the Order Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them as the Patrons of them do on the Matter confess when they tell us that these and all the rest of the Ceremonies are in themselves and antecedently to the Churches imposing them indifferent Beside not the Principle only or the Opinion that Men have about these Days is condemned in these Scriptures but the Practice it self § 7. Our Fourth Reason is the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People which the LORD doth not allow Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things but that of Christ to have him for their only Law-giver James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church but to declare his Laws and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them Wherefore when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed and no more if Men will enjoyn moe Days they make Laws of their own and bring the People under their Yoke which is not Christs And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks and it is as much Bondage if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed because the Religious Solemn Work on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow is determined by the Lord and intimated to us by his Providence the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day rather than that If it be said that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes why not then for Religious Reasons Answer Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things though restraint from Work is the same in both so is not the occasion the one must be chosen by the LORD the other may by Men. Beside that Magistrats must have some good Ground for such Restraint otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD though obeyed by the People I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by A symbolizing with the Papists without Necessitie It is Superstition being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath the LORDS Day as a Name of distinction from other Days but it could be no distinguishing Name if the Nativitie Circumcision c. were all Dedicated to our LORD for every one of these were the LORDS Day as well as it And therefore when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day we could not know whether it was Christmass day or Easter day or Good Friday or the first of January the Circumcision Day or some ordinary first day of the Week § 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days and against our Opinion He sayeth p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption with all possible Zeal gratitude and Solemnity If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends we shall lay our hand on our Mouth and not mutter against them but if they be so Appointed by Men we ask quo warranto CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends particularly the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption this do in remembrance of Me if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption I shall further Debate this with him by and by Mean while I observe that he is beyond many of his Brethren who disown the Mysterie of these Days and all Religious Worship in the Observation of them and set them no higher than that they are for Decencie Order and Policie And himself some times when it is for his purpose seemeth to be of the same mind as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself from the Abuse of them which alas is too notour and gross and frequent His Answer is so may the most Holy Exercises and the highest Mysteries and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion or so universally useful in Nature against which some such Objection may not be started I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both should so superficially Propose so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on and his Answer so fully refuted Doth he not know if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises Mysteries of Religion or things universally useful in Nature yea or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small should be Abandoned because Abused The Abuse should be Reformed and the thing retained But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things which have no intrinsick Necessitie nor Command of GOD to injoyn them these we say and have often Proved it should be removed when grosly and frequently Abused and that the Holy Days are so indifferent I think he will not deny if he do deny it he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them not only against the Presbyterians but also against his own Partie who reckon them among the Indifferent things the Regulating of which is in the Courches Power § 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk as he calleth him about this verie Matter and particularly about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity which we call Christmass The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it will find that the most part and the most material Passages and what is most Argumentative in that Book to this purpose are passed over in silence and but a few things touched The first thing he is pleased to Notice is I had said the Question is not about the Commemoration of it the Nativity of CHRIST but whether this Commemoration should be by an
Reply but the words of Psalms 12. 3 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaketh proud things who have said with our tongue will we prevail our lips are our own who is Lord over us and Psal. 120. 3 4. What shall be given unto thee or what shall be done unto thee O false tongue We can answer his Arguments and are willing to be Instructed by him and attacked that way But who can stand before this kind of Topicks I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure only by Division and Singularitie save this Author p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author But it is evident that the strain of both is the same I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour taught by his Apostles and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate But I cannot overlook his suposing that we reject certain Ritualls and practises which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture and the uniform Belief of all Christians If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such we shall correct our Opinion about them § 8. He layeth some Foundations p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute which we cannot allow as first that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order and Discipline under which Head he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church It is to be lamented that even in Doctrine there was not that Unitie that was fit in the Primitive times we read of many Heresies early broached for Order it was not the same among all there were sad Schisms as well as Heresies and for Ritualls we find no General Rule they agreed in for Ordering them save the Word of GOD contained in the Scriptures For General Councills that medled most with these were later than the times we speak of And it is well known what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them such as the time of observing Easter Yea the first Churches had different Ritualls about which they made no Divisions but used Christian forbearance Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this which is C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi Iraeneus reproving Victor for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And at large sheweth that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were from uniformity in their Fasting Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat in the frequency of Communicating about the time and manner of Baptising about the time and degrees of publick penance placing the Altar or Communion Table c. It is evident then that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of They minded things of higher moment and greater necessity § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals they the Primitive Christians strenghned themselves against Infidels and Hereticks This Assertion with respect to Rituals is wild and absurd not only because such Uniformity was not found nor much regarded among them as hath been shewed but also because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion could afford them no strength more than an Army is the stronger by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour It was their Unity in the Truths of God their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule and their Love and forbearance of one another in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ in these as the Means did their strength ly Yet another strange Position he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians which never hath yet been proved and affirmeth that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity and consequently we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family His Supposition which p. 11. and often else where he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate is groundless as I hope will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition His Assertion is false and dangerous For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches where several of the Constitutions he talketh of were practised by some and neglected or despised by others as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio and many others 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God there were Debates in the primitive Churches and some differed from that which was generally held and yet they were not Excommunicated but dealt with by more soft Means and born with till the Lord should enlighten their Mind according to the Apostles direction Phil. 3. 15 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church but of few others to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing even in Rituals this is not the Spirit of the Gospel If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians his Assertion cannot be contradicted yet it may be Ridiculed for that is impossible for any who is a Christian to do but if he speak of what is commonly received this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine or Ceremony even though they Dissent never so modestly and this will Authorize all the Severities of the Inquisition Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them § 10. What followeth doth surmount all that we have heard p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters must be received as the infallible Truth of God else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages from the Combinations of Hereticks And a little below The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors I make here two Observes before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted The former is that may be through oversight he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining or decisive Power about what must be received as the
and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with or we can charge on them which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church and we say the same of Parity and herein lyeth the Question 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name but the power of a Bishop The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where for the power of a Bishop as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter We deny not that very early in the primitive Church the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed and had that place during life and due management of his Office and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings and was subject to their Censures But our Brethren are not content with this but affirm that by Divine Institution and primitive Practice the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively that is over the Pastors and people which other Presbyters had not and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations which we call a Diocess and also intensive that is that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction It is true some of them shun the word of sole power and call it but a Majority of power which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion and inconsistent with their own practice for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis but only in partem sollicitudinis they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector and as a Judge in that they can do no act of power without his allowance and he by himself may censure them and cannot be censured by them even in their collective Capacity yea they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will not necessitie or obligation that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats It is true some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter but these things are held by many in terminis and particularly all this must be owned by this Author though he giveth us no distinct account of his Principles seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church and that in their Rectoral Power which he describes p. 97. to Preach Govern the Church give Rules and Directions to their Successors and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks to inflict Censures c. This power Apostolical he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age talketh high of this Power ' of the Bishops Majesty Monarchy singular Prerogatives which I have else where examined § 4. It is to be considered 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians who ascribe this power to the Bishop about the Foundation of it or how he cometh by it some of them say that Christ while he was on Earth Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops and made this difference between them and Presbyters This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth while Iren p 197. he saith that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church in actu primo to all Ministers of the Gospel others make it to be of Apostolick Institution affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension did appoint it About this we contend not but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable if either of these can be proved for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God Others again hold that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time and that it was brought in by Custume which obtained in process of time and by degrees but being of such reverend Antiquity and practised by the Fathers and all the primitive Churches it may not be altered There are also among them who say it is only Juris Ecclesiastici and was settled by the Church and may be by her Authority changed Our Opinion is it hath none of these Foundations that it was never settled by Christ nor his Apostles but that they settled the Government of the Churches by Presbyters acting in parity nor gave power to the Church or any man or men to alter this Constitution and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful § 5. Out of what hath been discoursed our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge whether the Government of the Church which by Divine appointment is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church should be by one Prelate managing it by his sole Authority and the counsel of Presbyters so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations acting with parity of power the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for I stand for the latter part of it so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government nor about what is practised by this or that Party for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed and which we can pretend no Divine right for but it is about the Essentials of it Prelacy or Parity § 6 Beâ—ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion that we hold that in all Meetings of the Church Presbyters act in perfect parity so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression if any have used it which I do not remember we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator as hath been above expressed neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that â—re only ruling nor of both above Deacons nor do we by perfect parity exclude that Influence that one by his Reason may have on others who are not so well gifted Wherefore we own a perfect parity in no other sense but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop and that he cannot act in matters of Government without their concurrence more than any of them can act without him 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine the Divine right of parity must be of dangerous consequence because it is altogether new What is to be thought of its noveltie I have shewed Sect.
Act that he had committed ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum was driven away from the Communion of the Church by his own Father on which occasion he came to Rome and attempted to be received into that Church he was rejected by the Presbyterie after which he preached his Errours in that City and made great Disturbance Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter for they tell him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power but because there is one Faith and one Agreement the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus I think its Name was Sinope and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal seing he was cast out of one Church it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent Romes Headship was not then known But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue or Fellow Labourer thy Father where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue and in no higher Degree and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority they plainly suppose that they had the same power to take in that he had to cast out but they would not irregularly exerce that power as they must have done if they had recived Marcion § 9. Another of Blondel's Citations our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt it s taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus Diaconus His Answer to this is Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices were known to the Heathen How to make the parts of this Answer hang together I know not if the Heathen knew their way why did they conceal it Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens Yea the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known that it might be seen how excellent they were And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here is a mistake for he did mention some of the Church Officers and because he mentioned no more it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking and no wonder it hath succeeded so ill with him and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen◠on Dichotomies and telleth us the Names as well as the Offices were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church and for this he citeth Usher mentioning Acta Martyrii S Ignatii but is not pleased to name Book nor Page of that learned Author who hath written many things The same he doth with Clemeus Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen but neither words nor place he mentioneth such arguings are to be neglected Blondel also citeth Papias calling all the Ministers of the Word Apostles and others from whom he had learned what he wrote Elders or Presbyters This Author will have it to be meant of their Age not Office I lay not much weight on this Testimony more than he doth But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth may be gathered from what he saith of the second John whom he mentioneth for after he had named John among the Apostles he nameth another John after Aristion and him he calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This cannot be meant of his Age when he saith John the elder for John the Apostle was older than he It must then be understood of his Office And Euseb lib 3 c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus and that the Monuments of both remained in his time Being now weary with arguing and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer He falleth to downright Railling p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary this is the way of some when they are most at a loss This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice in the Presbyterians no doubt because they will not yield to his Dictats and what he looketh on as an Argument and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients with no other design than to distort their words Before he taxeth us for not reading them now we read them but with an ill design I must tell him it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Closets and what Books we read or what inward designs we have in our reading We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients we judge not his designs in reading them he thinketh we distort them let the Reader judge Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse to support Novelties and more of this Stuff which it is not fit to answer because of the Wise Man's Advice Prov 26 4. § 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances The first is Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome and calling him a Presbyter when he was Bishop of Lyons Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop and that Photinus his Predecessor was not then dead This piece of Chronology though maintained by Eusebius and Jerome Blondel disproveth by many Authentick Records as he thinketh And now where is the want of Candor in this case Is every man who after diligent search into History doth mistake in Chronology about a Matter of Fact so disingenious and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent This I say supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion finding that Debate somewhat Intricate whether Photinus was then alive or not when Iraeneus was sent to Rome and called a Presbyter and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take about this Debate but referreth
long time though he was known to be far from such Sentiments while he lived § 15. For a second Proof of his Sense of the Passage cited out of the Book of Discipline p. 145. Knox assignes a quite other Reason than the then Necessities of the Church for the Establishment of Superintendency Superintendents and Overseers saith he were nominated that all things in the Church might be carried on with order and well this reason is perpetual Ans. How weak is this Consequence for this reason is perpetual that there should be Governours in the Church because all things might be carried with order and well but it is no reason for that sort of Governours except in so far as the present case made them necessarie so that compare this Passage with that of the Book of Discipline above cited the Sense must be Superintendents were at this time nominated that all things in the Church might be carried with good order and well there being then no possibilitie to constitute Presbyteries by which things could be so managed He citeth another Passage out of the same Book p. 289. that John Knox in a Sermon asserted the Necessitie and not the bare Expediencie of Superintendents Ans. Doth this prove a perpetual Necessitie of that Office it was then not only expedient but necessarie and this was all that was asserted Again John Knox's words are there was a Necessitie of Superintendents or Overseers that is there must be a Government in the Church and another they could not then attain that they could be satisfied with and therefore they must set up Superintendents If we duly consider this Passage it maketh much against him for supposing the Necessitie of Governours they might have thus reasoned if they had been for Bishops we must have Governours nothing hindreth to set up Bishops therefore they are necessarie at this time but this they did not do therefore they were not for Bishops But they well reasoned there must be Governours but at this time we cannot have Ministers to set up Presbyteries therefore at this time Superintendents are necessarie He bringeth another Testimonie out of Knox p. 110. it must be miscited nothing to that purpose is in that place exhorting England that every one of their Bishopricks might be made ten which he saith is a Comment on the Passage in Debate and saith hence it is clear that he was for many Bishopricks Ans. Nothing but Prejudice could suggest such a Sense of his Words he is Writing to a People which had settled Bishops among themselves he did not attempt to alter their Settlement he knew it was in vain but he advised them to what might make that way most useful and what might have brought it as near as possible to the way he was for I could tell him of just such another Passage in Doctor Wild's loyal Nonconformist though he was for no bishop at all in our Modern Sense § 16. He bringeth a third reason that this Sense of the Period accordeth exactly with the whole Tenor of the first Book of Discipline where he saith there is nothing more for the Temporaryness of Superintendency but much to the contrary Let us see then what we can further find beside the words at this time in the Book of Discipline for Superintendents being set up early for the present Necessitie of the Church And first the reason for setting them up which the Book it self giveth is temporarie to wit the Paucitie of Ministers and the Necessitie of having the Gospel preached in all the parts of the Nation If the Foundation be temporarie so must the Superstructure but this is made the Foundation of that Erection as is expressed in these words and therefore we have thought it expedient c. 2. The second Book of Discipline is a Proof of this beyond Contradiction for it owneth no Officers in the Church but Pastors Bishops or Ministers every one of which was to be fixed in a particular Congregation and Doctors and Elders and Deacons and these are said to be such as ought to continue in the Kirk as necessary for the Policy and Government of it and no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Kirk of God established according to his Word therefore all the ambitious Titles invented in the Kingdom of Antichrist and 〈◊〉 his Usurped Hierarchy which are not of these four sorts together with 〈◊〉 â—ffices depending thereon in one word ought to be rejected This second Booâ—… Discipline was but an Amendment of the first and a Suteing of it to the riper Age that the Reformed Church of Scotland had then attained but it is manifest that settling Superindents by the first Book was not designed for Perpetuitie I shall now Examine what he bringeth against the designed Temporariness of Superintendents the first thing alledged is the necessity is brought for being not so strict in examining Superintendents as afterward must be I see not wherein this is contrarie to the Presbyterian Gloss which he affirmeth p. 145. seing the necessitie of setting them up had been before asserted viz. the Pauâ—itie of qualified Ministers for the Parishes and now another necessitie is alledged for taking such Superintendents as they could get where is the Inconsistencie of these two Next they appoint that if suâ—…cient Men cannot be had Provinces wait till they can be provided rather than set up insufficient Men 〈◊〉 3. Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy if a Superintendent die â—…ns To both these no more followeth but that Superintendency was to endure for some time foreseeing that the present necessitie was like in some degree to continue for some years but this is no Argument for its Perpetuitie or necessitie in all Cases of the Church 4. After the Church is settled and three years past Directions are given for chusing Superintendents Ans. This Passage is related only by Spotswood whom I might reject as an insufficient Witness as well as he casteth Petrie or Calderwood when Spotswood doth not concur with them But I need not such Defence by the establishing of the Church the Reformers cannot mean the compleat Establishment and being furnished with a sufficient number of well Gifted Ministers for what needed three years delay after that before they would require such Choise of Superintendents wherefore by the settling of the Church must be understood the peaceable Exercise of Church Government as well as other Ordinances allowed them by the Magistrat which then they were contending for or the peaceable Settlement of the Superintendency that now they were Erecting that though at present they must put into that Office such as they could find they would after that three years be more exact in their Choise hoping that by that time more qualified Men might be found this proveth a Design of Continuance for some time but not of Perpetuitie of Superintendency 5. The Book of Discipline supposeth Colledges and Superintendents to be of equal Continuance for the Superintendent was to have a hand
in Election of Principles and Rectors and in Auditing Colledge Accompts Ans. If this Argument had any Force it would prove that Apostles immediatlie sent by Christ must continue as long as Churches and Ministers because they were imployed to Erect the one and Ordain the other Yea he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance but that they were to Visit Churches and plant Ministers and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done and so they should for ever shut out in the Design of our Reformers not only Presbyteries but the Diocesan Bishops they were to do that Work in the present Exigence it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done § 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church It is taken from some Passages in Knox and the old Scots Liturgy about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents 1. The Necessity of them is asserted which I have answered before Next The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful not saith our Author so long as the present Exigence requireth The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution as well as the other he is said to be called of God and owned as a Minister of Christ they who will not submit to him are said to rebel against God and his Holy Ordinance In the Prayer after his â—…stallment is this Petition send unto this our Brother whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian c. Thus saith our Author our Reformers lookt on Superintendency whâ—… they composed this Form Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth to which he Knox p. 289. prefixeth this Inscription The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers at Edinburgh March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher also because in the Prayer Lothidn is mentioned which could not be in a general Form This Method John Knox at that time used It iâ— like it was usual to proceed in this Method to use these or the like Questions to Pray to that Purpose and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church it neither helpeth his Cause much nor hurteth ours 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery but it was an Application or Modification of the Ministerial Worâ— which at that time was necessary He will not say that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration beside that which maked him a Minister which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter 3. My main Answer is the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry whither he be to be a Superintendent or not and thâ—… it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversaâ—… layeth hold on in this Form of Election may fairly be understood witâ—… respect to the Persons Ministery to this Ministery he is called of Goâ—… with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ it is that which is called Gâ—… Holy Ordinance it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name anâ—… indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted goâ—… the Chief Charge of to be their Pastor Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance but whither it be such an Ordinance that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church which that present Exigence did force them upon by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution and a Superintendent too so far as that Office includeth the Ministry but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office it was of Man and not of God § 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument p. 150. which according to his wont of using the highest Confidence and biggest Words when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest he calleth Irrefragable It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them others for Increasing their Number and Placing them where none were before and that when the Church was of four years standing and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased One Petitioned that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed and that Superintendents Ministers and other needful Members should be Planted in their Places Whence he very wisely inferreth that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops This is mentioned by Spotswood but by none else as himself observeth Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing or all that he hath said but that the Churches found the necessity which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents not to be over in four years nor wholly in fourteen years though Qualified Men Increased yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church I look on the Increasing of their Number which must be a Lessening of their Districts not as tending to perpetuate them but on the contrary it was a reducing them by Degrees to the State of other Ministers by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes and so at last to one That they were needful Members of the Church at that time I doubt not but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops is a wild Fancy that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been and were to be Maintained by their Revenues He concludeth this head as is usual with him with Confident Rehearsing what he hath made evident The Judicious will judge
1. § 1 and 2. As also how weak the consequence is from its noveltie such as I have acknowledged to its being false The dangerous consequence of it is in general asserted but he hath not told what hazard in particular ariseth to the Church from this way of Government many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion have been more promoted under Parity than under Prelacy if he will prove his Assertion making the contrary appear we shall consider the strength of his Reasons § 7. He asserteth that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity which we deny and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate but also the first Presbyterians among our selves who declare in their Confession of Faith that all Church Policy is variable so 〈◊〉 one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of Pâ—…rity He addeth that they only pretended that it was allowable and more to this purpose Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560 as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain there Artiole 22 are these words Not that we think any Policy and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages times and places for as Ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporary so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster Superstition than edifie the Church using the some Here is not a word of Church Government neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned but such as were of Divine Institution But that they did not hold the Government of the Church by Prelacy or Parity to be indifferent is evident in that in the Book of Policy or 2d Book of Discipline they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church to wit Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons where the Bishop is plainly excluded nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers but for the present necessity of the Church not yet constituted It is like this Debate may again occur wherefore I now insist no further on it § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians which sometimes miss them and wound his own party as p 13 he hath this Assertion when a Society of men set up for Divine absolute and infallible Right they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors or at least self conceited and designing men and much to this purpose Is it easie to subsume but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine absolute and infallible right for Prelacy and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say therefore he and they are Impostors self conceited and designing men they indeed pretend to plain proofs and so do we let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest and best founded and who are to be judged Impostors by his Argument But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor from his owning a Divine Right even though his Arguments be defective in plainness and in strength it only followeth that such do mistake and understand not the mind of God in that matter so well as they should and that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion and if this be a Blame as I think it is no men in the world are more guilty than his party nor among his party than himself as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments For self conceit the Reader will easily see where it may be observed if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written If Presbyterians be the designing men they are great fools for there are no Bishopricks nor Deanries nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way which might be the Objects of such designs Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see may be judged by the Excommunications and the Capias's and consequents of these which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government this is none of our Doctrine it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government for their Opinion nor for not joining with us Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church Principles of the Cyprianick Age p 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences obscure and perplexed Probabilities Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate which will take with few even of his own party We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments for all this insolent Contempt SECTION III. Some Arguments for Parity not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers such as Beza and Salmasius lay little weight on one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter and some Citations of the Fathers Here we desiderate Ingenuity 〈◊〉 in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments while he doth not 〈◊〉 these which were hardest for him to answer also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them and they may be easiest for him to Debate It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength and then answered what we say Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name I shall propose some others which he or some others may consider when next they think fit to write § 2. Our first Argument shall be this our Lord hath given power to Presbyters not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments but to rule the Church and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield yea the
Bishop of Worcester saith plainly that Christ hath given equal power to them all which is the foundation of his Irenicum But it may be this Author will deny it and therefore I shall prove it to wit that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls as all Pastors do rule also over the Church ibid v. 17. they are called in both places 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Leaders the word is used to express any kind of Authority whether Civil Military or Ecclesiastick but Church Rulers only can be here meant viz. who speak the word of God to the people and watch for their Souls and such as they had at that time seing they are bidden salute them v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops as some do is most absurd for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is Preaching and Watching which are things not peculiar to the Bishop wherefore not he only is to be obeyed and thence it followeth that not he only doth rule in the Church 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord and have power to command and require people by vertue of their Commission from Christ to obey what they enjoyn them have also power of Spiritual correction of them who professing subjection to Christ do not obey his Laws for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers and the other to others neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction that Christ impowered Pastors to teach people and gather Churches over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order Yea it were strange if this had been designed that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people Neither can it be imagined that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ can be separated from a power of correcting as spiritual Fathers or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2 3 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church to feed the flock and take the oversight of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to beware of lording it over them which plainly saith that they had Authority which they should beware of abusing or stretching too far now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ but not a word of a superior Presbyter or Bishop to whom they must be answerable and this power is given to as many as were Feeders or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be denyed to Presbyters It is true the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop yea to an Apostle and the Apostle here designeth himself by it tho he was more than an ordinary Elder but that it cannot here be so restricted appeareth because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general as hath been said § 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church do respect the people as the Object of that work we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man either directly and expresly or by good consequence We read of feeding the Flock 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves each of them and to the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock but no Bishop of Bishops or of Pastors they were to be corrected not by one set over them but each by the Meeting of the whole Again if the power of the Pastors of the Church I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people did depend on the bishop is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach nor baptize c. without the Bishops leave This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers Christ hath charged them to preach and that diligently 2 Tim. 4 1 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop he may supersede this Charge neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture that the Bishop hath this power over them Further this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop and to be in a proper sense his Curats which tho I know some of our Brethren own yet hath this absurdity following on it that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People who depend on them not on the Bishop whom may be they shall never see nor hear for the means of their Edification this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people it is to make them the servants of one Man not Rulers in the house of God under their Master Christ. § 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that by Divine appointment are set in the Church whether extraordinary which are now ceased or ordinary which are to continue to the end of the World But among all these there is no Bishop with power over Presbyters ergo no such Officer is appointed by Christ but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity and without Subordination to such a superior Officer That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture is evident for an enumeration of them is often made as Rom. 12. 6 7 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective if complete that is what we desire there can be no Church Officer owned as Juris Divini but what is in some of these places to be found if any say that this enumeration is Defective not only in some one of these places but in them all that is that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost which an ordinary Writer who pretendeth to any measure of caâ—…or accuracy would be ashamed of The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances to whom they should Submit whom they should hear and own Now if there be
work if by the designation of Supporter of afflicted Souls by spiritual Advices and Directions that is common to him with the Teacher before mentioned in this Text and so cannot be fit to distinguish him from other Church Officers § 7. For Grotius's notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I oppose first by the Argument already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apostle doth so critically observe in this enumeration of Church Officers 2. By the force of the word the native and genuine signification of which is to help uphold or support one who is in hazard to fall which I am sure is rather done to the Poor by a Deacons work or to a troubled Soul by the work that is common to all Teachers in the Church than by that work that is held to be peculiar to a Bishop That learned Critick saith it signifieth curam alicujus rei gerere and referreth to his Commentary on Luke 1. 54. where I find he maketh it to answer to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is to strengthen and he saith it signifieth also manu ducere because the seventy translated it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Here is a strange Argument to proceed from a man of so profound Learning as is the great Grotius for neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can be turned manu ducere It is a stranger Argument Jer. 31. 32. that Hebrew word is by the seventy turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Acts 23. 19. Heb 8. 9. the same phrase is used for bringing the people of Israel out of AEgypt for who knoweth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have not the same signification neither is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 turned by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but when it is constructed with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the hand laid hold on by another being that by which one is supported that he fall not as he goeth and it is evident that the force of that word in these places doth not so much import Gods guiding his people in their way as his manutenency by which they are supported From all which it is plain that there is no sufficient ground brought by Grotius why we should think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importeth any ruling power in them of whom it is to be understood Further if we should grant that this word signifieth to take care of a thing will it follow thence that this care must needs be ruling care when the word properly signifieth upholding to which indeed care is often needful but it cannot be said that care is implyed in the word I have been at the pains to look into all the places of the New Testament as far as Stephanus's Concordance could lead me where that word in any of its derivata is used and I cannot find one that hath any thing of the notion of ruling Wherefore I must still abide in the Opinion which I have else where expressed and have been by this my Antagonist severely censured for it that this Criticism of Grotius is odd and groundless § 8. These of our Episcopal brethren who make the Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles in their Apostolick Office will possibly say that the Bishops are mentioned in the first place in the Lists of Church Officers viz. under the name of Apostles Whether the Bishops be Successors to the Apostles or not will fall in to be debated when I come to consider the second Chapter of this Book which I am now examining what I have now to do is to shew that they are not meant by the Apostles mentioned in the Scriptures that are now under debate which may plainly appear if we consider first that none of their own Commentators do so expound any of these places nor can such a Fancy come into any mans head when he considereth the Scripture without a present Byass on his mind and laboureth to bring the Sense of the Scripture out of the words and not into them Yea Grotius and Estius on 1 Cor. 12 28. speaking of the Apostles there mentioned have these words Illos nempe eminenter sic dictos à Christo in id vocatos ut prima Ecclesiarum fundamenta jacerent And Doctor Hamond saith these Apostles were called ut Ecclesias plantarent regerent eadem potestate quam Christus à Patre habuit I hope none will say that this can be said of Bishops or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church 2. It cannot be denyed even by them who make the Bishops a kind of Apostles and allow a sort of Apostolick power to them but that they are another sort of Apostles than the first Apostles were none will say that they are wholly the same more than the Pastors of the Church are the same with the Prophets that were in the Apostolick Church they must then distinguish the Apostles into extraordinary who were sent immediatly by Christ to plant Churches and ordinary who succeed to these and whose work it is to rule the Churches that are already planted Now to say that both these sorts are meant in these Lists under the same name of Apostles is to accuse the Spirit of God of darkness and confusion in these Institutions where Light and Distinctness might be most expected for in these Enumerations he is instructing the Church what Officers she should own as of Christs appointment but by the word Apostle she could never know that there are two sorts of Apostles to be owned one sort all do acknowledge to be here meant they who would have us believe that another sort of Apostles is also here meant must give us some better ground for believing this than a Synonimous word I do not know how many sorts of Officers they may bring in under this name If they may be allowed to divide the Apostolick Office at pleasure and call every one of them who have any part of Apostolick work to do a sort of Apostles this is to expound Scripture at pleasure and indeed to make it speak what we fancy I conclude then that Bishops have no Divine right for them seing the Lord hath of purpose told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church both at first for planting of it and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World and no Diocesan Bishop name nor thing is to be found among them § 9. A third Argument for Parity and against Prelacy I take from the Commandment that Christ gives about the Administration of Church Discipline Mat. 18 17 that the offended Party when other more private means of Redress do fail should lay the case before the Church whence this Argument doth clearly result that Power which is by Christs Appointment to be exercised by many is not Jure Divino lodged in one person but Church Jurisdiction is a Power that by Christs Appointment is to be exercised by many Ergo it is not Jure Divino in the hand
Vindicated I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments and these none of the most evident and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them as if he had laid our Cause in the dust I shall now try if even these Weapons rightly managed be able to wound his Cause for as he representeth them they can do us little service but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct Before I come to the Arguments themselves I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads First either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use but who ever pretended to the first I know not I confess I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named nor such words as these that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio nor that it hath been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters and I am sure the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort were never said by any of us to be an express Command for Paritie though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this arguing from express command in Scripture than any of the forraign Presbyterians which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation from what hath been said for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their or our insisting on it that I may compare them I am sure many more of them have written for it than have defended it so in Print in Scotland I mean the Parity of Presbyters which is the cardo controversiae whatever difference may be between some of them and us in some other things Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. alibi Beza de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav Paraeus saepissime Gers. Bucer disser de gub Eccles. Blondell apologia Salmasius Turretin loc 18. quaestion 29. Leideck de statu Eccles. Affric Voet. passim Vitringa de syn Vet. and many others Likewise Smecttym jus div regim were not written by Scots Presbyterians also Paul Bayn Dioces Tryal § 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on is Mat. 20. 25 26 27 28. and Mark 10. 42 43 44 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity though we did not call it an express Command As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture let it be considered that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles to whom he was then speaking and by consequence it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers ordinary and extraordinay It is a good consequence Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles Ergo among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise And ergo among the Elders whose work it is to rule And ergo among the Deacons our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees or Orders of Officers in the Church for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty nor Subjection neither among other Officers who are of the same Order and whose work is the same 2. Let it be also noted that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny or abuse of power that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats over them who were subordinate to them but only Dominion and Authority which they might lawfully exercise so that what he aimeth at is that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers but no such thing should be among Church Rulers 3. Though we deny not that there are by Christs Appointment divers Orders of Church Rulers yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another or is to be commanded by it we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church Before I state our Argument from this Text I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use and overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently and on occasion of his commenting o◠that Text and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose or do I there use that place as an Argument further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited That Dominion an◠Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did an◠might exercise over these Under-rulers is not to be allowed in th◠Church but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority that is the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th◠other Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church § 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument First he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples as well as other Societies and therefore he saith this Text referreth 〈◊〉 the Methods of attaining Preferment that it must not be by force violence and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts thus he p. 17 and 〈◊〉 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles by a spirit of Pride and Domination This and what followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius de imp summar potes circa sacra p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy as of Parity To all this I oppone first That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum I deny not that there is Subordination among them taking his Disciples for all Christians but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it and that both in respect of Degree and Authority The people are subject to the Rulers one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another which they may be without being subject to their Authority but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church that themselves may enjoy them as well as to aspire to these
Preferments that are extant and allowed Again Christ saith not there shall be no Superiority in the Church but among them the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have the Superior over the Inferior our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility and condemneth Ambition and Pride cannot be denyed the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse is said without all Warrant for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers to have place among them which yet might be exercised by humble men 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination is also said without Book That this he condemneth we acknowledge but that he only condemneth this and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self is a groundless fancy and contrary to the words of the Text which mention the one but not the other He telleth them also Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli viz magisterium authoritatem 5. It cannot be said that all the Rulers among the Gentiles were proud and tyrannical though not a few were such but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen yea it may extend to Christian Magistrats whether they obtain it ambitiously and exercise it tyrannically or not It shall not be so as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised among you The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom not which he intended or instituted and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom that one Apostle should be above another or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment if any such thing were to be in the Church § 4. His second Exception against our Argument is p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics therefore they did not so understand Christs words as forbidding all Prelation in the Church This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church but among themselves It shall not be so among you Yea they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers such as is in the Civil State over inferior State Rulers His third Exception which he saith doth bassle and expose this Argument to all Intents and Purposes big words as his manner is when the Matter is very improportionate that he our Lord did that himself among them which now he commanded them to do to one another and therefore the doing of that toward one another in obedience to the Command should not infer a Parity unless they blasphemously infer that Christ and his Apostles were equal This is far more easily baffled and more exposed if what hath been said be duely considered But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility and being far from ambitious Aspiring doth no ways infer their Paritie with him unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles which we do not say but have asserted the contrary He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards and with respect to that he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity as he fancieth p. 19. but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme deserveth that Reproach That the Apostle Paul and the Fathers of the Church carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity proveth nothing against us beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers but shall controvert it with him when he will If Walo Messalinus as he saith p. 20. layeth no great stress on the Argument from thâ—â— Text and mean that we have stronger Arguments I do not differ from him and if Beza say that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction I have already said the same He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument p. 20 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie and Subordination by Divine appointment and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us to teach our Lord how to reason If he think fit to make use of one Topick and if it be to the purpose as all that he saith must needs he and what is here said is manifestly so we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument if he had so meant Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did But that can never be done 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here because it was now to be dissolved our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church whereas the Magistratical Authoritie in the several Subordinations of it was to continue and he would have a Difference between the Church and State to be continually visible in this very thing Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy than for Parity unless our Author will say we must have a Pope as they had a High Priest with universal Authoritie over the Church 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees is strangely drawn in here and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines than the true Authors of them as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices and then he nameth them and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church The
the Countrie and in Villages as well as in Cities 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers Bishops and Deacons besides some other things which are not so much to our present design Our Author in his Answer overlooketh the two former which tend most to ruine his Cause for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans but Pastors of Congregations if these two Observations hold as they plainly follow from Clement's words and he insisteth only on the third the Dichotomie of the Clergy which hath less probative forâ—… than the rest yet it hath more strength in it than his Answers are able to enervate which I now shall make appear His Answer is that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie Reply Though we do not make that an Argument by it self in all cases where it is found yet in some cases and this in particular it is concludent Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters and Deacons this account is very lame and useless His second Answer is p. 44 c. Clement by Deacons here understandeth all Ministers of Religion whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion or Deacons who by the first Institution were obliged to attend upon Tables And so by Bishops and Deacons we may saith our Author understand Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents upon Tables And then at great length he proveth that which no body denyeth that the word Deacon is used iâ— a great Latitude for all sorts of Church Officers Reply The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases on some occasions but what Clement here understandeth by it I affirm that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth For first his meaning should be the Apostles appointed in the Churcheâ— that they settled Apostles Bishops Presbyters and Attendents on Tables so that every Church in every Village must have its Apostle and Bishop too beside inferior Officers 2. If Clement had so meant it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too it had been enough to tell the Corinthians that the Apostles settled Deacons that is Officers in Churches seing all sorts are signified by Deacons 3 To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons rather than by Bishops is without all imaginable ground the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture as that of Deacon if we thus at pleasure expound Names or rather Words we may maintain what we will 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church by Apostolick Warrand that they were to have regard to it would not answer its end if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop and the Teaching Bishop as distinct and how they should regard each of them or under the word Deacon and then they were at as great a loss what sort of Deacons he meant whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church 5. Though the word Deacon be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church yea or in the State yet that ever the Rulers or Teachers of the Church are signified by it when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers as it is here is more than I know § 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy as it was at last perfected by the Apostles but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply If it be granted that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters and served by Deacons as this Answer seemeth to yield they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm that the Churches were governed by Presbyters under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived but after their Death Bishops were appointed to rule over them We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change which yet I have not seen if they will bring Arguments for it we shall consider them A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy among whom were the High Priest Chief Priests Priests and Levites Reply If Clement when he so divides the Jewish Clergy were on purpose instructing us how and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed this Answer were pertinent but if this Distinction be used occasionly without this design it is not at all to the purpose in the one case Distinction is required in the other case it is enough to express the thing in general and undistinguished terms He bringeth yet a 5th Answer p 47 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service and immediatly recommends to them that every one should continue 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own order Reply If this Reasoning be at all significant it will conclude there must be a Pope as well as Bishops in the Christian Church as there was a High Priest over all the Priests and other Jews We must then understand Clement that there must be Order in the Christian Church as well as in the Jewish Church and every one must keep within the Station that God hath set him in but it noways hence followeth that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other What he citeth out of Jerome Ep. ad Ewagr admitteth of the same Exposition and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words quod Aaron filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt hoc sibi Episcopi Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia viz. That as in the Temple there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter whom Jerome through that whole Epistle proveth to be the same with the Bishop But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author A 6th Answer is p. 48 49. for this Citation galleth him sore and maketh him look on all hands for Relief Clement himself distinguisheth the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the last may signifie Office and Age both together Reply He no otherways
other will be found to bâ—… like it is so far from being palpable that it is not intelligible hoâ—… this to a Protestant should be an Evidence for Episcopacy for first if it prove any thing to his purpose it will prove the Papacy viz. thaâ— Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches and by that power might write Circular Letters to them 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information where there is no Authority and this was very proper for Clement who resided in the Imperial City which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire The 2d palpable Evidence is that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves primam Cathedram habere whence he wisely inferreth If there be no Power there can be no abuse of it To which I answer I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession strive to set up Episcopacy that he may be a Bishop Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660 and 61 when ambitious Men laboured and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra that themselves might possess it And might there not be such in the days of Hermas as there appeared to be afterward and as was in the Apostles times when Diotrephes was marked as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians the Moderator's Chair and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment The Principatus that he after mentioneth may have the same signification it doth not always signifie Authority but often a Superior Dignity The next thing I observe is he neglecteth as is customary with him that which seemeth to have the most strength among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which last words Blondel translated tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae Biblioth Patrum hath it thus Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters and their Power in ruling the Church than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel The other Citation brought by Blondel and so laboriously answered by our Author I lay little weight on only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick p. 55. and distorting the words whereas the words as cited by Blondel and by him are the very same § 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome is next brought by Blondel out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne where he telleth him Presbyteri Diaconi non ut majorem sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters or if any of them will be so humble as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters that Humility is here insinuated we grant but that no more is required cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime or spurious but I suppose it may be safely asserted that if it was written by a Presbyterian that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome and not admitted to their Communion whence he inferreth that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common Our Authors answer is first they denyed to receive Marcion which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and â—ractices by than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick Reply If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop for the See was then vacant this Answer should have some sense but they pretended no such thing neither did they reprove him for his Address if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters they gave another Reason for their refusal of which anone He bringeth a second Answer with his wonted Confidence as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it for it is very weak of it self it is that in the vacancy of the See the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved by constant Practice and primitive Institution to the Episcopal Order though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance in the vacancy of the See I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence if their Bishop were alive or if another were chosen in his room Reply 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop by constant Practice and primitive Institution the Practice is what we are debating and such Institution we desire to be instructed in we find it not in the Bible which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand so he yieldeth it on the other by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop if they have power they have it from Christ Ergo he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop and made the Presbyters only his Council Or let him shew us by what Rule of the Gospel Authority which they had not before devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government Ergo it is not contrary to Divine Institution by this Answer if the Church be governed without Bishops which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding and casting out Church Members wherefore if Presbyters have this we must see some special Warrand from Scripture before we can deny them another part of Church power 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop if he had been alive is said without ground if he had been absent they might have done it as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him as being their Praeses though having no majority of power Before I pass from this Argument I observe a greater strength in it than Blondel hath mentioned or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer for clearing which we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn which is Marcion the Son of a Bishop in Pontus for a lewd
you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was with perplexed Conjectures and affected Mistakes we think it neither Christian nor Manly nor Scholar like so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party The other Instance whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor yea Impudence in the Presbyterians is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side and can name nothing plausibly but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian there are so many he calleth us also Schismaticks and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age which I saw long before I saw this Book of his where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian and much more is carefully gathered together And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary it is p. 20 near the end Basil and Optatus are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian whereas they lived in the next Century this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part and most evident Testimonies that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity some will think he had better not begun this Work than thus leave it imperfect if others have answered all Blondel's Citations what he hath done was needless if not he doth his Work but by halves § 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers which our Author at his leisure may consider Chrysost on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in and about the Qualifications of Bishops immediatly to Deacons omitting Presbyters and giveth this Answer that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters which maketh it evident that Chrysost did not think that Bishops ruled alone only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution that he maintaineth saith Durham that in the Apostles time Presbyters ordained Bishops This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City understandeth Bishops because saith he he would not set one over the whole Island and after for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches but should be taken up in ruling one where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy Ambros in Tim 3. 9. hath this Passage qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum quales vult esse Episcopos nisi sicut ipse ait irrepraehensibiles where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers who are not Deacons to be Bishops and a little after Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit quare nisi quia Episcopi Presbyteri una ordinatio est uterque enim Sacerdosest Episcopus tamen primus est ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus hic enim est Episcopus qui inter Presbyteros primus est Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum significat sed quia ante se priorem non habebat Episcopus erat All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency or Priority to a Presbyter and that not by a new Ordination which should give him a superior power but a Seniority or Priority of Ordination which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first but was after changed into Election when it was found that sometimes the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work From all this it is clear that in the time of Ambros which was in the fourth Century Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter was not lookt on as Juris Divini nor that a Bishop must have after he is ordained a Presbyter a new Ordination or Consecration whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters and their Flocks I do not deny but that Ambrose doth in some things mistake the primitive Order of the Church and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia yet he giveth ground to think that even then the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power or sole Jurisdiction I observe here also obiter that ordinatio in the primitive times did not always signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead If the Reader please to add to these all the Testimonies cited by Blondel which out Author thought not fit to medle with he may see abundant cause to think that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel as this Enquirer fancieth it to be Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men in the controverted Points of Divinity and especially in the Point of Church Government yet considering that they owned the Roman Hierarchy a Testimony from them or other Papists seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary extorted by the force of Truth Lombard lib 4 Sententiar dist 4 after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy when he cometh to speak of Presbyters p 451. Edit Lovan 1567 apud veteres saith he idem Episcopi Presbyteri fuerunt p. 452. cumque omnes nempe septem ordines Cleri spirituales sunt sacrae excellenter tamen Canones duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent nemâ—â— Diaconatus Presbyteratus quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus Cajetan on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words ubi adverte eundem gradum idemque officium significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi nomine Presbyteri nam praemisit ideirco râ—liqui te in Creta ut constituas Presbyteros modo probando regulam dicâ— oportet enim Episcopum c. Estius lib 4 Sententiar dist 24. when he iâ—… proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter doth not refer it to Divine
Apostolick Decree for Bishops and bringing them in paulatim do not well agree It is henc◠plain that Jerome thought in the first Ages after the Apostles the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio but Schism arising in process of time like that in Corinth while the Apostles lived tha◠Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches after in others turned into a Prelacy Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time had made a Decree for Prelacy all the Churches would presently have set up tha◠way in its due Height and not brought it in paulatim 2. The very design of Jerome in the places cited which he laboriously prosecuteth is to prove by Testimonies of the Apostles that Bishop and Presbyter are one how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary this were to make the learned Jerome to speak yea to think the most palpable contradictions 3. Is it imaginable if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie and then by degrees or otherwise changed it into Prelacy that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former as in all the places he citeth and yet not point to one place in all their Writings where this Decree for a Change should be found He may believe what he will who can be perswaded of this If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth and that it was done on occasion of these Debates and as a Remedie of them he had been very absurd and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms and labouring to cure them and prevent the like among Christians he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them but on the contrary reproveth the Presbyters of that Church for being defective in the exercise of their Church power cap. 5. of that same Epistle and cap 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church and no mention of Bishops among them § 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd that he calleth this Apostolical Decree consuetudo Ecclesiae a Decree and a Custome are two different things nor was it ever heard of till this new Master of words arose that a Decree was so called Custome may follow on a Decree and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome but to say a thing ex gra the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism had its Original from Custome and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree is to speak non sense which no wise man will impute to that learned Father Wherefore it is evident that Jerome by consuetudo Ecclesiae meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles for to say it was the practice in their time is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion that the Church was then governed by Presbyters which came in by degrees paulatim 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie to make an Apostolical Decree or Practice so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis as are Parity and Prelacy Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ Is it then imaginable that He appointed Parity or did not appoint Prelacy and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient would appoint Prelacy Neither could Jerome mean that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth but by the Apostles after his Ascension for that had been impertinent and nothing to his purpose For what different influence could that have on Bishops to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit for the Sense would be Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment but they are above them by the Apostles appointment which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time is true but it doth not hence follow that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est is meant of such an Apostolick Decree It is rather meant of a Resolution decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed through the several Churches in most parts of the World so toto orbe may we◠be restricted to set up a constant Praeses whom they particularly called the Bishop The Phrase toto orbe decretum est cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place as that of the Apostles must be though for the whole World but of what was done in the several places of the World § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made I further prove 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of 〈◊〉 introducing the Change were made by the Presbyters who had baptized the people and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized his words are plain postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul Apollos and Cephas fell out about dividing the people among them as their Followers disagreed Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order and so quickly change it into another as they must have done if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth which fell out soon after the setling of that Church and while other Churches were not yet setled They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be and did at the first setlement of Churches provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease Especially is it imaginable that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation which must quickly be razed and a new one laid The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth wherein he reproveth their Schism from Ephesus in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought and about that time for he stayed at Ephesus two years he was setling that Church in Paritie for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City as Jerome observeth calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus and not presently setled a Bishop in it if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of
the same Office in the Church and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose if one had the Empire of the whole World and lost that and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom I think his Office is not what it was Beside if we should yield all that he here alledges it were no loss to our cause for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle but that complexly and in conjunction with others as is above shewed Another Consideration that he hath is the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection but some travelled further than others yet this did not change their rectoral Power or Jurisdiction no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power to narrower Limites make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church the Rules of Order and the multitude of Converts which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence I reply to this 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by and it is observable how naturally and frequently this learned Author and some others of his Gang do shew their Byass to that side If nothing but Order and Circumstances and not Divine Institution do confine Bishops to their Sees whether larger or less extended and every one of them have actu primo as may be deduced from this Doctrine universal Jurisdiction why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them and the rest be subject to him Some think that this belongeth to good Order though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo to the Universal Church yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ as every Apostle had they have not that Commission go teach all Nations this was the peculiar work of Apostles to travel and plant Churches the work of Bishops if such an Office be in the Church is to stay at home and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these the World was the Province of each of them though by mutual Consent or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost who guided their Motions as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7 9 10. they went into several places of the World yet so as they observed not that Division very critically for we find them meeting sometimes and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence and Agreement of them among themselves alone but it is Gods Appointment though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular be a work of men for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church but he hath set them over their particular Flocks Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them and must give account of them and not of the Souls in all Churches § 8. His Notion p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot I know is to be found in Eusebius Dorotheas and Nicephorus and some others of the Ancients and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them as this Author doth neither shall I be at pains to disprove it it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet Iren p. 232. seq by eight Arguments that this Author will not easily answer and particularly he sheweth that Acts 1. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth p. 103. Another thing I observe is p. 104. that he saith neither the Apostles nor their immediat Successors were so confined to particular Sees but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole as far as was possible and as Christian charity did require or allow notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches and by their Travels and he concludeth that the confinement to a particular See doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood but from the Rules of Prudence Ecclesiastical Oeconomy and canonical Constitutions I first take notice that this is still beside the Purpose for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ We say that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church there are other things wherein they differ as hath been shewed 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another is denyed and he can never prove it The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited It is true some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem but that is with respect to his Residence not to the confinement of his Authority he was determined to stay there as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World not in Pilgrimage but on many other Occasions that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church Euseb lib 2. c 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus say he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem but this they take out of Egesippus as themselves confess a most Fabulous Writer and both of them relate out of him several things concerning the same James that all do look on as idle Dreams 3. It is also without warrant that he asserteth that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees more than the Apostles were If he understand of the Evangelists we shall debate the case afterward If of ordinary Pastors of the Church I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches which were not furnished with Pastors or otherways had need of their help so do Ministers at this day and ought to do and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles or their Travels which he mentioneth but that they had universal Jurisdiction as every one of the Apostles had we deny and he hath brought no Proof of it 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood if one Pastor could feed Christs Flock more were
sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est totum sibi vendicant This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words which was while Cyprian was retired from Carthage because of the Persecution some of the Presbyters without the rest took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed this Cyprian complaineth of as justly he might yea he had cause to complain that their Bishop that is constant Moderator of their Presbytery was neglected in this matter for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum which should have been called together by him as Praepositus illis that is by their Choice made the constant Praeses of their Meeting There is no proof here of a solitude of Power nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles which is the thing that our Author citeth it for more than the rest of the Presbyters did The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected proceeded from the Genius of that Age wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters than they had been from the beginning Another Citation which also misseth the mark viz. Succession to the Apostles is that Cyprian saith Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur and saith this is Divina lege fundatum All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops that is all the Presbyters and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop that is the Praeses we assent to it as truth provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity but in Conjunction with their Presbyters the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine with respect to her Soundness in the Faith and Edification in Holiness on the Presbytery or ruling part among whom in Cyprians time the Praeses or Bishop was specially taken notice of tho he did not rule by himself with respect to her good Order and that all this is Juris Divini I no way doubt If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words he must bring better Arguments than I have yet seen Again Cyprian saith the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione This is also granted and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum who were peculiarly called Bishops they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power or that their Presidency as a distinct Office or superior Degree was by Succession from the Apostles we deny and it is not proved from Cyprians words Their ruling power they have with the rest by Divine or Apostolick Institution that there be a Presidency is of the Law of Nature and hath Scripture example the person who should preside is to be chosen by common consent nor do we find any warrant from Scripture either that he should have power superior to the rest or that this Presidency should always be in one person He bringeth also Tertullian saying percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident habes Corinthum habes Ephesum habes Romam This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches planted by the Apostles a Government to this day Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church where one presideth which we say should be in every Church He is so consident of his Conclusion that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself we do it Sir and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree I desire on the other hand that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish That he asserteth p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters Deacons and Laity will appear to them who read Cyprian is denyed except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another and over the whole Church § 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees in their Reasoning against Hereticks I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches and that they named particular Men or single Persons in that Succession but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so named or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches we deny and have not yet seen it proved It is the same thing as to the Strength of their Reasoning whether one Minister or more had the Power of Governing these Churches Wherefore if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for it doth not advantage his Cause nor hurt ours unless it be made appear that the single persons so named were the sole or supreme Rulers in these Churches which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches as the Orthodox could do from persons placed then by the Apostles as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna and others in other places and he addeth perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant Here is no one word of Singularity of Power and it is certain that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters as well as by single Bishops yea and better too for if one erred the rest might correct him but if the Bishop erred there wâ—… none in that Church that might oppose him That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else is named doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was 〈◊〉 good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church but among a Plurality of Tea chers so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses could not be so convincing in this matter as that with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered there was an Order or Succession of Bishops whereof John the Apostle
What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing unless he can evince that the Presbyters who were necessary for the growing Charge were his Underlings not his Collegues § 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy as he thinketh he manageth p 164 seq from James Bishop of Jerusalem who was over many Congregations for the Increase of Christians was such as that they could not meet in one place The Answer hath been before given James was no ordinary Bishop but an Apostle and had Jurisdiction not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea but in all the World He telleth us that we use many Evasions but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them when he knoweth which of them we most trust to If I had dealt so by his Book no Answer had been given to it I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to nor which of them doth best deserve that regard If he had answered all that we say he could not have missed what we most trust to he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions not according to our Esteem of them but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice we are not much concerned in it it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City provided their Pastors be not subject to one but Co-ordinate among themselves His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir◠was needless he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel Dally and Salmasius yet that Author might modestly put him in mind how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken and when he had in his own Apprehension baffled that triumph over Presbytery as if never more had been said for it while he hath neither out of his own Store nor from the Answers of thess Books brought any thing against our main Arguments SECTION VIII Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined judging it more proper for some States Man or one who is versed in the Law his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament which he treateth very saucily but finding that they neglected his Book and think it below them unless they could also find his Person and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another if not the same Author here speaking more dareingly from behind the Curtain on second thoughts I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth in some short animadversions such as I have already made upon his Preface in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament I know the hazard of that from the experience of others but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen which touch not this matter He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries I shall consider what he saith on each of them § 2. His first Enquiry is Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters I observe two Mistakes to give them no worse Names in thus stating the Question First it is enough to us if our Reformers were mostly though not solely Presbyters if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work Secondly it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church when they had withdrawn from Subjection to the Roman Hierarchy for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers being now Reformed for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government But to gratifie my Adversary a little I so far yield to the State of his Question as to maintain that few if any had an Active Hand in the Reformation who had been Popish Bishops but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work If he would have cleared the Question he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House but confounded all and builded a Babel of their own devising To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560 who all turned Protestants this is little to the purpose for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time Preachers and some private Men did more for the turning Persons to the Truth than Parliament Men did 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number if there had been no more Hands at the Work it had gone slowly on 3. Among all these eight there were but two Bishops the rest were Prelates indeed in the Popish Sense Abbots and such like but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates or that they have superior Power in the Church to Presbyters 2. He telleth us that they who laboured most in the Reformation were not in Holy Orders and nameth some of them Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops It is true many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way nor were they Presbyters in that Church but when they turned Protestants they were made Presbyters and not Bishops Yea Claud. historic def of the Reformation part 4. page 15. saith that in many Nations among whom he nameth Scotland the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors to wit Monks Preachers Priests Curats Canons c. And it is as certain as History can make it that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops Argyle and Galloway Some of them and these of good Note and who were eminently blessed with Success were but Lay-Men as he frazeth it who by their private Labours converted many and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly by such Ordination as then could be had but they were never exalted to be Bishops Let me digress a little to observe that the Laird of Dun by this Authors account was after made a Superintendent
but never received into Holy Orders by any thing that appeareth whence I infer that in the Opinion of that time a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop which our Brethren use to plead for I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry they amount to no more but that there were but few Ministers and many Reformers were Lay Men to all which I Answer this sheweth that Presbyters and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had It was far otherwise in England where the State carried on the Reformation whereas in Scotland the greatest both in State and Church opposed it as long and as much as they could and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth did rather comply with the Reformation than actively promote it notwithstanding of all which it is unbecoming a Protestant to call our Reformation violent and disorderly as he doth p. 7. out of Spotswood § 3. The second Enquiry is Whether the Scots Reformers what ever were their Characters were of the present Presbyterian Principles whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment and try his Critical Skill on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle In which it is not my Province to interpose I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry if it be granted that Parity and not Prelacy was the Church Government that they chused If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren it will make more against themselves than against us for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity but they chused this and rejected that notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it under Popery We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity that they shewed so much Zeal for it as they did though they had not that Light about it that after times afforded It is certain that that Dispute which had so long by the Tyranny of the Bishops been buried and forgotten except among the Church in the Wilderness which few knew of the Waldenses could not at first be so fully understood as by further Enquiries it came to be Notwithstanding it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Divini though they did not much insist on the Debate about that for in the Book of Policy Chap. 1. they have these words this Ecclesiastical Authority is granted by God the Father through the Mediator Jesus Christ unto his Kirk gathered not to a single Bishop and hath ground in the Word of God to be put in Execution by them unto whom the Spiritual Government of the Kirk by lawful Calling is committed Here it is plain that they are not for Indifferency of the form of Government and chap. 2. There is this Article and to take away all occasion of Tyranny he that is God willeth that they should rule with mutual consent as Brethren with equality of Power every one according to their Function And after there are four ordinary Functions or Offices in the Kirk the Office of the Pastor Minister or Bishop the Doctor the Presbyter or Elder and the Deacon Where it is evident that they own no Bishop Superior to any ordinary Minister but make the Identitie of them to be of Divine Right § 4. I think it not worth the while to make a strict Examination of the Proofs he bringeth that our Reformers were not for a jus divinum of a Paritie for if it were yielded it doth not hurt our Cause And his Arguments are verbose tedious and insignificant I shall only point at them and the Answers that may be made to them There is p. 9. c. no such Controversie was then Agitated in Europe the Popes Supremacy was Debated but not Prelacy Ans. nihil sequitur our Reformers assert the Conclusion as I have shewed but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papists He doth falsly assert p. 10. that Churches when they are Reformed set up a Church Government sutable to the Model of the State as in Geneva which was a Common-wealth they set up Paritie For who readeth Calvins Writings may see that they built on another Foundation even Divine Institution and our own Countrey is an instance to the contrary Paritie was in the Church and Monarchy in the State He calleth it impudence to cite Calvine for this jus Divinum but if the Reader be at the pains to look into the Citations that this Author hath scraped together to shew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government he will soon see on whose side the impudence is He confesseth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture 131. but alledgeth that he no where calleth Episcopacy absolutely or simply unlawful If Christ hath instituted a Form as it must be if one Form be built on Scripture I see not what is further necessary to prove an opposite Form inconsistent with that to be absolutely or simply unlawful He telleth us ibid. that Beza saith that humanus Episcopatus is tollerable if duely bounded by the pure canons of the ancient Church and I say the same for then it would be no more but a Presidencie which doth not destroy Paritie He citeth also a number of seeming concessions out of Calvine but they amount to no more than the lawfulness of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church which is not our Debate If Beza was not for separating from a Church because it was Episcopal no more are we unless that Episcopal Church impose unlawful terms of Communion on us His second Proof is our Reformers had no peculiar Motives or occasion for adverting to the evil of Prelacy nor interest to determine them to Paritie nor were more sharp sighted to see the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers Ans. a thousand such Arguments as this cannot conclude against a plain Matter of fact I have shewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie wherefore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opinion He falsly supposeth that other Reformers were not of the same Sentiments seing most of them except England set up the same Government Thirdly He argueth thus none of the Confessors or Martyers or they who had most hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection have given that as their Opinion And here hath a long Discourse of some other Opinions that several of them vented they Declaimed loudly against the Bishops of these times but what is that to the Order p. 8. they Declaimed against the Shavelings as well as against Bishops against Presbyters as well as Bishops p. 19. And he hath a long Debate with some of our Historians about the Opinion of John
was fallen upon because they could not get Men to Oversee other Ministers but because they could not get Men to Preach to the People in every Congregation Therefore they resolve that the few well Qualified Men that they had should not only each of them have a fixed Charge of his own but should be obliged to Preach in other Parishes and be Impowered to Place Ministers in them assoon as they could be had 2. It is a groundless Fancy that they thought Ten or Twelve Superintendents too few for the whole Kingdom for when Ministers increased they made no moe yea when afterward in the times of Defection from our first Establishment of Church Order they set up Bishops the Church did not think Twelve too few for the whole Kingdom 3. He doth exceedingly Mistake the Change that our Reformers did intend as insinuated in that Passage It was not that Superintendents should be continually Resident in one Place wheras they were at present to travel within their District for in this present Setlement they had their proper Charge where they were to Preach and might Reside there three or four Months and enter upon their itinerat Visitation again which Course if they should Break off they could not do the Work of a Superintendent which was chiefly to Visite and Plant Churches When this was done and Places generally provided with fit Pastors their Work and Office was at an end 4. At this time doth evidently relate to the Peoples want of Preaching as the Motive to this Appointment and to the Planting of Churches as the End and Design of it Wherefore when this End is attained and that time no more Existent I mean of that Exigence of the Church there was no more use for them and the Event Proved that as that End was by Degrees attained their Power was gradually Lessened till they were wholly laid aside 5. The Words cited make it evident that this was not intended for a lasting Prelacy in the Church far less for an Episcopacy standing on a Jus Divinum For the Assembly where this Book of Discipline was Established do give them Charge and Commandment they do appoint their Work set Limits and Bounds to their Power they Command them in the very Circumstances of their Work this would be thought strange Presumption in a Meeting of Ministers thus to treat their Bishop 6. To say that their Authority was designed to be perpetual but these Injunctions about some part of their Work was to be Temporary is to speak at Random and to put what Sense we please on other Mens words it is to tell us what this Author would have the Reformers to mean not what is the plain Import of their Words For the Commandment and Charge these are the Words of the Book of Discipline by which they were made Superintendents did include one part of what is Injoyned as well as another part of it and when ever this Work that was Injoyned them ceased their Commission behoved to be renewed as is obvious to any who readeth the History of our Reformation their Injunctions were often Changed till they had no more Work to do and then they were Abolished § 14. Let us now hear how this Author will Prove that the Passage under Debate must have the Meaning that he hath put upon it His first Argument the Composers of the first Book of Discipline in which that Passage is were generally to their Dying day of Prelatical Principles Ans. 1. The Consequence is naught for however the first Draught of it might be framed by the Six Persons whom he Nameth out of Knox p. 287. yet let the Reader turn over to the next page where a Formula is set down according to which it was Subscribed and he shall find that they Approved it conform to the Notes and Additions thereto and it was well known that some Papers being Amended and Licked over and over again by many Persons as this was have at last Differed much from what the first Compilers intended Another thing also may be Observed in that Form of assenting to the Book o◠Discipline that they were careful to Reserve to Bishops Abbots and Priors and other Prelats and benefic'd Men which else have Adjoyned themselves to us say they to brook the Revenues of their Benefices during their Lifetimes they sustaining and upholding the Ministry and Ministers as is therein specified for Preaching of the Word and Ministering of the Sacraments Here the Bishops even such of them as were Protestants are put in the same Categorie with Abbots and Priors and there is no Provision made for their Spiritual Power but for their Temporal Goods and no Successors are intended for them only they are provided for while they live yea the Administrators of Word and Sacraments are here contra-distinguished from the Bishops as well as from Abbots and Priors Doth any thing here look like Prelatical Principles yea is not the whole Strain of this Passage contrarie to them therefore whatever the first Compilers of the Book of Discipline might be it is evident the Approvers of it were not of the Episcopal Principles Ans. 2. He sheltereth his Assertion under the Ambiguitie of Prelatical Principles if he mean these Men were for Superintendents who had a Temporarie Limited Prelacie we shall not Debate that with him if he mean that they were for a Jus Divinum of the Prelacie that he and his Partie owne or for a Perpetuitie of any other sort of Prelacie we shall consider his Proofs for that which are Winram and Willock were Superintendents and so was Spotswood of whom his Son saith he was a constant Enemy to Paritie this proveth nothing against what I have said except he can assure us that Arch-Bishop Spotswood could not through Prejudice and Respect to the Cause he had Espoused mistake and misrepresent his Fathers Opinion in that Dowglas another of them was Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews That proveth him an Apostate from the Way he had owned and we know how he and his Way was disliked by the rest of his former Associats John Row another of them defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy at a Conference appointed by the General Assembly 1575. Here is a pitiful Shift and foull Misrepresentation The Truth of the Storie is even according to Spotswood as well as Petrie not to name Calderwood lest he alledge that I have read no other Historian a Question arising in the Assemblie about the Lawfulness of Episcopacie six Brethren were appointed to Debate the Question in a Conference three were appointed to be on the one side and three on the other it was Master Rows Lot to be on the side of the Lawfulness of Episcopacie can any Rational Man thence infer that he was of that Opinion And if he were of that Opinion there is enough said to take off any Inference that could thence be made against us John Knox was the other of these Compilers whom he will make Prelatical now when he hath been dead a
taxeth some who count Fornication indifferent and contend about Holy Days as it were for Life and Death they despise the Commands of God and establish Canons of their own I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers and the Protestant Church of Scotland in her first State and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth p. 264 265. libro primo disciplinae cap. 1. Censetur Festa Nativitatis Circumcisionis Epiphaniae c. Apostolorum Martyrum B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur rogandus itaque Magistratus ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur excepto Articulo de diebus Festis porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae licet Festa illa celebrent a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant evidenter colligitur omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit quod Pastores quidam Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse Deo sacrum Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet nam inquit colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis Paschatis qua autem authoritate id faciant ipsi viderint This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition and we desire the like Forbearance from others if we cannot use them for which I shall now give some Reasons before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject § 4. Our first Reason is these Days were not instituted by Christ or his Apostles nor did they injoyn them to be instituted nor give Power or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward Ergo there is no sufficient Warrant for them And it cannot be rationally accounted for that either the Church should impose in the Matter of Religion especially or People should be obliged to submit to what hath no sufficient Warrant That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles is beyond doubt our Adversaries do not pretend that they were for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought and if it could be made appear the Case were changed for then they were not the Days that we Debate about That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution we must believe unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture or sufficient Consequence from Scripture or strong Reason if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact if it be Answered the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification and for Decency and Order and these Holy Days are such Ergo. I Reply it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace and of Edification and the Church must not devise new Means for that End but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient in the Way of outward Means And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing Beside that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual as is hinted Luke 16. 30 31. If Moses and the Prophets Gods Means cannot perswade one to believe the Preaching of one risen from the Dead a Mean that a Man contrived could not do it As for the Decency Order and Policy that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days these are a necessary or needless Decency c. If this last there can be no warrant for what may effect it if the first the former Argument recurreth that God by his own Institutions hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church Again if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary if it be alledged that the Holy Days are thus necessary either they must instruct this and shew us that Scripture or Nature hath made them necessary and that the Ordinances of God are undecent disorderly c. without them or the Church doth so determine because she will and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God If it be further Answered that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days as for appointing occasional Fasts or Thanksgivings Reply Not so For the Lord himself by his Providence calleth to these Exercises to be Solemnly gone about on such Occasions but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday in this Week or the next here is a Circumstance of Time which must be determined by Men Nature it self maketh it necessary supposing the Providential Call of God to the Work on that Occasion it is not so with the Holy Days there is no special Providence occurrent which calleth to these Solemnities at one time more than at another Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church and not of the other also Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture for all Times Places and Occurrences without Swelling it to a Huge and Burdensome and less Useful Bulk the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible it is actually done in the Old Testament and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament § 5. Our second Argument Either the Apostles had Warrant from God to institute these Days or not if they had not how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church who came after them had such Power granted by God Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous and Absurd Height yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say that the Bishops in that do what the
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
own it is that a Significant Rite in the Worship of God not founded upon Divine Institution is Superstitious Unlawful and Abominable and such as may Legitimate a Separation from any Church where it is enjoyned to preserve Order and Uniformity Against this I have two Objections 1. That we did never condemn all Significant Rites in Religion even tho they be not founded on Divine Institution Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite and we know no Divine Institution for it and yet we use it in the Worship of God viz. Prayer and several other Exercises and will separate from no Church because of it That a Minister Preach in a Decent Garb and not in a Fools Coat is a Significant Rite used in Religion not founded on Divine Institution yet we shall not separate for enjoyning that This loose and indistinct Way of Refuting an Adversary cannot Instruct nor Convince any Body I shall not Retaliate his Harsh Words by giving this Way the Epithet it deserveth They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Understanding use to distinguish three sorts of Modes of Mens Actions that are found in Religion viz. Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies Circumstances are Modifications of Actions as Time Place Person or a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Essence but is used with it relateth to it and is an Accident or Adjunct of it and it may be such either with respect to the Physical or Moral Beeing of the Action Circumstances use to be sorted in these Memorial Verses Quis quid ubi quibus auxiliis cur quomodo quando And forma figura locus tempus stirps patria nomen Circumstance is a Word of larger Extent than Rite and that than Ceremony a Rite is the Manner of going about any Action chiefly that which is Publick or Solemn confirmed by Law or Custom In a more large Sense it is taken for any Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action rather than to the Substance of it such Rites are used in Judicatures Marriages Burials Inaugurations c. some of them are Civil some Military c. and some also are Sacred when they are appropriated to Religion A Ceremony is a Sacred Rite the best Authors that I have seen whether Heathen or Christian Popish or Protestant agree in this that a Ceremony is peculiar to Religion however the Word be sometimes in common Speech more largely taken This applyed to our Purpose sheweth that our Author doth widely mistake when he representeth us as against Significant Humane Rites in Religion we oppose only these of them which are appropriated to Religion and so are Religious Rites or Ceremonies He cannot but know that there are many Actions used in Religion which are not Religious § 2. The second Thing that I Observe in his Representation of the Opinion of his Adverstaries is that they found separation on Ceremonies imposed to preserve Order and Unity It is no so Let them devise what Ceremonies they will which are not down-right Idolatry and impose them on the most plausible pretences they can think on yea let them use them as much as they will we do not think all this a sufficient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Members but if they impose on us Religious Rites or Sacred significant Ceremonies so as we cannot be suffered to Worship God with the Church unless we either approve them or use them this we think a just Cause of Separation seing such Complyance were our Personal Action and sinful in the sight of God And yet the Separation of them who thus scruple is rather a passive Separation than active they are driven away rather than run away Let us now hear what he hath to say in Defence of the Ceremonies the Question about which he hath so Stated He will not gather together all our Raveries but in a few Words Vindicate the Practice of all Churches c. Those are but Words He had done wisely if he had excepted the Apostolick Churches And tho I deny not but that some Ceremonies did early and unobservably creep into the Primitive Church and that through the Zeal of some Good Men who saw not the â—mportance nor bad Consequences of such Observations it may be made appear that some of the Ceremonies that they now observe had no such early Original and that some of these which were observed in the first Ages are laid aside by them Of the first Sort I instance Kneeling in the Act of receiving the LORD'S Supper the Cross in Baptism and some of the Holy Days of which before Of the other Sort I instance the Trinâ— Immersio in Baptism the Aagapae Baptising on Whitsunday or Dominica in albis rather than on any other Day the Osculum pacis all the Steps of the Catechumeni and Paenitentes before they could be received into Communion with the Church and many other things which one may find in Albaspin Observ. Ecclesiast which is Compendized by Keitembellius there are also not a few modern Churches who are not for the Cermonies as they are Pleaded for by Him and his Party If what I have said be Considered his first Argument proposed by way of Question admitteth of an easie Answer The Apostolick Church Worshiped GOD without Religious Ceremonies not Instituted by CHRIST and I hope he will own these as Societies of Men who are to be more Considered than others A sett of Arguments he next bringeth 1. The Light of Nature teacheth us to Worship GOD and all Men have Agreed in this that Solemn Wâ—rship of the DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society A. If he make the Consequence which he hath Suppressed to be Ergo we must have humane Religious significant Ceremonies we deny this Consequence as not having a shadow of Reason Again if this Argument have any weight humane Ceremonies must be necessarie And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worship but there is a Nullitie in it through want of such Ceremonies which looketh more like Raverie than any thing he can Charge us with 2. Saith he This publick Worship should be fixed and Established by the Wisdom and Authority of Competent Judges as to the Manner and Method Ans. 1. Are the Manner and Method of Worship Religious significant Ceremonies The Method is a Circumstance neither Rite nor Ceremonie for the Manner it is either some-what that is common to Religion and other Publick and Solemn Actions and it consisteth in some civil Rites therefore used in Worship because they have by Custom Obtained in other publick Solemnities this manner of Worship is not to be Determined by the Wisdom and Authority of any particular Judges but the Tacite Consent of the Nation bringeth it in by using it in all such Actions So in the Apostles time for a Man to Prophesie with his Head uncovered and to wear long Hair was
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
Apostles in the same Case might not do If they alledge that the Apostles had such Power then I propose another Dilemma either it was for Edification that such Days should then have been appointed as much as it was in after times or not if it was the Apostles were Negligent or Unfaithful in not appointing them which is Blasphemy to think seing in all these things they were infallibly guided by the Spirit of God if it was not our Adversaries are obliged to shew us what was the Necessity of it afterward which was not in the Apostles Days I know not what can be Answered to this Argument except they alledge there was not Occasion in the Apostles Days for these Appointments many of the great Things that are to be Commemorated on these Days falling out afterward Reply The greatest Things for which these Days are kept were then past Christs Birth Circumcision Death Resurrection Ascension the Effusion of the Spirit also the Conversion of the Apostles Stephens Martyrdom and yet no Anniversary Day appointed for any of these and for the Martyrs that came after the Apostles could easily have given a Hint that they should be so Honoured if they had set apart a Day for Remembring the Martyrdom of Stephen and of James this had been Apostolick Example for after Ages which is a good Warrant for our Practice whence we may rationally conclude that they had not received this Usage from the Lord seing they did not deliver it to the Churches neither by Precept nor Example if it be said that there was less need of Commemoration when these things were recent and Religion in its Vigour Reply The Apostles knew they would grow old things and that all the Means that our Lord himself thought fit for the Remembrance of them would be needed Beside Religion was fallen into some decay and all the Means that ever were needful were needed before some of the Apostles went off the Stage Again some of the Truths that are Commemorated on these Days were controverted and violently opposed both by Heathens and Apostate Christians even while the Apostles lived and therefore they thought of and appointed other Means for Preserving and Propagating these Truths but never minded this § 6. Our third Reason is the Apostle doth expresly condemn the Observation of Days under the New Testament as besouging to the Jewish Pedagogy and unfit for the Christian Church State Gal. 4. 9 10. Col. 2. 16 17. We know the Lords Day cannot there be comprehended because it is injoyned by the â—ord himself therefore we must understand this Prohibition of Days that have no Warrant from the Lord that are the Appointments of Men. Here they have several Answers at hand 1. These Places are to be understood of the Jewish Holy Days these were not to be observed being now abrogated and because the thing designed by them is already fulfilled and the Observation was on the Matter a denying that Christ is come Reply It is not to be denyed that here are directly and especially meant the Jewish Holy Days but that they are not the only Days forbidden I prove First The Prohibition is general and without Limitation therefore no Limitation can be made by Men but what the Lord himself maketh in the Scripture which we do not find except of the Lords Day Non distinguendum est ubi Lex non distinguit Secondly Seing the Jewish Days are here forbidden and no other put in their Room we have Cause to think that no other are allowed more than they are when the Jewish Sacraments were abolished others are substitute to them when the Jewish Sabbath was laid aside another was put in its Place by Divine Authority as may be deduced by clear Consequence from Scripture because the Lord would not have the Gospel Church to be without Sacraments and a Sabbath But when the Jewish Sacrifices were abolished other Sacrifices to be offered by the Ministers of the New Testament are not appointed in their Place whatever the Papists say to the contrary and when the Jewish Days were laid aside none other were brought in their Stead because the Lord would have no other Sacrifices nor Holy Days under the Gospel Thirdly if the Lord will not be served by the Observation of these Days which once had the Stamp of his own Authority is it like that he will be pleased with a Sort of Holy Days that he never injoyned but are the pure Devices of Man Fourthly These Days are forbidden on general Grounds that will reach all Days which are not appointed by the Lord for Gal. 4. These Days are condemned as Weak and Beggerly Elements that is they have no Force to Edifie being destitute of Divine Authority and consequently of the Divine Blessing And Col. 2. they are Comanded not to let Men Judge them that is impose on them injoyn such things to be Observed and Censure them as guilty if they observed them not So Hamond in loc again their Submitting to these things is called a voluntary Humilitie and will Worship and it is said of all these Observations among which these â—oly days were that they were after the Commandments of Men and their Doctrines and that the Observers of them did not hold the Head CHRIST this was a receding from him as the Head and Law-giver of his Church and betaking themselves to other Law-givers I say not that this Phrase importeth no more than this now all these Reasons of condemning the Observation of the Jewish Holy Days do also reach other Holy Days that have no Divine warrant Another Answer to our Argument is the Apostle condemneth the Observation of these Days as if they were still in Force by Divine Command and were not Abrogated by the coming of Christ but not simply as if they might not be observed for the Churches Authority injoyning them Reply This is to make a sense for the Text not to find it in the Text it self they are simply forbidden without any such restricted sense Again if the LORD hath laid aside what himself hath once Appointed for a special use it is strange that Men should revive that again and bring it again into the Church for another use especially when the LORD himself hath Appointed other Means and not these for that other use he hath laid aside the Jewish Holy days which Represented CHRIST to come and he hath Appointed the Word and Sacraments to keep us in mind that he is come and what he hath done for us but our Episcopal Men are not content with that but they will revive some of the old Jewish days as Easter c. to keep us in Memorie of CHRIST alreadie come Answer Thirdly they say we must not observe these Days as the Jews did with a Superstitious Opinion of Worship or as if they were in themselves Holier than other days yet we may Observe them for keeping up Order and good Policie in the Church Reply The weakness of this Plea is alreadie discovered All