he ought not to have been blamed To this I Reply that this is a very surprising Answer and I know not that any beside himself hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church And if this Doctrine be received no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church before Christ's Incarnation or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced can be condemned let them appoint and do what they will only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value or Necessity of these Devices of â—â—n And if this Principle be good why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution Further Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason that the Time was Devised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Created of his own Heart he made it of nothing there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of these Days as they will provided they design to Worship the true God on them It is a strange Dream to use his own Word to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account for which he is so expresly condemned no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast is a new Opinion beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into § 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God and yet made Anniversary by Men is Matth. 15. 9 In vain do they Worship me Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies in general and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant as a Species comprehended under that Genus This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at as Ridiculous and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture wherein I think he is Singular and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others which he superciliously rejecteth it is this Teaching for Doctrines in the Language of the New Testament is affirming such a thing to be the Command or immediate Will of God when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that is the Crime here reproved It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of what beareth Analogie to that what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command which is but Mans Device we cannot tell unless he shall please in his next Edition to inform us For his Exposition it self it is no way to be admitted nor can he prove by Instances that this is the Language of the New Testament I am sure this Place cannot be so understood For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place Religious Washing of Pots Tables Cups c. Dotations made to Corban the Church Treasure with Neglect of Relieving their Necessâ—tous Parents now that the Jews did ever pretend or Teach that these were the Commands or immediate Will of God more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church I think he will never be able to prove all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things so far as either Scripture or other History doth inform us is that these Things ought to be observed that it is Sin and Schism and therefore Censurable to neglect them and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies and the Holy Days in particular He citeth Hammond Practi Catechis p. 203 but telleth us not what he saith for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author in that Place he Citeth where he seemeth to speak in another Strain in his Notes on this Scripture his Words are My Commands are not Heeded by them but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly Luc. Brugâ—â—â— docentes id est sequentes ipsi alios docentes ut sequantur Also Interpreters generally and among them Hammond himself look on 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as what is meant by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they Taught these Commands their Doctrine was that they should be obeyed and the Things practised but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God He hath an incoherent Passage p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament for Celebrating the Christian Festivities We know that they
the Dark what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside or must be retained for his consuâ—tudo universae Ecclesiae first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles or to make her infallible not only in Fundamentals but even on Government and Ceremonies The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them § 23. He Vindicateth himself p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience by telling us that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed as the Papists If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self and that the Church hath Power to institute them I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed that the Church Commandeth it I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience or Egregiously to Triâ—â—e He hath next a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine of which before In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course This he Treateth in Ridicule not I suppose because he cannot but because he will not understand it We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary a Day for Civil Solemnity appointed by men may be such nor because it is set apart for Religious Use an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work and Man determineth the Day is lawful as is the perpetual recurrent Lords Day appointed by God nor thirdly do we quarrel these Days merely because they want a special Divine Warrant because Anniversary Days for Civil Use might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is the Complex Nature of these Days that they are wholly separated from Civil Use as the Lords Day is that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion and all this not by Divine but by Humane Authority If there be any Raving or any thing unintelligible in this I shall be content to be Instructed by him or any who is of his Opinion Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful considered under several Circumstances which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly are Unlawful for Instance the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly Monethly or Weekly if need be yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day in Case of Necessity yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should without Necessity meet every Year every Moneth or every Week on the Sabbath Day He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles or Apostolick times These are his Words though in his Review of them here he seemeth to Smooth them a little He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances I love not to contend about Words nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself but I leave it to the Reader to judge whither it may not be so Termed when one insulteth over his Adversary as having great and evident Advantage against him when yet there is no Cause for so thinking and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting or whatever he will call it while he insinuateth the Universality the Antiquity and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety on account of their differing from them while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about § 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason therefore such Constitutions as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in have nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion This was called loose Arguing because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed in place of the second Proposition His Defence is No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion he telleth us that Clamours against them so he termeth our Reasons destroy all Unity and Order about things not only Innocent but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency here is yet more loose Arguing while he supposeth still the thing in Question We deny their Innocency also their usefulness and must do so till we see better Arguments for what is asserted the Apostolick Churches did not use them whence we may with Confidence conclude that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion yea it is no weak Consequence if we infer that they thought them unlawful being none of these things which Christ had Commanded nor his Apostles Taught That they were not forbidden is Answered above they are forbidden in general and that is enough That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church without them and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies His Syllogism that he presenteth us with p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings it is whatever is agreeable to true Reason is rather improved than condemned by Religion but such Constitutions he must mean the Holy Days are agreeable to true Reason Ergo there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism of the Rightness of which he is confident it may easily be reduced to Form by a little Change of the Conclusion here is indeed closs Reasoning but it is not concludent Reasoning for we deny the Minor though he attempteth its Proof both in prosecuting the first and the second Proposition I am not fond of his Method of Probation he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress but that is a small Matter I except against his Proof in what is more material that all Nations are agreed in this and this is the best
only Schism to depart fâ—om a Church without just cause that we have been joyned to but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians when it is possible for us and when we can do it without Sin the former may be called a â—ositive this a negative Separation 4. Schism may be also called Positive or negative in another Sense the former when a Partie in a Church doth not joyn with the Church yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church whereof they were Members the later when they set up such a distinct Societie there may be just Causes for both The first When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to because of some Corruption that I must partake of if I joyn but I partake with some other more pure Societie The second When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin nor can they have the occasion of a Societie where they might joyn they must either live without Ordinances or set up another Religious Societie on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches 5. There may be a partial Separation when one Ordinance is so corrupted that we cannot joyn in it and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion and a total Separation when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service unless we joyn in all or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous The former by most wise and sober Men is not reckoned such a Schism as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account but the Author I now Debate with aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism as also do many of â—is Partizans driving many Consciencious and good Men from them for the sake of some Usages which themselves count indifferent and the others apprehend to be unlawful 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters especially when Managed with heat and animosities may be called Schiâ—m according to the import of the Word yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism they are not to be so reputed unless some kind of separation or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another follow upon them Diversitie of Opinion and of Affection are sinful evils but it is diversitie of Religious Practice following on these that maketh ChurchiSchism 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other and often neither side is wholly innocent they who have cause to separate may manage their Good cause by evil Methods and in a way that is not wholly Commendable now to know on which side the blame of the Schism â—ieth we must not always conclude that they are in the fault 1. Who are the fewer Number otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful Nor 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers themselves being in Possession of Church Authority for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis Nor 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority and hath the Law on its side not only because it is the Gospel not the Law of the Land that is the Rule of our Religion and Church Practice but also because that is variable and by that Rule they who were the sound Partie one year may be Schismaticks the other without any Change in their Principles or Practice which is absurd Wherefore the blame of Schism in that case lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide or who though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause every thing that we may justly blame not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church Hence it plainly followeth that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is there is the Church and they who have most of these are the soundest Church § 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism and where the Blame of it lieth I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church about Schism it is evident that they did Oppose it and set forth its Sinfulness and sad Consequences with a great deal of Zeal and that justly for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side or the other but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order of the inward and outward Practice of Religion and of Mens Souls and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians that they think well of Schism that is truely such or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard and Fatal Effects of it nay our Principle is that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church yea that nothing can Warrant or Excuse it but the Necessity of shuning Sin It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks as also of Heretick and that often proceeded from a true though mistaken Zeal for lovely Truth and beautiful Unity at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities that they as all Men are were Subject to Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Father 's called several Practices Schism and shewed a great dislike of them all As 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church as Schism and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed under this Head which I shall not now mention it being my Work at present only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about and blameth People for as Schismaticks and Sectaries which they laid no such stress on They bare with one another though they Dissered in Rites and several Customs They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent but maintained Peace and Concord notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus reproving Victor of Rome where Usurpation and imposing on others early began for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind and yet they did lovingly Communicate together The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Some think they should
a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council but brought in by civil Custom and so made decent that it was a fault to do otherways so it were a fault among us for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb which Custom hath made such Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship and in that case it is Religion or Worship it self being Designed that by it GOD may be Honoured tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism yet it is a piece of Worship it self being devised for a Sacred signification and being peculiar to Religion this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it § 3. His Third Argument or Axiom is that we ought to express our Adâ—ration in the publick Worship of GOD by such significant Signs of Piety and Devotion as are known in that Nation where we live to express our Reverence and Esteem The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him If he speak of natural or civil â—ites that is Actions or Gestures or Things that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive we yield all that he saith but if he mean Religious Rites or Ceremonies that is such Things Actions or Gestures as have no place nor are not lookt on as so Expressive in any other Solemnity but in Religion I deny his Assertion for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation which is peculiar to Religion and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority So as it is neither made decent by Nature nor by Custom in other Solemnities or Actions nor enjoyned by Divine Authority it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST Hence we can allow Sighing lifting up the Hands or Eyes in Worship Nature hath made them Expressive also a grave and decent Garb because civil Custom hath made that â—it Also using Water in the Baptism and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful but the Cross in Baptism the Surplice c. we cannot allow because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these but only from Mans will His Fourth Assertion is these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the â—ge or Country with whom we have to do and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors as oâ—t as there is sufficient Reason of which they only are the Judges Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies Some because of their ineptitude the Bulk of them because of their Number being a Burden but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples or Fetters he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope or any Church-Rulers yea or Rulers of the State please to have it no other thing but their Opinion and Will can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies That the Ceremonies we Contend about I mean Religious Ceremonies are indifferent in their own Nature he supposeth but this is not to Instruct but to Hoodwink the Reader for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies It hath a general Nature as it is such an Action V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child let that pass for indifferent It hath also a particular Nature as it standeth in such Circumstances viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism as it is Stated in Religion and appointed to it and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual end is put on it and all this not by CHRISTS but by Mans Authority we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature while it is thus Considered as it must needs be in this Debate But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship it is said without all Warrant that our Superiors may Determine and take away this Indifferencie and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when and as often as they see Reason so to do tho no Body else can see any such Reason This is to make our Superiours absolute and to give them an arbitrarie Power in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion and in which it is nearly concerned Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear as the Apostle saith Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Worship which are not Determined in the Word and yet must be Determined but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit is not to be Admitted § 4. He telleth us p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent this his Assertion could be not Opposed but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent even in Worship which are Learned at the Dancing School which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions or by Divine Institution we make no Objection against them but blame them who neglect them but for Motions that Men will call decent without ground from any of these we make Objections which yet have not been sufficiently Answered against their being Injoyned in â—â—orship which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue He saith we allow all these VVhat he meaneth by so saying I cannot Divine we allow Vocal Expressions and Bodily Motions too that such of them as are fit should be used But we do not allow that the Church by her own Authority without such Warrant as is above-mentioned should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE I think Revelation had as early and as effectual a hand in it after the Fall I confess Nature
the Worship of God he owneth no such Ceremonies if we speak properly what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony it is a Civil Rite and may well be used in Religion he repeateth also his former Mistake as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion but not Church Authority our Opinion in which I have made plain to them who will understand what we say I have also Answered his Question how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent while a Religious Ceremony appropriated to Religion if it be of Humane Appointment whether by the Authority of Church or State is not so I deny what he so confidently asserteth p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing is of Humane Appointment neither is his Proof of it sufficient viz. that it hath no Divine Institution for what is brought in and gets its Use and Significany by Civil Custom is a Middle between these 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies with which he filleth several Pages with a nauseous saying the same thing in Words little different The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church which he insinuateth as an Argument cannot justifie it if it be appropriated to Religion and had no Divine Original We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath whether it came in by Civil Custom or Ecclesiastick Authority Let them who use it Answer such Doubts or rather let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature from Civil Custom or from Divine Institution if it be destitute of all these he should prove not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it It is absurd to say that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction are under that Reduplication to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament when enjoyned by Law it is not the Civil Authority but Rites being used in Civil Actions and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom that giveth them that Denomination § 8. He Starteth a Scruple p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said nor any where else that I know but in his Imagination It is If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions and another in Religious Worship Quaeritur Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship A. No. Because its â—awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities tho in a different Signification If he find any Body asserting that let him call such Persons Absurd Ridiculous Foolish c. at his Pleasure as he very freely calleth us on that Imaginary Account but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us I shall give him no Epithet but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries that might Fright us into Silence as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God little and idle frivolous Impertinencies And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain I never met with it before and I have seen few that are of less weight It is that the Apostle Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death c. To strengthen this Argument he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews and by Christians that it is founded on no Divine Institution but on the Practice of the Jewish Church and thence derived to Christians and was never established by any other Authority but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical He telleth us this Custom was so known that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking of their Circumcision but not one Word of Immersion He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions That Scripture Example for it is but the Consequence of itâ— being Pracâ—ised and supposeth it At last to make all sure he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools with which this Soaring Eagle thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted that is to put his Argument into â—â—gical â—orm and â—igure thus a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Divâ—… Institution and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self But the Ceremony of Immersion in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution and yet alluded to by Saint Paul is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church Ergo such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God founded on no Divine Institution is in it self lawful I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument than he hath framed it If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising I should observe that he flyeth so high as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form for all his pretending to it for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism only he hath altered the Word putting such a Significant Ceremony for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul other Informalities in it I pass it is below him to mind them Aquila non captat Muscas For a more material Answer I first deny the Major as thus universally proposed Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness as I have proved § 6. Next I deny the Minor I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution which I prove 1. Because it is here mentioned as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism which Ordinance Christ had appointed it were a strange â—ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism and not told them who were to Administer it what He meant by it or what they should do Next Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution tho we be not obliged to that Exactness yet I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded every one knoweth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to Dip or Plunge in Water and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing or â—insing as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be