to make it appear that the present Presbyterians have receded from the Principles of our Reformers in 1. The Faith 2. The Worship 3. The Discipline 4. The Government of the Church In stead of this last he insisteth on their laying aside the Bishops from voting in Parliament I cannot now degresse to consider what here he sayeth though he insisteth on them at great length for I diverted into the Considerations of this Book onely in so far as the Controversie I have with him or who ever is the Author in the other Book is concerned And there are some of these that are also there Debated which I intend to consider I have alreadie said that we reverence our Reformers but neither thought their Reformation at first Perfect nor themselves Infallible I hope some or other will take him to Task on these Heads and Defend the Principles of this Church from his insolent Obloquie I wish him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his Discourses and particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Administration of the LORD'S Supper as it is managed in the Church of Scotland SECTION IX Of Holy Days of Humane Institution I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions and proceed to his Third Chapter wherein he pretendeth enquire into several new Opinions The first of which is that we are against the Observing the Holy Days of CHRISTS Nativity Resurrection Assention and Commemorating the Piety Faith and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture We do not denie the Charge so far as being against the Anniversaries observation of these Days doth reach That this is a new Opinion we denie though at the same time we confess the contrarie Practice is verie old yet we maintain that no such thing was injoyned or practised in the Apostolick Church which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to He is too confident when he sayeth it is certainly a new Doctrine for we are certain on the other hand that there is Warrant for it in the Word of GOD as there is for no new Doctrine He sayeth it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church Antient and Modern Reformed and Unreformed and other harsh Words he is pleased to run us down with This is Passion not Reason A modest Dissent from a Church or a Person though of the greatest Veneration that is due to Men is no flying in their Face And if he will needs call it so our Apologie is if they flie in the Face of the Holy Scripture we chuse rather to Differ from them than with them to flie in its Face but we put no such Construction on the Opinions or Practices of other Churches Antient or Modern I am not without hope that it may be made appear that he and his Complices flie in the Face both of Antiquitie and of the Reformed Churches by their Opinion about Holy Days and Differ from them more than we do which will appear when we come to State the Question which he hath never minded though he engageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth This is Andalatarum more pugnare to Fight in the dark We are now but in the Threshold considering the Opinion of other Churches He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva and that with Calvines dislike For Calvines dislike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magistrats of Geneva he Citeth two Epistles of his which he doth not distinguish by their Numbers so that I cannot find them not being willing nor at leisure to turne over the whole Book for them But I shall more distinctly point him to other two of his Epistles wherein though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatists They are ad Mons. Belgradenses Ep. 51. p. 112. edit Hanov. 1597. and Mansoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. 520. I say the same of our Reformers and of the French Protestants § 2. I shall now address my self to fixing of the true State of the Question And 1. We do not with the Anabaptists in Germany for some Anabaptists in this differ from them and with the Petro Brusiani cited by Parae in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. out of the Life of Bernhard lib. 3. cap. 5. disowne all Holy Days The Lords Day we owne as of necessity to be observed being of Divine Institution Pardon a small Digression I see no ground to think that Peter Bruce was of this Opinion all that I find ascribed to him Cent. Magd. 12. cap. 5. and that even by Petrus Cluniacensis his Antagonist is Die Dominica aliis putabat licitum esse vesci carnibus The Centuriators wish Utinam vero ipsius Petri scripta extarent ex quibus multo rectius facere judicium liceret quam ex illis qui in defensionem Pontificiarum abominationum conspirarunt He was one of these famous Witnesses for the Truth against Antichrist who went under the Name of Waldenses Albigenses c. It is like he might disowne other Holy Days but there is no ground to think that he disowned the Lords Day 2. We maintain it to be unlawful to observe the Jewish Holy Days I should bring Arguments for this but I think our Adversaries will hardly contradict this Assertion the Lord having of old appointed these Days and all the legal Rites for Prefiguring Gospel Mysteries and the Apostle expresly condemning this Observation Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2. 16 17. where they are expresly called Shadows of Things to come 3. We hold that not only these Jewish Days are not to be observed as such or on Jewish Principles but the Days ought not to be set apart as Anniversary Holy Days on account of Decency Policy and Order in the Christian Church All the Arguments will have place here that were used by the Primitive Christians against them who keep Easter on the same Day with the Jews 4. Our Adversaries are not one among themselves about observing the Holy Days some count them more Holy than other Days and hold that God's extraordinary Works have sanctified some times and advanced them so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour God more Holy than other Days So Hooker Eccles. Polic lib. 5. § 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that these Days are Holy and to be observed antecedently to the Churches Institution Others of them are of a contrary Opinion Couper Bishop of Galloway in his Resolution of some Scruples about the Articles of Perth which are set down in the History of his Life p. 8. of his Works hath these Words in my Mind no King on Earth no Church may make a Holy Day only the Lord who made the Day hath that Prerogative only he sheweth that a Day may be set apart for Preaching as the Birth Days of Princes are for Publick Rejoycing c. Our Author hath not told us which of these Opinions he owneth 5 It is one Question whither a Day may be set apart for
infallible Truth of God together with the Bishops Ergo Bishops have not the sole Authority in the Church but of this afterward The other is it is manifest that he here speaketh not of the Apostles but of the ordinary and fixed Ministers of the Church who taught and ruled the Church after the decease of the Apostles and after the Canon of Scripture was finished Now this Position containeth things worthy of our Observation First that this learned Author maintaineth an Infallibility to be in the Guides of the Church so as they cannot erre seeing what they Determine must be received as the Infallible Truth of God 2. That there must be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church beside the Scripture and without this we have no Standard of Truth but must wander in the dark the Scripture being unfit and insufficient to guide us in the way of Truth and to discover Heresie to us 3. That this infallible Judge of Controversies is the Bishops and Presbyters agreeing together and uniformly Determining what is Truth But here our Author leaveth us at a loss What if some of these Bishops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith or Canons for our Practice be none of the Wisest Best nor Learnedst yet have made a shift to get into the Office of Bishop or Presbyter Next what if his wisest and best Christians that is the learnedst Bishops and Presbyters do not Determine uniformly about our Faith or what concerneth our Practice but some few Dissent or are not clear to go along with the rest Whether in that case have we any Standard for our Religion He would do well to give us Light in this when he hath better digested his Notions and writeth his second thoughts on this Head If some other Person had written at this rate we should quickly have had a whole Book or a long Preface to one exposing his Ignorance Impudence and other such qualities but I shall impute no more to this learned Doctor but that he hath not well Considered what he here saith § 11. It may be it will have little weight with him if I affirm and make it appear that this is plainly and directly the Doctrine of the Roman Church yea their darling Principle and indeed the Foundation on which that Church is built and without believing of which they affirm that we have no certainty for our Religion even as this Author thinketh we have no Standard to distinguish the Catholicks from Hereticks That this is their Doctrine I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations I shall single out a few Eccius Enchirid de conciliis Tollatur Patrum Conciliorum authoritas omnia in Ecclesia erunt ambigua dubia pendentia iucerta Melthior Canus loc Com 7. C 3. conclus 5. In expositione sacrarum Literarum communis omnium sanctorum Patrum intelligentia certissimum Argumentum Theologo praestant ad Theologicas Assertiones corroborandas quippe Sanctorum omnium sensus Spiritus sancti sensus ipsi sit Quanquam à Philosophis quidem rationem Philosophicae conclusionis jure forsitan postularis in sacrarum autem literarum intelligentia majoribus nostris debes nulla etiam ratione habita credere quas sententias de lege de fide de Religione ab illis accipisti defendere Greg de valent Analys fidei lib 8 c. 9. Quod Patres unanimi consensu circa Religionem tradunt infallibiliter verum est Bellarm lib. 2. de Christo cap. 2 lib. 1 de Purgatorio cap. 10. Patres nunquam omnes simul errant etiamsi aliquis eorum interdum erret nam simul omnes in uno errore convenire non possunt Here is a sweet Harmony between our Authors assertion and the Doctrine of these learned men from whom it seems he hath borrowed it But because as I said perhaps he will not be ashamed to own this I shall bring an Argument or two against these Principles that he asserteth or are by just consequences drawn out of his words referring the Reader for full satisfaction to the learned Protestant Writers whether Episcopal or Presbyterian who have defended the Reformation against the Papists for I am sure many even of the Prelatical Party differ from him in this Principle § 12. For the 1. That there is not Infallibility in all Points of Faith or Practice to be found among the Guides of the Church after the Apostles but that any of them yea all of them may in some of these Points erre I prove 1. No such Infallibility is promised to any or all of the Guides of the Church tu es Petrus lo am I with you and such like Promises cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion for the Church may be safe from the gates of Hell and may have Christs presence even though her Guides be under some Mistakes in lesser Matters 2 This Infallibility is inconsistent with Experience the Guides of the Jewish Church erred foully when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver and yet that Church had the Promise of Gods Teaching Upholding and Presence which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them The Arian Church and the Popish Church have foully erred and yet both of them did overspread the face of Christianity almost wholly but there was still a Remnant according to the Promise 3. The Fathers whom I suppose he meaneth by his wise good and learned Bishops and Presbyters not only did each of them erre in some things which I hope he will not deny and how then shall Infallibility in all things be found among them joyntly but they disown this Infallibility to be in themselves or in others as is clear from several Testimonies which I have cited to this purpose Pref. to Cyprianic Bishop examined p 2. To which I now add Clem Alexand Strom lib 7. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. we have the Lord for the Principle of our Doctrine who hath taught us by the Prophets and by the Apostles If any man thinks this Principle needs another Principle he doth not truly keep that Principle And a little after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We do not rest on the Testimony of men but we believe concerning what is in Debate the voice of the Lord and a little before he telleth us that we do not believe the Assertions of men they must not only say but prove and that from the Scriptures Basil Regula moralium 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The Hearers who are Instructed in the Scriptures must examine the Doctrine of their Teachers they must receive these things which are agreeable to Scripture and reject these that are contrary to it Cyp. Ep. 63. ad Caecilium Quod solus Christus debet audiri c. that Christ alone should be heard the Father witnesseth from Heaven Non ergo attendere debemus c. We must not then consider what others before us have thiught should be done but what
Christ did who is before all for we must not follow tho Custome of men but the Truth of God Chrisost Homil. 13. in 2 Cor. sub finem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Let us not carry about the Opinion of the Multitude but try things ye have the Scripture the exact Standard 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Index 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving what this or that man thinketh about these things enquire of all these things from the Scripture Here is another Standard than what our Author mentioneth Origen Homil. in Jerom. It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of the Holy Scriptures for our Opinions and Discourses makes no Faith without these Witnesses Cyril Catehes 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Do not believe me saying these things unless I have them out of the Scriptures Ambros. lib. 1. de fide ad Gratianum Nolo Argumento nostro credas c. I would not ye should believe our Reasoning let us ask the Scriptures the Prophets the Apostles let us ask Christ. § 13. To say that all this is to be understood of what one or a few Fathers say not of that wherein they all agree This hath various absurdities in it for 1. It is falsly supposed as in the Progress of the Debate will appear that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contendeth for 2. If every one of them may erre why may they not all erre seeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men Christs promise of being in the midst of two or three gathered together in his Name doth not free them from all Mistakes The Fathers together and the same men apart are the same persons under different Notions and therefore they cannot be both fallible and infallible 3. The Testimonies above brought do not only make single Fathers fallible but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine for they are still men and the Fathers above cited make infallibility to be peculiar to Christ speaking in his Word Augustine doth often and plainly bar this Distinction contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 5. id genus c. We must read that kind of Writing not with necessity of Believing but with liberty of Judging And Ep 112 ad Paulinam Quod Divinarum Scripturarum c. That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures is without doubt to be believed but for other Witnesses or Testimonies whether single or Combined he maketh no difference as to this ye may receive or reject them as ye shall judge they have more or less weight Also Tom. 2 Ep 19 Solus Scripturarum libris c. I have learned to give this honour and reverence to the Books of Scripture only to believe there is no errour in them but I read others however learned or Godly they be see how exactly he meeteth with our Authors notion of ascribing Infallibility to what is Determined by the most Wise learned and Godly Bishops and Presbyters I so read them that I do not believe any thing to be true because they thought so but because they prove it by the Scriptures that it is so This forced a Confession from Occam a Papist of profound Learning a Disciple of our Country man Joannes Dans that Augustine here maketh no difference amongst other Writers beside the Prophets and Apostles whether they be Popes or others whether they write in Council or out of it I shall refer the Reader to the Protestant Writers who have collected the Errours and Mistakes even of General and also more private Councils § 14. The second Proposition that may be drawn out of this Authors words is that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necessary in the Church besides the Scripture for he telleth us that without the uniform Determination of Truth by the wisest best and learnedst Bishops and Presbyters we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Catholick Church from the Combination of Hereticks this Principle falleth with the former for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture such a Judge cannot be necessary for the Church doth de facto subsist without such a Judge Again the chief ground on which his Partizans the Papists assert the necessity of such a Judge is because the Scripture cannot hear Parties nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contending Parties may hear and be obliged by I ask him if his wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters can hear him and me and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us they being now all dead as well as the Apostles and Prophets and nothing of them extant but their Writings as are also the Sacred Writings The one is not a visible Judge more than the other and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers why not rather to the Scripture it self which I have proved to be of more yea of the only infallible Authority And indeed there can be no visible Judge but the present Church to which therefore the Papists flee And even that cannot be such a Judge to all Christians for they cannot all hear the Pope or Council pronouncing a Sentence and therefore must be content with their Writings or Report of their Priests who pretend to no Infallibility and it is strange that more certainty should be expected from either of these than from the Divinely Inspired Scriptures A visible Judge we own to wit the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened an infallible Judge we also acknowledge vix God speaking in his Word but a Judge that is both infallible and also now visible to us we cannot find The Protestants Arguments against this Popish Errour I shall not insist on they are 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture sendeth us not to men but to the written Word of God for Decision in controverted or doubtful Points Isa. 8. 20 Luk 27 29 Mat 22 29 John 5 39. 2. Christ and his Apostles did always appeal to Scripture and to no other Judge 3. All men may erre as hath been shewed and therefore they cannot be an infallible Judge 4. If there were such a Judge sure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is such a one but not one word of either of these in the Bible 5. Neither the Papists nor such as this Author can tell us where we shall find this infallible Judge they are not agreed whether the Pope alone or a general Council alone or both concurring must be this Judge He telleth us of the wisest best and most learned Bishops and Presbyters but leaveth us to guess who these were it is a hard case if our certainty of Faith must hang upon this Pin who were the best the wisest and most learned among them who have Instructed the Cherch The third Proposition above mentioned cannot stand the other two being taken away it hath been made appear that Scripture is the only Standard and therefore
not the learned and wise Bishops Also that they have disowned such Infallibility and Authority to be in themselves or any men Et collapsa ruunt subductis tecta columnis SECTION II. The Question stated THe first of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleased to charge Presbyterians is that they are for the Government of the Church by Presbyters acting in Parity and against Prelacy or the Jurisdiction of a Bishop over Presbyters He is pleased to examine some of our Arguments and pretendeth to answer them c 1 2 and then cometh to prove his Opinion c 3. Thus stating the Question p 105 whether the Rectoral Power and Episcopal Jurisdiction that the Apostles had over subordinat Ecclesiasticks was afterward committed to and exercised by particular persons or to a Colledge of Presbyters acting in perfect Parity and Equality I do not fancy this Method that a Dispute should be so copiously insisted on and Arguments so much tossed for the one side before we come to state the Question and determine what we controvert about Wherefore though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material I shall use another Method 1. I shall state the Question 2. Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion besides these which he is pleased to take notice of 3. Reinforce these our Arguments which he meddleth with 4. Consider the strength of his Plea for Bishops on account of their Succession to the Apostles § 2. In order to stating the Queston we are to consider that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church even among the Episcopal Party themselves who talk so highly of Unity and condemn others who differ from them I mean the Presbyterians as Schismaticks and such in whose Communion people may not safely abide as this Author doth more than insinuat p 11. The various Opinions of our prelatical Brethren I have taken notice of Rational des of Nonconform p 159 160 161. I shall not resume what is there discoursed but consider this Diversity somewhat more extensively Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture or was practised in the Apostolick Churches I have seen this question learnedly Debated in a Manuscript if the Abetters of it mean that sometimes the Apostles acted by their own sole Authority at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church and on other Occasions deputed Evangelists to Govern for them for a time or that in some Circumstances of Government they did not always observe Uniformity I think all this may be allowed but if it be meant that the Substantials of Government were not always the same as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers but that some Churches were then Governed by Bishops others by a Colledge of Presbyters I see no ground for such a Debate nor to think that there was any such Variety in the Apostostolick Church 2. I have some where found it denyed that Apostles had Majority of Power or Jurisdiction over Presbyters and Paul Bayn dioces Tryal p 73 Arg 5 and p 77. Conclus 5. is cited for this Also Mr. Rutherf Div Right of Church Government p 21. I need not Debate this And I find Bayn saith no more but that the Apostles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords but only as Christs Ministers and that no such Power is in the Church save in the Person of Christ but he expresly alloweth in them Ministerial Power declarative and authoritative Mr. Rutherf I suppose meaneth no more This indeed is the Opinion of many and our Adversaries cannot disprove it that the Apostles did not usually make use of their Power in settled Churches further than to declare the Mind of Christ to them but left the exercise of Church Power to the settled Officers of these Churches 3. Some are of Opinion that though the Apostles exercised Authority in Governing the Churches and left Ecclesiastical Officers in the possession of it to be exercised by them during the want of the Christian Magistrat yet as soon as the Church had a Civil Magistrat owning the Faith that all ruling Power devolved into his hand This is no part of our present Debate though our Brethren in the late Reigns allowed much more of the Exercise of Church power to the Magistrate than was warrantable 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole Christian Church though many think that Monarchical power of Bishops over the Presbyters and People of a large District now called a Diocess hath no more Warrand in Scripture than this hath Nor 5. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital and to be managed by the body of the people or so Aristocratical as to be managed by the Elders in every single Congregation independent on superior Judicatures to whom no Appeal may be from them or who may call them to an account for their actings and authoritatively Censure them 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Government is now necessary or of Divine right but that the Church or Magistrat in several Churches may Appoint what shall be found most fit and sutable to the people among whom it is to be exercised This Opinion was lately generally owned by our Episcopalians and asserted strongly by Doctor Stillingfleet now Bishop of Worcester that learned Author doth also prove out of an antient Manuscript that this was the Opinion of Cranmer and four other Bishops and it met with no Opposition from that Party so far as we could hearof nay not by this our Author who is now so highly become a Jure Divino man It was then the way to Preferment and suteable to the Oath of Supremacy and more especially to the Test. But it is one thing with some men to think that a Popish King may alter Church Government and another thing to allow the same Power to a Protestant King We are then agreed about the Jus Divinum of a species of Church Government and the unalterableness of it which maketh it seem strange that this learned Author should make such Tragical Outcrys against our pleading a Divine Right as if this were Enthusiasm yea much worse than speculative Enthusiasm p 14 Visions and fancies ibid while he is as positive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth which we shall not call by so ill names but think that who hath the worse in matter of Argument is in an Errour but such an Errour as is consistent with Sobriety and good sense § 3. The Question is not 7. What sort of Church Government is best and nearest to the Scripture Pattern for that may be nearer to it which yet doth deviate from the Scripture but less than another Form of Government doth and though that Form of Government is more commendable than another which cometh nearest to the Pattern in all the Steps of the Administration of it and we are willing that parity
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
other Text p. 21. we never used by it self as an Argument against Episcopacy and we deny that the Text now considered hath been understood in his sense from the beginning Presbyter where Authority and Jurisdiction is mentioned I confess I am unacquainted with such Passages of Scripture I wish he had named some of them for our Instruction We bring to the contrary Acts 20 28 Phil 1 1 2 Tim 3 1 all which himself mentioneth The first thing that he opposeth to our Argument is that p 23 he proveth at great length that the Jews both in the first ages of that Church and also afterward did dichotomise their Clergy into Priests and Levites though there was a High Priest above the other Priests who also had their Subordinations And therefore saith he the Apostles and Apostolick men made use of the current Phraseology thus he p 25. I shall not contradict him in this Assertion nor be much concerned what respect the Apostles had to the Phraseology used by the Jews But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument unless he will affirm and prove that this Dichotomy was so used as that no Distinction was ever made either by Name or any other Character of the High Priest from the rest or of the Heads of the several Orders of Priests David by the Spirit of God distinguished them from these Priests that were under their Charge If he prove not this he saith nothing to the purpose and this he will not I hope attempt the Scripture being so full and plain to the contrary and that in all the ages of the Jewish Church from Aaron to Christ. If he will let us see these special Masteries and Jurisdictions whereby Bishops were in the New Testament distinguished from Presbyters as he confesseth p 26. The High Priest was distinguished from the other Priests even in these times when he saith the distinction of Names was least noticed we shall pass from this Argument as inconcludent but this he can never do neither hath he attempted it wherefore our Argument is not yet touched by him I shall not adventure to list my self among his Ignoramus's whom he setteth that mark on that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bishop above Presbyters because there was a High Priest among the Jews though some of his Brethren use this Plea and himself in the very next words seemeth not to be very far from it while he saith but rather thus I plead that the Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewish AEconomie was never abrogated in the new If it be not abrogated sure it standeth in force and is of Divine Right to this day and if so we must have Jure Divino not only a Bishop over the Presbyters of every Province but a Pope over all these for so it was in the Jewish AEconomy § 8. He saith p. 28. that the first Presbyter or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Apostolick age he that was vested with a Prostasia was as much above the subordinate Presbyters as the High Priest among the Jews was above other Priests This is boldly asserted but we see no proof for it We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who presided but that there was one distinguished from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work constantly we find not also that the Praeses in these Meetings had the same power either Extensive or Intensive with the High Priest among the Jews is an absurd and unproved Assertion The Concession made by Salmasius maketh nothing against us viz. that there was a Praeses but that that learned Author held that in the Apostolick age there was one person to whom the proto cathedria was constantly due we deny though we yield that in after ages this usage was brought in yet without Superiority of Power He saith p. 29. that there are such manifest and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurisdiction due to one of the Ecclesiastical Senate in the Apostolick age that the learned Sticlers for Paritie cannot deny it His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angels from Timothy and Titus and from the Succession of Bishops gathered about the middle of the second Century and this proof he will have to be beyond all contradiction Here were a large Field for Observations if one were in the humour to expose this Discourse I shall take no further notice of his gross Mistakes than the Vindication of Truth maketh necessary First whoever they be that stickle for Paritie and yet acknowledge a Jurisdiction due to some of the Ecclesiastical Senat either in the Apostolick or the next following Ages they are not only not the learnedst men but they cannot be reckoned men of a common measure of Understanding what man of Sense will stickle for an Opinion and yet expresly yield it to his Adversary I deny not but some Presbyterians yield that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that any of them do carry it so high as the Apostolick age is more than I know I wish he had named them and pointed to the places where these Concessions are found in their Writings far less do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurisdiction for that were indeed to yield the Cause for the main thing in Dispute is whether one of the Presbyters hath Jurisdiction over the rest 2. It had been more suteable to the design and high pretenses expressed in his Book to confound us and rout our Cause with these manifest and palpable Evidences than to tell us of them in general I profess I have hitherto seen no such Evidences in any of their Writings 3. The Evidences that he mentioneth the Angels in the Revelation c. are neither palpable nor manifest Proofs of such Jurisdiction he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from these Topicks hath been Disputed and has I judge been abundantly answered and that Sticklers for Paritie both the learnedst and the less learned have rejected these Evidences and denyed the Conclusion they were brought for and I intend to debate them with him as they shall fall in 4. That the Catalogues of Bishops gathered in the midle of the second Centurie should be a manifest and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurisdiction in the Apostolick age is beyond my Comprehension for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power and these who made these Collections are not so infallible that their Assertion should be a manifest and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they said § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclesiastical Meetings Canonically without the Bishops particular Advice and Authority as he argueth p. 29. is of no force because first we know not what he will call Canonically done if he think nothing was canonically done without a Diocesan Bishop this is to beg the Question and not to argue for his Conclusion 2. If he mean
contemporary Records This I pass as a piece of his usual and groundless Confidence He saith when Blondel's Book appeared the Presbyterians concluded before ever they read it that it was all pure and undenyable Demonstration And that his Countreymen the Scots Presbyterians think they need no other Answer to what is written against them but to say that Episcopacy and all that can be found for it is quite ruined by Blondel and Salmasius and yet that few of them read them It is not manly so to despise an Adversary whom one undertaketh to refute neither is it Wisdom to spend so many hours as he hath done to argue the Case with them who are so despicable nor is it Christian so to undervalue others whose Praises are in the Gospel which I am sure may be said of some eminent Presbyterian Writers who now having served their Generation enjoy their Reward but it is his way thus to supply what is wanting in the strength of his Arguments I wonder who told him that the Presbyterians did so extoll Blondel's Book before they read it or that few of them have read him and Salmasius Who of us ever said that saying Blondel and Salmasius had ruined Episcopacy was a sufficient Refutation of it May not we without such blame commend the Works of these learned Men as well as he p. 40. telleth us that every Line of them is sufficiently exposed and frequently and for this cryeth up the Bishop of Chester He saith we shut our eyes against the clearest Evidences that we think that Blondel ' s Book may barre all Disputation on that Head that we refuse to enter into closs Engagement with them These are a parcel of Words in which there is no Truth and if we should Retort every Syllable of them on himself I say not on his whole Party among whom I know there are learned Men who would be ashamed of this manner of pleading their Cause how should this Contest be decided Some who have spent more of their Years in Reading than this Author hath done and also have given better proof of it have not so insulted over their Adversaries as men of no Reading There is also little ground given for his insisting on this as one of our main Arguments for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers while the Controversie is about paritie of Church power and the Jurisdiction of one Presbyter over the rest yet they use oftner to act the defensive part with respect to Antiquity that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture and which is of more weight they never laid the stress of their Cause on Humane Testimony but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings But seing he is pleased to lead us in this way we are willing to engage with him as closly as he will on this Head and to debate both on whose side the Fathers are his or ours and whether their Testimony be so convincing as he pretendeth it to be § 2. Although I do much dislike my Antagonists rude Treatment of so great a man as Blondel was saying that he studyed to please the Independents rather than the Presbeterians because they were then more potent and numerous so p. 42. and calling his Arguments childish Reasonings p. 43. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear that every Testimony he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent by it self I observe also that this Author though he professeth to answer the Citations brought by Blondel yet medleth but with a few of them and these none of the most evident except what Blondel bringeth out of Jerom The first Testimony that he mentioneth is the Inscription of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians written from Rome which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Church of God dwelling in Rome to the Church of God dwelling in Corinth Blondel hence concludeth that there was no Bishop in either place seing no notice is taken of him To this our Authors answer is this would make for Independency and that the Laity as he speaketh had an equal share in Jurisdiction with the Bishops and Presbyters And that this would prove the equality of Softhenes Timothy and Sylvanus with Paul because he sometimes joineth them with himself in the Inscription of some of his Epistles And that it was the Humility of Clement that made him so write Answer 1. He mistaketh the Opinion of Independents they have their Church Rulers and do not put the Exercise of the Government in the hand of the Multitude though I confess many of them give the people somewhat more than their due 2. If this was an Epistle of a whole Church to a whole Church as Blondel taketh it there was no need of mentioning either Bishop or Presbyters and so equality of Jurisdiction of the people with them cannot be hence inferred but if it was an Epistle of a Bishop to a Church where another Bishop governed as this Author will have it It is an unusual Stile not to mention the Bishop at least of that Church to which the Epistle was directed the Humility of Clement might make him not to distinguish himself from the people but our Bishops would count it no Humility but Rudeness so to treat his brother Bishop at Corinth 3. The Apostle Paul nameth some of the Pastors of the Church with himself in the Inscriptions of some of his Epistles as his fellow Pastors who had joint though not equal Authority in the Church with him but he never assumeth a whole Church into that Society with himself By the Church in both places it may be rationally thought Clement meant the teaching or ruling Church or the Church representative and in that case it might have been expected if he were for Episcopacy that the Bishop at least in Corinth should have had some peculiar mark of Honour as when a Presbytery among us is addressed the Stile is to the Moderator and the rest of the Brethren c. though no special Jurisdiction be ascribed to the Moderator But after all I look on Blondel's Observation on this Passage as rather an Introduction to what he had further to say from this Epistle and a cumulative Argument than to be fully concludent by it self § 3. Another Passage out of the same Epistle of Clement brought by Blondel our Author taketh a great deal of pains about from p 43. It so entangles him that he cannot with much strugling get out of the Net The words of Clement cited by Blondel are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is wherefore they the Apostles preaching through Countries and Cities placed their first fruits whom by the Spirit they had tryed to be Bishops and Deacons for them who should believe neither was it a new thing for of old it had been written of Bishops and Deacons I will make their Bishops in Righteousness and their Deacons in Faithfulness From this Passage Blondel observeth first that in Clement's time there was Bishops in
but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderator of the Presbytery by whom the Epistle was to be communicated to the rest of the Pastors and by them to the People and indeed it is certain that the Word may be so taken and if we should yield this to our Brethren it cutteth the Nerves of their Argument unless they can prove that these single persons had Jurisdiction over the rest of the Pastors of these Churches Which they can never do from the Epistles themselves for all the Reproofs and Commendations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters tho addressed to them by the Praeses Nor can the Direction of the Epistle to a single person prove what they intend there is nothing more ordinary than to address a Community by the Praeses of their Meeting if a Letter be Directed to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the use of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Episcopal Jurisdiction The third Opinion to which I most incline is that Angel is here to be taken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 o◠Collectively for the Colledge of Presbyters so that to the Angel is in our Phrase to the Moderator and remanent Brethren In the Contents of the old Translation of the Bible which expresseth the sense of the old Church of England in this matter they are called Ministers So it was understood by Aretas Primasius Ambrose Gregory the Great Beda Haymo and many others saith Owen of Ordination C. 2. p. 35. § 21. I shall first prove that it may be so taken next that it mu◠be so understood For the former it is usual in the Scripture and particularly in the Mystical Parts of it in Types and Visions and th◠most of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile every one knoweth to put the Singular Number for the Plural or to mean a Multitude when but one is exprest how often is a People or Nation expressed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of such or such a Place Th◠Ram Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and Persia 〈◊〉 20. The whole Succession of the Apostate Bishops of Rome is calle◠Antichrist the Man of Sin the Son of Perdition The Antichristian Church consisting of Priests and People is called a Beast the Whore So an inferior Number is put for a great Multitude the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns and her Deliverers four Carpenters Zech. 1. 18 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the singular number thou shalt do so and so hundreds of Instances of this nature may be given Whence it is easie to conclude that there is no Absurdity nor is any Violence done to the Text if by Angel we understand the Rulers of the Church or the Colledge of Presbyters My next work is to prove that Angel must be so understood for which I bring these Arguments 1. The Lord here useth a Title that doth not signifie Rule or Jurisdiction but Gods Messenger to the People as also Rev 1. 16 20. These Angels are called Stars which importeth their Teaching or holding forth Light to the People both which are common to the Presbyters seing then he doth not use a word of Authority whereby the Bishop is pretended to be distinguished from the Presbyters but of Embassy and giving Light whereby the Presbyters are distinguished from the people this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Bishop but for Teaching Presbyters It were a strange thing if our Lord designing to single out one person from all the rest of the Church would design him by that which is common to him with many others and not by that which is peculiar to himself It doth also strengthen this Argument that both in the Old and New Testament they whom God sent to his People to reveal his Mind to them are called Angels Jud. 2. 1. Hag. 1. 13. Mal. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 10. Yea the Legions of Angels who are imployed to Encamp about the People of God for their Safety are called the Angel of the Lord Psal 34 7. § 22. Argument 2. It is not without a Mystery that Rev 1 20 our Saviour in opening the Mystery of the Vision speaketh twice of the seven Churches but shunneth calling the Angels seven he saith not the seven Stars are the seven Angels of the Churches but the Angels of the seven Churches as by the seven Spirits Rev 1 4 and 3 1 is meant the Spirit of God sufficient for the needs of all the seven Churches so here the Angels of the seven Churches must be the Pastors whom the Lord hath provided for the use of his Churches tho they were not one only for every Church but more Argument 3. It is manifest from Acts 20 28 and I have evinced it § 3. of Sect. 3. that there were more Presbyters or Bishops at Ephesus than one If then Christ wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephesus under the Title of Angel he could not mean a single person It cannot be denyed that they who are called Overseers of the Church of Ephesus Acts 20 28 are they whom Christ here calleth Angel the same thing is expressed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obscure and Mystical Stile Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny that there were more Church Officers imployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bishop Now these must either be comprehended under the Candlestick or under the Star they cannot be a part of the Candlestick for they give Light as the Candlestick doth not but by the Candlestick is meant the People to whom the Light shineth they must then be comprehended under the Star and consequently under the Angel whence it followeth that the Angel is a Plurality of Persons So that we may conclude that as by Candlestick i◠understood the Collective Body of People so by Star or Angel is understood a Body of Church Officers and not a single Bishop Argument 5. Many things are said in these Epistles which cannot be Expounded with respect to a single person as at Ephesus the Angels forsaking his first Love is threatned with removing the Candlestick that is Unchurching that People can we think that such a fearful Judgment could be threatned for the Sin of one Bishop if the rest of the Elders and People were free and this we must say unless we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epistle is Directed is not a single person but a Community The same may be said of several other Churches would the Lord spu◠out all the Presbyters and People of Laodicea for the Hypocrisie of one Bishop Argument 6. There are several Passages in these Epistles wherein a Plurality is expressed as that which is meant by Angel to whom the Epistle is addressed as the Devil shall cast some of you into Prison can that be Expounded some of thee Bishop of Smyrna or some of your Pastors and People and unto you I say 〈◊〉
was the Appointer of the first of them but he doth not tell us of their sole Jurisdiction He argueth p. 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Parity had been known after the Apostles and the Succession of single Bishops interrupted this Argument had been weak and the Hereticks might have insulted A. I deny that either he or the Hereticks could have any such advantage because the Fathers did not argue from the Singularity of the Persons succeeding one to another they had no occasion to consider that in this Debate further than to instance in one person so succeeding in a Church where there were more it was enough to confound the Hereticks that such Doctrine was constantly taught since the Apostles days and they could tell them by whom What followeth p. 126 127. is a Repetition of the same thing about which I shall trouble him no more let him tell it over again as oft as he will He needed not tell us p. 128. that the Successions of single Persons Governing particular Churches and their Jurisdiction and Preheminence is acknowledged by some of the Gallican Church we know there are Worthy Men in that Church but we never thought them all infallible § 31. His third Enquiry is Whether we may safely lean on the Authority of the Ancients in an Affair of this Consequence he saith no doubt we may and ought I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Distinction and of some Doubting and that it is blind Confidence to be so positive without clearing the State of the Question And there is the more need of distinguishing in this Case because our Author seemeth in pursuing this his Enquiry to confound two different Questions one is whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succession of Bishops since the Apostles days Another is about the Antiquity of Episcopal Government as he wordeth it p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succession of Teachers in a Church whome some Men will call Bishops another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone I shall here propose and apply five Distinctions 1. The Ancients and their Writings are to be distinguished Some of them lived in or near to the Apostolick times others of them some Ages after the Credibility of the former caeteris paribus is far greater than that of the later Because they had better causam scientiae and because tho Tradition without Writing may at first and under the best advantages soon and easily be corrupted yet by length of time and passing through many hands it is more apt to be depraved and that even without design For the Writings ascribed to the Ancients some of them are Spurious and only bear the Names of Famous Men. Others of them are corrupted and interpolated tho they were really done by them whose Names they bear others of them are Dubious so that it is sub judice whether they be credible Testimonies or not A second Distinction is of the things about which we debate our Author indeed doth distinguish in the Progress of the Debate between Matters of Fact and Matters of Opinion or Principle of which afterward I distinguish things on which our Faith or our Duty doth depend from these things that we are not so concerned in being merely Historical Passages or Debates about Natural or Politick Things in Matters of Fact of the later sort we are to believe the Fathers as credible Historians and regard them at least some of them as Men of Learning yet so as not to believe their Histories nor receive their Conclusions against Sense and Reason for the former sort of things I look on their Testimony as insufficient to perswade the Mind or clear the Conscience Scripture not the Fathers must be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Practice Distinction third These things that we Debate about are either determined in Scripture or not if not much regard is to be had to thess Holy and Learned Men who had much of the Mind of God in many things yet as was said before we must not blindly follow them over the Belly of Sense or Reason If they be Scripture light must be our Guide not the Opinion of the Fathers Listinction fourth The Testimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous or they are Divided in the later case we cannot follow them but must examine which of their Opinions is best founded In the former their Testimony may occasion a great prejudice and may readily byass the Mind yet it should not determine us against Scripture Light they all being fallible Men. Distinction fifth The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered or we must guess at them from dark Hints As the one sort can no way command our Faith so neither the other is to be received implicitly § 32. Out of these Distinctions this State of the present Question resulteth whether the Testimonies of the Fathers be a sufficient ground on which we may determine whether Episcopacy or Parity be the Government of the Church that Christ hath instituted My Antagonist is for the Affirmative I am for the negative for which I give these Reasons 1. We have no concurrent nor unanimous Testimony of the Fathers on either side for all the noise that is made of the Universality and Perpetuity of this Tradition and Unanimity about it If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point we shall quit this Argument Many of the Fathers have said nothing on this head few of them have have written on it directly and of purpose and what they have said is but indirectly without considering the State of our Controversie which I am perswaded was not brought into Debate in the Primitive Times many of the Excellent Men of the first Ages have written nothing many of the Writings of that time are perished there are different Opinions in this Debate among them whose Writings we have which arose from the Change of the Practice that had been in the Apostolick Age whence then should we have this Harmony that they talk of for this last the rest are certain enough I refer the Reader to what hath already been said in this Disputation 2. What most of the Fathers say on this head is obscure and hard to be understood their Expressions being suted to the Customs and Dialect of that time which was plain enough to them who then lived but not so to us who know not their Idioms nor the Customs that they relate to as then known things they also used words in a far different sense than we do As Merit Pennance Bishop and such like It is sometimes far easier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture and Reason than to clear the Expressions of some of the Fathers about it 3. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine and Spurious the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers make their Testimony unsafe to be the solitary ground of our Faith or Practice
even in this matter Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head and how Conjectural all the Knowledge is that can be attained by the most diligent Search And surely it is no Wisdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion wherein we either please God or sin against him on such a Sandy Foundation Of this Opinion was Theophilus Antiochenus who flourished about an 130. and is said to be Sextus a Petro in the Church of Antiochia lib. 3. ad Autolycum near the beginning he is shewing the Certainty of what Christians believed compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods and hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. It was needful that Writers should be Eye Witnesses of what they affirmed or that they have exactly learned the truth of things from them who were present when they were done for they who write Uncertainties that they themselves know not do as it were beat the Air his work is to be found Biblioth Patr. T. 2. This Passage is p. 151. of the Cologn Edition 1618. 4. It is acknowledged by the best Antiquaries that the History of the Ages of the Church next to the Apostles is defective dark and uncertain This is not only found now at this distance of time but it was early complained of by Eusebius who had far more help to a certain and distinct knowledge of these things than we have lib. 3. C. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how many and what sincere Followers or Successors have Governed the Churches planted by the Apostles it cannot be confirmed but so far as may be gathered out of the words of Paul Where he layeth the Certainty of our Knowledge of what concerneth the Government of the Church on Scripture and not on the Fathers And in his Preface to his History he telleth us he had gone in a Solitary and Untroden Path and could no where find so much as the bare Steps of such as had passed the same Way having only some small Tokens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and there as it were Also that he had not found any Ecclesiastical Writer who unto this day and it was the Interval of three hundred years have in this behalf he is speaking of the Succession of Bishops imployed any Diligence Is there not then great Certainty to be expected from this or any other Writer concerning these times that we should look on their Accounts as sufficient ground to build our Faith on in a matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in The Learned Scalliger hath this Observation to our purpose Intervallum illud ob ultimo capite actorum Apostolorum ad medium Trajani imperium quo tracts Quadratus Ignatius florebant plane cum Varrone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocari potest is quo nihil certi de rebus Christianorum ad nos pervenit praeter admodum pauca quae hostes pietatis obiter delibant Swetonius Tacitus Plinius quem hiatu◠ut expleret Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clementis nescio cujus non enim est ille eruditus Alexandrinus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippi non melioris scriptoris sine delectu ea deprompsit Tilenus no Friend to Presbytery saith full as much he telleth us of the Lacunae and Hiatus of these times and that a fine actorum Apostolorum ad Trajani tempora nihil habemus certi Shall we then take the broken and uncertain Accounts that we find of these times for a sufficient Foundation of our Faith about what is the Will of God concerning the Government of his House § 33. Our fifth Argument we take from the Fathers disowning each himself and all others beside the Prophets and Apostles from having sufficient Authority to determine in the Controversies of Religion not exempting that about Church Government This our Writers have made so evident against the Papists that it is a wonder that Protestants should use such a Plea And indeed the Papists get much advantage by this Conduct for the same Arguments that our Author and his Complices use in this Debate they improve in the other Controversies and with the same advantage For if the Scripture be not sufficient Light to us in this I see not how it can be thought perfect in some other of our Debates if unwritten Traditions be found necessary in the one case it will be hard to lay the same aside in some others I have adduced some Testimonies of Fathers to this purpose Preface to Cyprianick Bishop Examined to which I shall now add August lib. 2. contr Manichae of the Scriptures he saith 161. Si quid velut absurdum noverit non licet dicere author hujus libri non tenuit veritatem sed aut codex mendosus est aut interpres erravit aut tu non intelligis In opusculis autem posteriorum quae libris innumerabilibus continentur sed nullo modo illi sacratissimae Scripturarum Canonicarum excellentia conquantur etiam in quibusdam eorum invenitur par veritas longe tamen est impar authoritas Jerom is much and often in this strain Ep. 62. ad Theoph. Alexandr Scio me aliter habere Apostolos aliter reliquos tractatores illos semper vera dicere istos in quibusdam ut homines errare Et Ep. 76. Ego Originem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror quo modo Tertull. Novatum Arnob. nonnullos scriptores Ecclesiasticos ut bona eorum eligamus evitemusque contraria juxta Apostolum dicentem omnia probate quod bonum est eligite The same he saith also of his own Writings in Hab. Zech. Si quis melius imo verius dixerit nos libenter melioribus acquiescemus Ambros. de incarnatione C. 3. Nolo nobis credatur non ego dico a me quia in principio erat verbum sed audio non ego affingo sed lego c. Cyril Hierosol Cat. 12. Meis commentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non attende possis enim forte decipi sed nisi de singulis Prophetarum testimonia acceperis ne credas dictis c. Yea the Papists themselves reject the Authority of the Fathers when they please and teach in general that they are not always to be followed as Dally and Turretin shew out of Cajeton Canus Maldonate Petavius and Baronius who often reprehendeth the Fathers even in the Historical Accounts they give of Matters of Fact and doth not this very Author so far forget himself as to say that Jerom erred in his account of the practice of the Apostolick Age p. 73. as I above observed and if Jerom did mistake why might not the rest also the Opinion of the Learned and Excellent Bradward de Causa Dei lib. 2. C. 3. corroll p. 601 602. is consonant to what I have said He sheweth that the Fathers did often seem at least to favour Hereticks particularly Pelagius and p. 602. E. Et quis theologus nesciat alias scripturas quorumcunque scriptorum non tanta firmitate
semper muniri sed posse quandoque ab hominibus emendari and instanceth in Origen Jerom Cyprian and Augustin Our Authors Exception against this in his Distinction of Matters of Opinion and Matters of History that the Fathers might mistake in the one not in the other I am afterward to consider § 34. For further Confirmation of this Truth I shall transcribe a few heads of Arguments out of a Manuscript written by a Learned Divine of this Church Entituled Some Propositions collected out of the Writings of Divines about Church Government because few can have access to read the Manuscript it self He proveth 1. That the Testimony of the ancient Historians is not in every thing and particularly in that point of the Hierarchy probably true because 1. Even Episcopal Writers of the best Note deny their Testimony to be universally true Sutliv de Pontiff lib. 2. C. 11. p. 148. Multa de Petre Paulo aliis sanctis hominibus narrantur fabulose quibus nemo necessario tenetur credere ibid. p. 153. About Peters being at Rome Ad testimonia Patrum quod attinet expedita est Responsio quae fama acceperant narrant sed dubia incerta Whitaker of Peter and Pauls being buried at Rome Hoc totum nititur fidei humanae ex historiae veritate pendet at fides Religio nostra certiori fundamento nititur testimonio scil spiritus sancti Baron Pref. p. 3. Nulla res hactenus in Ecclesia magis negligi visa est quam Ecclesiasticarum rerum narratio quod si Historias consules magnam eorum classem essâ— intelliges quae absque delectu perceperunt aniles fabulas 2. They relate many things that are generally disbelieved as the Letter of Abgarus to Christ and Christs Answer Peter being twenty five years at Rome as Bishop of that Church is questioned by most Protestants Sutliv saith Credo eum Romam nunquam vidisse Reynold Colla with Hart bringeth strong proofs that Mark was not Bishop of Alexandria 3. Many of these old Histories are lost as that of Egesippus as Bellarmine confesseth others are vitiated some carelesly written as Socrates testifieth of Eusebius's History lib. 1. C. 1. That he took more care to praise the Emperor than to describe the Acts of that time Also several things are in Eusebius which he did not write for he citeth Sozomen lib. 3. C. 20. who lived an hundred years after him 4. The Testimony of most Ancients about the Hierarchy is in causa propria 5. Many of them whose Testimony is brought lived an hundred years after the Apostles times and therefore had things by Tradition which useth to grow by being often rehearsed for saith Socrates lib. 5. C. 9. Nulla fabula narratur bis quin duplo major evadat 6. The Testimonies of the Ancients in this are not harmonious He further proveth 2. That these Testimonies cannot found a Theological Conclusion For 1. They are no part of the Canon of Scripture on which ground Protestants reject Testimonies from Apocrypha 2. Their Writings contain some things that neither Party assenteth to 3. Their Sayings were not probative in their own time Ergo neither in ours seing we and they have the same ground of Faith 4. A Theologick Conclusion must be built not on Topick or uncertain grounds Reynold Colla. with Hart C. 6. Praeter authores sacros nullus Historicus certus esse potest i. e. Idoneus ad faciendam fidem in Theologia Sarav de Pontif. l. 2. p. 151. Quis Ecclesiae status fuerit antequam Apostoli tradiderunt rationem gubernandi Ecclesiam nemo dicere potest nisi ex sacris scripturis Sutliv 12. T. Probatur nostra sententia that Peter was not at Rome 1. Quia nusquam ex scripturis probatur nihil ejus seripsit in Epistolis suis Petrus nihil Paulus nihil Lucas qui res Apostolorum diligenter prosecutus est A Theologick Conclusion must either be founded on some evident and clear Demonstration or some infallible Authority neither of which is in the Sayings of the Ancients for the Hierarchy § 35. Let us now hear what he bringeth for this his Opinion where in he is so positive and confident one might here expect strong Reasons but behold pro auro paleas He telleth us p. 128 129. The Apostolical Churches had their own Fasti in which were recorded the Succession of their Bishops and the Names of the Martyrs and that there are many Apostolical Monuments beside in which Egesippus c. could not be mistaken A. 1. Euseb. was of a contrary Opinion he could find none of these Fasti but was forced to go in an untroden Path as I shewed § 31. 2. He should have given some evidence for this confident Assertion for we know not where to find these Fasti without his Direction I deny not that in some after Ages they began to keep Records in Churches but that in the Apostolick and next succeeding Age they had them we find not and these are times of which we with Eusebius and others complain of as to the Uncertainty and Defectiveness of History 3. The Memory of the Martyrs was early Recorded we do not find that the Succession of Bishops was so 4. Suppose the Records of both had been early and exactly kept this can give no Light in the present Debate unless they had Recorded what Jurisdiction they whom they called Bishops did exercise which he doth not so much as alledge out of these Faâ—â—i 5. It is confessed by all that Hegesippus was a very Fabulous Author and took many things on Trust which he neither found in the Fasti nor any Apostolical Monuments For Irenaeus and Tertull they say nothing for his Cause but what we are ready to contest with him even supposing their Authority to be as great as he will make it For Clement he is mistaken about him as I shewed before out of Scalliger § 36. Next he advanceth a Distinction and ingeminateth it of Theorems and Matters Fact he confesseth in the former that the Ancients might mistake but not in the latter that it is impossible that they should mistake and they would not impose upon Posterity seing such things were obvious to the Knowledge and Observation of the meanest Christians we must not think that they Lied in these or Conspired to propagate a Lie to Posterity for they were Men of such Sanctity defended the Truth with their Blood many of them had miraculous Gifts they were Unanimous in delivering this their Testimony A few Considerations will easily dissipate this Mist 1. He supposeth the Unanimity of the Ancients bearing Testimony to Episcopacy being the way setled by the Apostles which is utterly denyed he taketh it also for granted that that was universally practised in and since the Apostolick Age till of late which is also said without all ground if he will prove either of these we shall insist no more on either Arguments or Defences from Antiquity If he will take it for certain
and despise all that we bring out of the Fathers and all our Exceptions to what he and his Party bring we must leave it to the Judicious Reader to believe as he seeth cause 2. He doth most unreasonably suppose that if we think the Testimonies of the Fathers was insufficient to determine us in that matter that therefore we impute Lieing to them or that they designed to impose upon Posterity For one may mistake and misrepresent a History and yet not lie or design to deceive others because he speaketh as he thinketh the Error is in his Understanding not in his Will Doth this Author think that Jerom told a Lie or designed to impose on others in that wherein he imputeth Error to him as is above said I suppose he will not owne such Thoughts of that Holy and Learned Person wherefore it is most absurd to impute to us that we count some of the Fathers yea or all of them Liars because we think they might err even in Matter of Fact It is well known that Matters of Fact are frequently misapprehended and thence misrepresented even by them who would be loath to tell a Lie if this were so I could prove him and some others of his Party to be notable Liars which 〈◊〉 will be far from asserting is there not much false History of things done in the time when they are reported or written much more it may be so at great distance of time when Reports pass through many hands viresque acquirunt eundo Wherefore the Sanctity Zeal for Truth and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejecting them as insufficient to be the Rule of our Faith or Practice in the things that concern Religion 3. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fathers about whose Testimony we now Debate I think he will find it hard to prove them I deny not that some extraordinary Gifts did continue in the Church some time after the Apostles but can this Author tell us who had them or that the Fathers who have left Writings behind them were so Gifted Beside their Gifts if they had such as he alledgeth could not prove what he intendeth unless he could make it appear that they had such infallible assistance as the Apostles had which I think he will not attempt to prove § 37. I fourthly observe on this part of his Discourse that his Distinction is wholly impertinent to this purpose and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fact no less than some Theorems or Matter of Principle because 1. This matter doth contain in it a Principle or Theorem viz. That Episcopacy was instituted by the Apostles now this might arise from misinterpreting some Passages of the Apostolick Writings if they say the Church was governed by Bishops in the Apostles time which is Matter of Fact they must also say it was appointed by the Apostles which is Matter of Jus or a Theological Theorem and this must depend on their understanding some Passages of Scripture as holding forth that Truth For Example I left thee in Crete unto the Angel of Ephesus and such like now they might misunderstand some other Scriptures as is confessed why not these also None of the Fathers is so positive as to say that he saw a Bishop exercising sole Jurisdiction in the Apostles time wherefore their Assertion of the Factum if any such there be must have been built on their Misapprehensions of the Jus and if they be not infallible in the one they could not be so in the other 2. This Factum that Bishops alone governed the Church and not Presbyters with them for that is our Question and that in and next after the Apostles times must come to all or at least to most of the Fathers by Tradition for none of them could see the Practice of the Church in all these Ages about which we dispute but Tradition is very lyable to lead People into Error as every one knoweth if the Fathers might mistake about what is written in the Scripture as is confessed how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition which their Fathers have told them and which is not so Recorded in Scripture but that they might misapprehend it 3. Whereas our Author p. 130. ascribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Doctrines and Theorems because these might depend on their Ratiocinative and Intellectual Faculties and they had no Priviledge against Error of that Nature may not the same be said of this Matter of Fact that we now debate about the Management of Church Government is such a thing as a Man cannot understand nor rightly apprehend merely by Sense and without the use of Ratiocination How can we understand what is the Power and Jurisdiction of one Man over others without inferring it from the Acts we see him do with respect to them I find my Antagonist often out in his Reasoning in this very thing He readeth of a Bishop set in a higher Seat than the Presbyters Church Acts spoken of as done by him without mentioning the Presbyters he findeth in Catalogues of Successions in Churches one mentioned and no more and such like here his Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty inferreth that one Bishop ruled these Churches and the rest of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government further than advising here is ill Logick and false Reasoning and in that he will not say that he is infallible It cannot then be denyed but that the Fathers behoved thus to reason from what they saw and heard if then they might err in the use of their Intellectual and Ratiocinative Faculty what should hinder but that they might err in this matter which maketh his Distinction wholly void He saith p. 131. We must either receive this Historical Truth or say that no Age or no Society of Men in any Age can transmit the Knowledge of any Matter of Fact to the next Generation A. 1. It is not absurd to say that no Humane History about Matters of Fact can so transmit what was done in former Ages as to be a sufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice in any part of Religion without or contrary to Scripture tho it may give ground for a Historical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment To apply this we maintain that Episcopacy is beside and contrary to the Scripture and if he will beat us out of that Hold we shall yield him the Fathers wherefore if all the Fathers in one Voice and that plainly and positively would say which yet they have never done that Episcopacy is of Divine Right we are not obliged to believe it because we know they may err and the Scripture cannot err 2. The Consequence is naught There are Matters of Fact that are purely such that Men see or hear and cannot mistake about them if their Sense be sound and other Requisits to right Sensation be not wanting these may be so transmitted by Humane History
to Posterity that we need not fear to be deceived about them but have a Moral Certainty but it doth not hence follow that such Matters of Fact as must be known not only by Sensation but Conjoyned Reasoning can be so transmitted to Posterity by mere Humane Testimony as that we are obliged on that Testimony alone to build an Opinion or engage in a Practice that Religion is so nearly concerned in as it is in the Matter under Debate The Ordinances that we owne must have surer ground than is necessary for many Historical Truths that we do not nor ought to Question § 38. He affirmeth p. 131 132. that Episcopacy was from the beginning by Divine Authority a Copy of the Jewish AEconomy transmitted from the Apostles to single Successors perpetually to be preserved in all Ages that it was uniformly setled by the Apostles in all Churches All this he hath said over and over again but hath not proved one word of it Neither is any thing here said to our present purpose unless he prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is a sufficient ground for us to believe all this for that is the present Debate He saith nothing is answered to all this but that they the Presbyterians say the Ancients were Erroneous in several things And is that nothing I have shewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this than in other things That they who transmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity setled by the Apostles were sufficiently acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions and that these Customs and Constitutions were not only preserved in the Ecclesiastical Records but conveyed to their Eyes in the dayly Practice of the Church this he affirmeth p. 133. I suppose to prove that the Testimony of the Fathers alone is sufficient ground for our Faith that Episcopacy is Juris Divini Most of this is already Answered being but a Repetition of what he hath said before I further A. 1. These Fathers were acquainted with the Apostolical Constitutions by their Writings for he will not say that they were Eye Witnesses to Apostolick Practices tho it is alledged that one of them saw John the Apostle that will not prove such acquaintance with his or other Apostles way we have their Writings as well as they had and seing it is confessed that they were not infallible in Understanding and Expounding Scripture it is reasonable that we should see with our own Eyes and not with theirs and we should not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apostles meant so and so in their Writings 2. We think the Apostolick Constitutions are best preserved and most purely yea infallibly in the Apostolick Writings these are the Ecclesiastical Records that we lay more weight on than the Fasti of the Churches that he saith were in the after Ages 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the Eyes of the Fathers the Constitutions of the Apostles we utterly deny for Practice and Institution are two different things for the one is not always a good commentary on the other even in the Apostles times the Mystery of iniquity began to work Practice began to vary from Institution and in the very thing we now speak of there were Efforts to carry Practice beyond the Rule when Diotrephes did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affected to be primus Presbyter and we may rationally think that this Ferment did when the Apostles were gone off the Stage gather strength among Men who were not so humble nor mortified as they should have been Practice doth often degenerate from Principles as we see in dayly Experience and it is probable that this very thing might deceive some of these Holy Men and make them judge a miss of the Apostolick Constitution and consequently make their Sentiments no safe Rule for our Guidence in this Matter Beside all this we cannot yield that the Practice of the Church was such as our Author fancieth in the times of the first of the Fathers or that they do so represent the Practice of the Church as he imagineth He insinuateth another Argument p. 134. That the Fathers found the Series of single Successors in all the Apostolical Churches governing Ecclesiastical Affairs and this Succession not asserted as a thing that was then opposed but rather supposed and inferreth that a Tradition so stated and conveyed is as Authentick and Infallible as any thing of that Nature can be A. That the Fathers found this or that they aâ—â—erted it is denyed what he else where bringeth for proof of this is answered Again if the Fathers had found this they had erred we maintain that they were Men capable to mistake and to find what was not to be found Further it is not probative that the Fathers did not find this way opposed but supposed both because the Degeneracy from the Apostolick Constitution that there was in the Primitive Church came in insensibly it wrought as a Mystery unobserved 2 Thess. 2. 7. I do not understand that Scripture exclusively of other things but inclusively of this and were as the Tares when Men Sleep Also because if there were Opposition made it might be suppressed and not transmitted to Posterity by the Influence of the Party which had the Ascendent Yet for all this we deny that the Fathers of the first Ages had that Jurisdiction of Bishops that he talketh of to oppose or that it was in their days § 39. What followeth p. 134 135 136. seemeth to be designed as a Herculean Argument it is brought from the dangerous Consequence they run upon who derogate from the Authority of this Traditional Conveyance in a Matter of Fact for by the same reason we must question the most Sacred things in our Religion And for an Instance of this he sheweth that the Canon of the Scripture was not universally received before the Death of the Apostles but some Books questioned these Books were received upon Search made by the Church and finding that they were agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolical Persons or Holy Men who Conversed with such If we receive some Books of Scripture on the Testimony of the Ancients how dare we dispute their Fidelity in a Matter of Fact relating to the Polity of the Church So that on the whole Matter either we must receive their Testimonies in this or we must question the Authority of some Books now received into the Canon for it may be objected against this last Tradition that it was so opposed by Men of great Name but the other was always universally received I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoused as inclining to Popery tho his Accusers failed in their Probation he here and in some other Passages of this Book seemeth to prove what they could not make out This Medium Stapleton and many others of the Romish Doctors use to prove that the Church
not the Scripture is the Ground of our Faith because without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine and which are Spurious just as this Author telleth us we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church upon which Scrutiny some books are received into the Canon which at first were doubted of I advise him to read Whitaker against Stapleton especially his Duplicatio lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controversie is solidly handled as it is also in many other Protestant Writers It is observable that Popery and Prelacy must be defended by the same Arguments and that this Author hath no better Evidence for nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures than he hath of Episcopacy that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church I mention the Divinity of the Scriptures because the whole of it is made up of its Parts the several Books and if our Belief that this Book is a part of the Canon Ex Gr. Ruth be built on the Churches Authority so it must be with another Book and another and so of them all I must here then digress a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Protestantism against this my Antagonist Let me not here be mistaken as thinking that our Certainty of the Christian Doctrine in general were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical We have sufficient though not equal Certainty of both Or as holding that the Authentickness of the several Books of Scripture were alike evident some of them bear more manifest Marks of Divinity or Motives of Credibility than others do And yet in them all there is what may satisfie us that they are from God Or thirdly As of Opinion that the Testimonies of the Christians of the first Ages are of no use not Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter I owne with Chemnit exam Concil Trident. pt 1. p. 86. That as Scriptura habet authoritatem principaliter a spiritu sancto deinde a Scriptoribus so postea a Primitiva Ecclesia tanquam teste No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Testimony of the first Ages is a strong Plea but we rest not on that Ground alone for if we did our Faith should be resolved into the Authority of fallible Man Yea we should reject some of these Books which we now receive as Canonical which were for some time questioned we affirm then against this Author that the Books of Scripture were not received by the Church upon the Testimony of Men singly Which he either must mean or his Argument is not to the purpose I argue then against him out of his own words the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doctrine of these Books and finding it was agreeable to the Apostolick Standard and that the Original Conveyance of such Books was supported by the Testimony of Apostolick Persons or other Men c. Here himself doth not make the Testimony of the Fathers a sufficient ground of our receiving these Books but what the Church found in them by Searching So that indeed he overturneth the Sufficiency of the Foundation that he would have us build on by laying another beside it If he will let us see Episcopacy to be suteable to the Apostolick Standard we shall embrace it but cannot owne it without that tho all the Fathers in one Voice should plead for it Again the Church after her Scrutiny and these Apostolick and Holy Men who bare Testimony to the Conveyance of these Books either had some ground for owning them as Divine or none but because they thought so the latter I hope he will not say if he say the former we shall receive these Books not on their sole Authority but on these Grounds that they went upon If he say the present Church received them from the Church of former Ages he must needs sist somewhere and not proceed in infinitum Whatever Person or Church he sist in the Argument recurreth with respect to them Further if we receive the Books of Scripture because of the Testimony of the Church our Faith both of their being from God and of the Truths contained in them must be resolved ultimately into the Veracity of fallible Men and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible God unless he will make the Church infallible as his Complices in this Opinion do and even that will not help him seing this Infallibility cannot be proved And if it could I ask whether these infallible Persons who after the Apostles searched what Books were Authentick had the Knowledge of this by Means or by Revelation the latter the Papists do not pretend the former will serve us using the same Means for this Knowledge Lastly I ask whether they who conveyed these Books to us could be deceived or not The latter he will not assert for he hath told us they may be deceived about Theorems and that such a Book is Canonical is such if they could be deceived it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of so high Concernment on their Opinion I conclude that the Books of Scripture are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built not on the Testimony of the Church but on the Veracity of God who speaketh and we know that God speaketh in them from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it self affordeth of which our Writers against the Papists bring not a few If he can give as good ground for Episcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God we shall receive the one as well as the other § 40. His next Work which beginneth p. 136. is to consider the Concessions of the Learned Presbyterians in this controversie which yield some Propositions that not only shake but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Doctrine It is well that there are some Learned Men among them he sometimes speaketh of them without Exception or Discrimination in another Strain and even here what he giveth with the one hand he taketh away with the other for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to build I in the Entrance of this Contest with him must enter my Protestation that I will not owne any Proposition tho advanced by the Learnedest of the Presbyterians that hath a mischievous Tendency and if any such Assertion should happen to drop from me upon Admonition and sufficient Instruction I shall retract it errare possum haereticus esse nolo He beginneth with Salmasius Walo Messal p. 7. confessing that even the ancien times except the Apostolick Age distinguished between Bishop and Presbyter I acknowledge the same and require this Author to shew how this overturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianism which he reckoneth the 〈◊〉 Doctrine The Ancients early made difference in the Name reserving that of Bishop to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
for it was not used either for its Advantage or disadvantage but an occasional Observation cast into a Parenthesis to shew that it was merely the Deed of the Church however it might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments Our Author now p. 166. imagining that he hath dispelled all the Mists cast by Presbyterians on what he pleadeth for about the Principles of our Reformers with respect to Church Government proceedeth to give us Accompt of a second Modell that Church Government was cast into But as an Introduction to this he falleth on the Mistakes and weaknesses of the Reformers with the Preface of a pretended unwillingness to expose them so the sincerity of which pretension the Reader may Judge of if he consider that the whole of this Discourse is wholly Impertinent for we are to consider their Actions rather than guess at their Motives if the Reader also reflect on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reformation as a violent and disordered Reformation Their weakness he exposeth in two things one is that they went on this Principle that the best way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Papists as they could to have nothing in Communion with them but the essentials the necessarie and indispensible Articles and Parts of Christian Religion what else was in its nature indifferent and not positively and expresly Commanded in the Scripture if it was i◠fashion in the Popish Church was therefore to be laid aside and avoided as 〈◊〉 Corruption as having been abused as made Subservient to Superstition and Idolatry Here is a false representation of our Reformers and that in three things 1. This Principle was never held nor Practised by them in the Latitude nor extensiveness that he mentioneth they indeed were against Religious Ceremonies devised by Men as on other Grounds so on Accompt of their being Symbols of Idolatrie and Superstition and having been so used but there were many parts of Religion that were not fundamental but of inferior Note that they did not so deall with 2. They never Rejected any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it whether it were of greater or lesser Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth but always were able to give other Reasons for their Opinion or Practice 3. They always were willing to receive what could be by good consequence proved by Scripture though it were not positively and expresly Commanded I advise my Adversarie if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own by speaking what is not Truth For the Principle it self duly stated according to what I have said I am willing to Debate it with him but that is not his business but rather to expose it by Invectives The next thing that he Representeth them in as weak is they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the Church in Poperie to be Imployed still for the Churches use I think this Debate is little to our purpose and therefore I wave it § 24. His next Attempt is to prove that there was a second Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland after the publick Establishment of the Reformation and that this was Episcopacy And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of History in which it is hard for any Man to follow him rejecting what ever disliketh him and casting Dirt on all that have written the History of our Reformation not sparing Spotswood himself when he doth not please him only he hath had the hap to light on a Manuscript out of which he alters adds and contradicteth all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church whence that Manuscript came what Authority it hath whither it be his own or any other Mans he is not pleased to tell us He calleth it his Manuscript whether he would have us take him for the Author or for the Owner of it I cannot determine nor do I see what Title he hath to it on either Account I have the present use of a Manuscript which as I am credibly informed is the very individual Copy that he had which now belongeth to the University of Glasgow Whether any other Copies of it be extant I am uncertain It was Transcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk in the year 1638. It containeth the Acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1616 inclusive and other things relating to Church Affairs I shall in a few Words shew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript by shewing that it is far from setting forth our Reformers as enclined to Episcoprcy and by pointing at some of his false Citations out of it for the former it will be evident to them who without Byass consider the following Passages Assembly 1562 p. 6. not the Superintendent alone but they with the Ministers and Elders are to expone to the Kirk the State of the Kirk among them and note Offences that the Kirk may find some Remeed for them p. 7. Superintendents as well as other Ministers are removed and tryed in Order to Censure by the Assembly so also p. 8. and almost every where This looketh not like Episcopal Jurisdiction p. 7. Sess. 4. the Assembly giveth Power to Superintendents to transport Ministers but with this express Limitation that it be done in the Synod and with Consent of the most part of the Ministers and Elders Ibid. Sess. 3. Speaking of Inhibiting such as have unduly entered into the Ministry it is said this Act is to have strength as well against them that are called Bishops as others pretending to any Ministry in the Kirk Where even the Name of Bishops as then used seemeth to be disliked and their Prelation disowned and their Subjection to the Ministers met in an Assembly supposed so far were they from owning sole or superior Jurisdiction in them Assembly 1565. p. 21. Ministers must be tryed at their Entry by Learned Men of the Kirk such as are presently the Superintendents appointed thereunto where the Perpetuity of the Superintendents Office and Power is disowned they for the present not always were to do that Work also that their Power is derived from the Assembly not Divine Institution is plainly insinuated Assembly 1566. A Petition to the Council with Expostulations against the Queens restoring the Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews to his Jurisdiction where they affirm that the Causes for the most part judged by his usurped Authority belong to the true Kirk Ibid. Bishops Abbots c. warned by Superintendents within whose Jurisdiction they lived to compear before the Kirk to answer for not waiting on their Flocks Assembly 1567. Sess. 4. p. 44. The Bishop of Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function of the Ministry for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell a Divorced Adulterer On his Repentance he is restored again to the Ministry of the Words No mention of restoring to Episcopal Jurisdiction The Manuscript giveth a very
one of these Articles it is desired that Qualified Ministers might be provided for vacant Bishopricks This proveth no more but that the major part of this Assembly thought fit that seing Men bearing the Name of Bishops for little more they had were for an Interim tollerated in the Church their Places should neither be vacant nor filled with insufficient Persons All this may well consist with a Dislike of that Lordly Power of Bishops that some were Aspiring to and that my Antagonist pleadeth for § 27. Our Author thinks he hath now done his Work and proved that Prelacy was privatly and publickly liked from the beginning of the Reformation it seems he hath argued himself into a Belief of it such is the Efficacy of Prejudice which few else will be perswaded of He thinketh his further Work needless and I think it had been more for his Credit to let it alone it is to prove that Presbytery met with Opposition and I could seldom observe that any good Design was carried on but Satan raged against it and found Instruments against it his former Historical Discourse he justly calleth Nauseous p. 216. But what followeth is much more so and yet worse for he falleth to downright Railing against Master Andrew Melvil in not only a nausebus Gingling Strain of Words but with such Unmanly Bitterness as a tender Conscienced Christian would abhor yea a Person of common Morality would be ashamed of and is only fit for the Scolding Women that have lost all Shame The foull Misrepresentation of Matters of Fact which have some Semblance of Truth in them that this Narrative aboundeth with I leave to the History that I hope may appear ere long to correct them I am no further concerned than with what is Argumentative of which I can find nothing here for we deny not that there was then as now an Episcopal Party who were loath to let go their hoped for or enjoyed Church Preferments That after Master Melvil appeared was the first time that any appeared for Presbytery in Scotland or against Episcopacy is a daring Assertion after which we may expect whatever he shall think to be for his Interest considering what hath been already adduced out of the Book of Discipline One who readeth this his Historical Discourse may easily perceive what Shifts he is put to for proving the Regent Mortons Change from Episcopacy to favour Presbytery and to prove his Intentions in some of his Actings and that by a long Train of Arguments To prove that England though Episcopal did endeavour to promote Presbytery in Scotland To prove the Ignorance of the Clergy of Scotland at that time To prove Beza to be ignorant of the Government and Constitution of the ancient Church p. 248. and that not out of his own Book which it seems he had not read but out of his Adversary Saravia and indeed he proveth Beza's Ignorance by such Instances as will serve for any Presbyterian and conclude them all to be Ignoramus's which I know is this Authors Opinion oftner than once or twice expressed I pass with a transient Observation his bitter Sarcasm against Days of Solemn Fasting and Humiliation often appointed by Presbyterians p. 254. It had been good his own Party had used them oftner and that they and we had improved them better I take notice also of his making so very great a Difference between the Meetings of Ministers and Elders for Exercises that is for Interpretation of Scripture and Presbyteries which were set up on account whereof he representeth it as a great deal of Ignorance in one who affirmed that the real Exercise of Presbytery in all its Meetings lesser and greater continued and was allowed in the year 1572. I deny not but that there was a Difference between these two Sorts of Meetings as there is between a Child and a full grown Man viz. The Meetings for Exercise or Presbyteries call them what ye will did at first meddle with fewer Acts of Church Power than afterward yet they Acted with Authority For the Ministers and Elders met to interpret Scripture I hope the Elders were not Interpreters by publick Teacâ—…ng as well as the Ministers the People no doubt were also present at these Exercises as Hearers but the Elders are mentioned as Constituent Members of a Meeting wherein the People had no Share which must be an Authoritative Meeting King James the sixth was far from his Opinion about these Meetings who in the Conference at Hampton-Court 1603. in the second days Conference p. 78 79. when Doctor Reynolds moved that the Clergy might meet once every three Weeks for Prophesying as Bishop Grindal and other Bishops desired of her late Majesty the King being stirred at this said that they aimed at Scottish Presbytery He looketh on it as ridiculous that G. R. had reckoned that Presbyteries were from the beginning and fancieth that he hath no other ground for so saying but that Calderwood had said that the Kirk of Scotland had four sorts of Assemblies ever since the beginning of which this must needs be one But I can tell him of other Grounds on which he might reckon this Meeting a Presbytery one is the General Assembly 1579. as the Manuscript he so often citeth hath it p. 95. did expresly determine that these Meetings were Presbyteries another is what is above said and a third is that even in times of Episcopacie in Scotland these Meetings were called the Exercise and yet they pretended to Presbyterial Power in them though it was in Subordination to the Bishop That Calderwood sayeth that Presbytries succeeded to these Meetings importeth no more but that Presbytries were after set up with more Power and Freedom than they then had under Superintendents or Bishops When he cannot contradict Matter of fact with respect to the prevailing of Presbytrie he falleth to down right railing at the Assemblie which condemned Prelacie for boldness folly iniquitie preposterous Zeal if more Reproaches had then occurred to his Fancie it is like we should have had them it is neither good Manners nor a token of a good Cause thus to fall from Reasoning to Scolding I leave him now after he hath again mistaken the Question to please himself with re-counting his Exploits and to tell the World what he hath made appear in not a few pages After which he bringeth two Witnesses for Confirming what he had so long insisted on The first of them is an Author with whom I am not acquainted but seemeth to be of his own Sentiments So that what he sayeth of the Opposition made to Presbyterie in Scotland is no more to us than what A. M. D. D. himself hath said especially seing we have not the Reasons but the bare Assertion of that Author The other is King James the sixth to whose Testimonie brought also by the Author of the Ten Questions I did then Oppose and still do his own Explication of what he sayeth in an after Edition of his Basilicon doron that he
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
his Point we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and stated Days for this Commemorating Worship and maintain that Christ hath appointed Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration and he telleth us the Church hath Commanded it also to be done and there is an End § 11. He next bringeth somewhat like Reason the Church may appoint these Seasons which are but Circumstances of time as well as the Jewish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer at which the Apostles were present Acts 2. 15. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and express Institution of GOD but were kept by an Appointment and Custom of their own Ans. 1. He doth injuriously insinuate that we require an immediate and express Institution for the Days that we will observe where have we ever said so let him Prove an Institution either by express Words or good Consequence or Apostolick example or by anie good Medium and we shall acquiesce 2. The Appointing Holy Days is more than determining a Circumstance of Time It is a sequestering of these Days perpetually from Civil to Sacred Use it is to give them a relative Holiness as far as Mans power can reach by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercises of Religion it is a Dedication of such a part of our time to GOD so as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time and so making a difference among Days which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie the Apostles Rom. 14. 5. counted it a weakness in some who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus slightlie what they did was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They distinguished days one from another and that with respect to Religion which could not be without judging one of them better and more Holy than another and so it is Expounded by Erasmus and Vatablus Eslius turneth it eligit unum prae alio is this no more but determining a Circumstance Beside the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circumstances of Worship as we please but when it is Necessarie that a Circumstance that relateth to Worship must be determined and it is not determined by the Lord in Scripture in that case Men may and must Determine it but this is not the Case in hand there is no need that a stated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Mysteries of our Redemption seing the Lord himself hath appointed his own Day for that End and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration 3. For the Jewish Church appointing hours of Prayer It is to be Considered that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice And these Hours of Prayer were appointed by God not the Church It is true Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewes were obliged to Observe everie day and on their Festivities they added a Fourth but this was in the degenerat times of their Church as the Papists have their Canonoical hours Maimonides indeed telleth us that Esdras made Forms of Prayer and they appointed the Number of Prayers according to the Number of the Sacrifices but it cannot be Proved that these Constitutions were of that Antiquitie § 12. He further reasoneth thus p. 171. there is something Analogical in the Christian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews which are not the less Acceptable because Voluntarie but rather the more as long as they are within the Circle of these things which he hath Commanded Ans. If we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies and make these a Warrant for modes of Religious Worship there shall be no end of devising new Ways of Worshipping God while yet Men keep within the Compass of what is Commanded as to the Substance of their Service In this case the most fancieful Contriver and Inventer of what is New fine and gaudie shall be the best Divine and there shall be no end of Contention for what this Bishop thinketh a fine way and Anological to what is Commanded another shall think unfit We have cause to bless the Lord that he hath given us a more sure Rule for our Direction even the Scripture 2. These Days Invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes for these were Commanded in general and a Warrant given for them and Directions given how they should be Managed Levit. 1. 3. and 3. 16. and manie other places nothing of this can be said of the Holy Days People may Pray as oft as they will and so may the Church meet as oft as she will for Religious Service as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pleased but the Jews were never allowed to set up stated Days and to separate them from other Days for their Free-will-offerings no more are Christians allowed to do so with respect to Prayers and Praises 3. If Modes of Worship or stated Days for them be not less Acceptable because Voluntarie there could be no such thing as Will Worship which yet the Scripture condemneth and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teach for Doctrine the Commandments of Men viz. about Religious Worship which is contrary to Maâ—th 15. 9. I confess Prayer and Praises are not the less accepted because Voluntarie for these are Commanded Duties but to separate Days from Common use to these Exercises and that without special occasion and constantly when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end this is not Commanded in general nor in particular nor hath any Analogie with the Jewish Free-will-offerings this we Assert not to be within the Power of the Church if he think it is he must Prove it He sayeth the Doctrine of Presbyterians is contrary to all Christian Churches and he telleth us of Citations to this purpose by Durellus No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us but such an universal Assertion cannot be Proved by a Thousand Instances if we can bring one instance to the contrary and for this we adduce the Apostolick Church I have also § 4. mentioned Churches and Learned Men in them who are as far from his Opinion in the Matter of Holy Days as from ours I shall now add some more Luther lib. ad Nobilitatem Germanicam Art 5. consultum esse ut omnia Festa aboliantur praeter diem Dominicum And lib. de bonis operibus Utinam saith he apud Christianos nullum esset Festum nisi dies Dominicus That Calvin was really against them all though for Peace he yielded to some few of them I have shewed above Bucer in Math. 12. p. 118. hath these Words Ferias alias sive Dei-pari Virginis sive Christi sive Sanctorum Nomine commendatae sint optarem abrogatas universas And he bringeth strong Reasons for his Opinion while he addeth Primum enim constat nullo Dei verbo invectas ubi enim in Apostolicis Scriptis aliquid de Natali Christi de Epiphania similibus facile crediderim Zelo Dei a veteribus introductas
thought that when ever the Jews came from the Mercat they Plunged themselves over Head and â—aâ—s in Water act 1. 15. the Spirits Cleansing the Soul is expresâ—ed by that Word so Act. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Hence it plainly followeth that Christ enjoyneth a Sacramental Use of Water in Baptism for a Mystical Washing and the Word being of so large a Signification and Christ not having determined how much Water should be used in Baptism whether the Body should be wholly Dipt or a part of it or Water should be Thrown or Sprinkled on the Body or what Quantity should be Cast on that all these ways of Washing have Divine Warrant and tho none of them be enjoyned exclusively of another yet every one of them hath Christs Warrant the Consequence of which is that this Dipping is no Humane Ceremony especially considering that every one of these ways of Baptizing hath a Mystical Signification put on it even in the Scripture Dipping in the Text that he citeth and Sprinkling and Rinsing in the Old Testament see Ezek 36. 25. And this will be yet further confirmed if we consider that Christ Teacheth that however applying Water to the whole Body may be a sit and allowable Ceremony to express Spiritual Washing yet that is not necessary but a little may be as effectual for that Mystical Use as the whole Joh. 13. 10. What I have said precludeth the Objection that Christ maketh the three ways of Baptizing only lawful and alloweth the Church to determine which of them ought to be used for the general Word implyeth a Disjunctive Command neither is it in the Power of the Church to determine one way exclusive of another nor should different Practices in this Case be Censured as receding from Institution each of these ways is a Mode of Baptizing which is within the Compass of Christs Institution § 9. That this Immersion was used in the Jewish Church yea it may be proved to have been used among Heathens also is no Proof that it is not of Divine Institution as it is used in the Christian Church for the same may be said of Baptism which Christ made a Sacrament Neither doth its Mystical Signification make it to be a Humane Ceremony seing it hath that from Christs Institution nor doth that make it so necessary as to exclude all other Modes of Baptizing seing other ways have their Mystical Significancy as hath been shewed yea Casting Water on the Person may aptly signifie the same with Dipping viz. being buried with Christ a part of the Body under the Water may signifie the being under it as Washing the Feet signifieth Washing the whole Body Joh. 13. 10. He inferreth p. 268. that the Power of Rituals is still lodged in the Church which she may vary and alter to serve the Ends of Edification This is a most absurd Consequence for 1. He doth not here distinguish Rituals nor exclude these of Divine Institution but layeth them in the Bulk open to the Aâ—bitriment of the Bishopâ— if they think it for Edification they may dispose even of the Saâ—…ments as they will for these also come under the general Head of Rituals 2. It no way followeth the Lord hath left some Circumstances of his Worship undetermined and variable Ergo he hath left the Power of Rituals to the Church For the Immâ—…n he speaketh of is no more than a Circumstance of Baptism viz. what Quantity of Water should be used and to how much of the Body it must be applyed this is left variable it doth not thence follow that the Church may bring in new Rites that have no Foundâ—tion in the Word as for Example the Sign of the Cross. He telleth us p. 271. of the Protestants abroad who have furthest receded from the Practice of the Roman Church that they never thought a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God was in it self Superstitious and Unlawful And we in this agree with them I have already often told him what Ceremonies we owne and what we reject He instanceth in the Waldâ—nses retaining the trina immersio and the trine Fraction of the Bread in the Euchaâ—ist We never thought the Waldâ—nses perfect tho it is very evident to all who know any thing of that History that they were far from using the Ceremonies used in the Episcopal Church and that they condemned them generally and that the Simplicity of the Apostolick Church was very much imitated by them § 10. Another Debate he commenceth p. 272. about the Episcopal Church of England not admitting any to Labour in the Work of the Ministry amâ—â—g them tho they had been Ordained by Laying on the Hands of the Preâ—byâ—ery unless they will submit to be Re-ordained by a Bishop which he very slightly passeth over taking no notice of what had been said against that Practice only he telleth us what Solâ—cisms he could pick out of my Book even more than a hundred but is content with one Instance in the Title Page the Apology of the Clergy in stead of for the Clergy he is very Charitable who overlooketh and hideth the Shame of more than a hundred Solaeâ—ismâ— and cometh over this Passage now the second time which is no Solaecism at all What followeth is yet more fâ—iâ—olous and is designed to Reflect on a Person of more Woâ—th than I am who had said that he had paid Material Canonical Obedience to the Bishop but not formally by which he meant no more but that he had performed the Duty of his Ministerial Office when the Bishops enjoyned it which he would have done without it And now if that Assertion do not please our Author he denyeth he payed Canonical Obedience at all Also this is a false Accusation and though this Author was challenged oft about his false Assertions against this Minister yet he had never the Confidence to Answer one of them nor to Vindicat himself from being a false Accuser but made a silly Quible on that â—xpression which he doth here again repeat which needs no other Answer then the repeating that Reverend Brother's Words which our Author câ—â—peth at as they may be seen in the Postscript to the second â—indication of the Church p. 2â—0 His Words are these Thinking my self free to joyn in these Dutiâ—s to which I was Authorized by my Office altho there had been no Bishop in the World nor do I think that by this I payed Formal Canonical Obedience so that the asserting of this may be accounted a thirteenth of our Authors Lies I am no further concerned to take notice of his Discourse on this Head He returneth now p. 275. to resume the Matter about Presbyterian Ordination and only telleth us that he will wave it and will not tell us his Opinion about it after he had been pretty plain in the Matter in his former Book it is Wisdom to medle no further in a Matter that hath been made to appear to be Indefensible yet he will not dismiss this Subject without a
for using the Words and if he can shew us a Command for using them we shall Obey it He saith it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Disciples If he mean that the Words should be Recited we desiderate the Proof nor do we find that any of the Apostles in their Publick Administrations so used it It is true the Presbyterians formerly used it and if they should do so still I should not Reclaim but I know that his Parties making it their Shibboleth together with Conviction of the Indifferency of so using it gave the first Occasion for disusing it It is an unaccountable Fancy that the Omission of these have no Tendency but to promote Atheism this is the general â—â—nt of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Assertion is most unreasonable and groundless in it self there being other means far more Effectual to keep out Atheism than the Use of these Forms can be supposed to be so Common Observation and Experience sheweth that the Atheism that we all should Lament is no more visible nor common among that Party of Christians who do not use these Forms than among them who are fond of them I can draw no other Conclusion from what follows p. 290 291. but that the Author was when he Wrote these Things in the Paroxism that he professed to be in when he Wrote another Book viz. provocked to the Indecency of Passion to see his beloved Forms neglected Hence he telleth us of the Madness and Dreams of idle People and the Humour of Schism hindring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the Assemblies as heretofore whereas it is evident and the Reverend Mr. Boise hath made it appear on occasion of the like Accusation against us by the Bishop of Lâ—ndonderry that the Scripture is more Read in our Congregations and People is made more acquained with them than heretofore in the Episcopal Meetings I mean where the Orders of our Church are observed for them who Read but a verse or two for a Lecture I cannot Answer for their Practice and we make the People understand the Reading as Ezra did Neh. 5. 5. which was not done in the Episcopal Church of Scotland but Men who had no Authority nor were Teachers in the Church were set up to dispence this Ordinance of CHRIST the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation He next blameth us under the same Epithets of Madness Dreams Humour of Schism that when Children are Bâ—ptized the Parents are not allowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated and this because they are not made to repeat the Creed I first ask him what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie understand their Children to be Intiated into by their Repeating that which we call the Apostles Crâ—â—d which they cannot understand by our Conduct seing some of them understand it not and seing it doth not sufficiently Discriminate the sound Faith which we own from Socinianism Poperie Antinomianism and several other gross Errors Next I Answer that it is false and Calumnious that he Asserteth they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into but pains is taken so far as Ministers can to make them understand that Faith and they are Solemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith and to breed their Children in the knowledge of it and it is told them what Faith we mean by designing it from the Scripture the great Rule of it and the Confession of Faith of this Church drawn out of the Scripture If any have no other Notion of Baptism but that it is an Engagement to be a â—ovenanâ—â—r which he would have us believe tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things we give no ground for such a Thought but endeavour to present things otherwise to them § 15. He saith we are so unfixed and variable that not two in the Nation in publick follow the same Rule c. This is a horrid Abusing of the Reader and can have no other Design but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known for in Scotland even among his own Party the contrarie is well known But all this Noise is because we have no stinted Liturgie without which we follow the same Rules both Divine and Humane as I shewed before we all teach the same Truths and Administer the same Ordinances and in the same manner except that we use not the same Words wherein yet we do not studie a diversitie as he injuriously Asserteth His Apology for the Episcopal Church of Scotland for wanting a Liturgie is odd the Clergy Composed Prayers for themselves from which they seldom varied It may be some of them did so either from insufficiency or lazieness but I am sure neither the greatest nor the best part of them did so but what ever be in that both on his side and on ours they who did not tie themselves to the same Words at all times managed their Work with as much plainess gravity and coherence of their Words and left the People as little in the Dark as they did whom he so much Commendeth on these Accounts His calling Praying without a set Form Rambling and Ascribing to it no Order nor Dependence but what is caused by the heat of the Animal Spirits I neglect as shewing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued by Argument He waveth the Debate about stinted Forms p. 292. which any who Readeth this Discourse must understand that he intendeth not to Dispute by Scripture or Reason against him whom he Opposeth in this but to Rail at him And because I intend not to engage with him at that Weapon I shall wave it too Yet he bringeth Calvines Testimony for the Preference of a well Composed Liturgie out of one of his Epistles which he so Citeth as no Man shall find it unless he happen to have the same Edition of Calvines Epistles that he used which I have not had he named the Epistle by its Number or the Person to whom Addressed I might have found it by some pains I oppose Calvine to Calvine he said of the English Liturgie and I suppose that will pass with my Author for a well Composed one that it had in it some Tollerabiles ineptias He bringeth some what that looketh like Argument even in this Debate that he waveth The great things of Worship is not to be left to the Wisdom and Discretion of every private Administrator A. This is provided against by the Churches trying Men well before they be Intrusted by setting the Word and the Acts of the Church before them as their Rule and Directorie and by Watching over them and Correcting them for mismanagement These are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency a stinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devising without any Warrant or Footstep of it in the Scripture Another of his Arguments every Priest isnot wise enough to manage an Affair of such great Importance A.
That is so true that none is wise enough for it as the Apostle saith 2 Cor. 2. 6. And if so who is fit to Compose a Liturgie for others which all Men must be tyed to On this Consideration the Church ought to chuse the fitest Men she can get and when that is done both the weaker and stronger Sort should beware of leaning to their own Wit and Parts in that Great Work and should take the Word of GOD for their Directorie and Depend on the Spirit of GOD for His assistence and this is a better Remedy of the Evil feared than a stiâ—ted Liturgy is and hath more Countenance in the Scripture Rom. 8. 26. Another Argument Though a Minister should be very Wise yet at all times he is not in the same Temper and it is not reasonable that the Worship of GOD should be less decent when his Intellectuals are clouded than when he is in perfect health A. 1. If this Argument have any strength we must have a Form of Preaching as well as of Prayer and always tyed to it for a Disordered mind may make sad work there 2. Some have been out of Temper for Reading the Service as well as for Extemporary Prayer when their Brain hath been clouded and this hath as often hapened in the Reading Pue as in the Presbyterian Pulpit Wherefore we must have another Remedy against it in both than a Liturgie 3. I confess a lesser Degree of decency in the Worship of GOD than should be or hath been is never reasonable but how can it be prevented either in Praying Preaching or Reading as long as the Temper both of Mens Bodies and of their Minds are variable 4. If a Mans Intellectuals be at any time so clouded whether by a Hypochondriack Distemper or by Drinking too liberally or by any other Sickness as that it is probable to make the Worship of GOD to be unduely Managed that Man what ever have been his Wisdom or Abilities should not be suffered to Officiate at that time whether with or without the Book I am sure there was never any Church Ancient or Modern which appointed a Liturgie for such Men noâ— to countenance the Putting or Keeping such in the Sacred Fuâ—ction 5. There is another Cause of Worship being better or worse Managed at diverse times which our Author hath not thought on nor will his Liturgie serve for a Remedie of it that is the better or worse Frame of his Soul with respect to Heavenly things and the Degrees of the Presence and Aids of the Spirit of GOD therefore however unreasonable it be yet it is manifest that there is not the same measure of Decency and Spiritual Luster on the Worship of GOD at all times nor can there be a Remedie for this till we be better Men nor even then if the LORD for His own Holy ends withdraw his presence I know this will be slouted by some but the Apostle himself had his unusual Inlargements 2 Cor. 5. 11. and found it needful that the People should Pray for assistence to him Col. 4. 3. § 16. He bringeth yet another Reason the spiritual necessities of the People ought at all times to be â—qually Provided for A. 1. That is impossible for Man to do unless we can find unchangeable Men to be Ministers It is fair if they be always well and sometimes if they be tollerablly provided for 2. This is the improperest Reason that he could have fallen upon for it cutteth the Throat of his Cause because the Spiritul Necessities of the People are very various diverse People have diverse Necessities and the same Persons Needs may be far other or greater at one time than at another they know little of the Spiritual state of Souls who know not this now a â—â—intâ—d Liturgie can never reach these half so well as a Minister may do who hath the Gift of Prayer and who endeavoureth as much as may be to be acquainted with the Cases of the Peoples Souls Next he Pleadeth Uniformity for the use of a stinted Liturgie which is a weak Argument for Uniformity in Words and that is all that we can have by a Liturgie which can not be obtained without it is not so valuable If we all speak the same things what great Matters is it if they be exprest in diverse Words Again what Reason is there for the Necessity of Uniformity in Prayer more than in Preaching which yet our Brethren do not Enjoin That the Forms he mentioneth are the Tessera's if Uniformiâ—y is an absurd and groundless Assertion there was Uniformity in the Apostolick Church and is in our Churches without them If he deny this last let him shew what Dissormity is among us further than in Words which he cannot shew to be among his own Partie yea it is evident that such Discrepancie is in their Worship in one Church from another that he cannot Charge us with the like for the Cathedral Service and that in Countrey Churches are more unlike to one another than the Latter of them is to the Meetings of some Dissenters He next Argueth that a Lituâ—gie obviates Mens vâ—nting their own Conceits A. This is far more readily and frequently done in Preaching than in Prayer and therefore will either Prove that free Preaching without a Book should be Restrained or it Proveth nothing at all And indeed the way to prevent Inconveniency in both is not a Liturgie but to be careful that none but well Qualified Men be in the Ministry and Watchfully to look to the Administrations of them who are in that Office § 17. Our Author p. 295. seq Haleth in a Discourse by Head and â—ars without Occasion given or Coherence with what he was upon concerning Superstition wherein he taketh it for granted that his Way in all the Parts and Steps of it is right and ours wholly wrong and on this Begged Hypothesis he Declaimeth against the Presbyterians as the most Superstitious yea the most Atheistical Men in the World This is an easy Way of Running down any Adversary whatsoever Whether a Groundless Scrupulosity either in Matters of common Practice or in Matters of Worship be Superstition or not I know is controverted by some I shall not now enter into this Debate knowing that it issueth into a mere Logomachy Tho I think Superstition being a sort of false Worship or a Sin against the Worship of God in Strickness of Speech nothing should be called Superstition but that whereby People intend or pretend to Worship God Scruples about what is not Worship may be very Sinful because Unreasonable and Groundless and yet not be Worship nor Superstition If he can prove that our Scrupling the Holy Days Liturgy and Ceremonies is without all Ground and that these things are well Warranted and Approved of God and that there is no Sin in Using them we shall change our Opinion and submit to what Censure he shall put on us But while that is not done as I am sure it hath not
to be known which the People must be helped to understand tho at first View they Comprehend them not yea somethings must be taught to all the People and are necessary to be known by Christians which tho they are intelligible yet are not so easily understood nor so fully as some other Things can be If this Author will take on him to judge of the Labour of such a Grave and Learned Assembly as was that at Westminster and conclude that they Acted Foolishly in Proposing Unintelligible Doctrines to the People let him give also his Censure of the Apostolick Catechism the Substance of which is set down Heb. 6. 1 2. where are Matters that as many Difficulties may be raised about as he Starteth on this Question and Answer 4. I hope he doth not Dream that no Truths are to be Proposed to the Catechumeni but such as the meanest yea or the greatest Capacity can fully Comprehend and Solve all the Difficulties yea or Understand all the Debates that arise in the Heads of Learned Men about them for then they must be kept in Profound Ignorance of all the Mysteries of our Religion yea of the Greatest most Fundamental and most Necessary Truths that the Scripture Teacheth us If he were put to Frame a Catechism so Qualified he would find it hard to get Matter for it He should consider that the Use of a Catechism is not to make the People Polemick Divines at first Hand but to Acquaint them with the Positive Doctrine of Salvation and to Lay before them Scripture Grounds for Assenting to it 5. The Doctrine of this Question and Answer is very necessary to be known as on other Grounds so in Order to the Exercise of Gospel Repentance which is hard to say any can have who is wholly Ignorant of Original Sin which is here as plainly and fully Described as hath been done by any in so few Words One may be Jealous that Picking this Quarrel with the Catechism ariseth rather from Dislike of the Truths here Taught than from the Obscurity of it If he allow Original Sin to be Taught to the People at all let him â—ry if he can Frame a plainer Question and Answer about it 6. It is the Care of Presbyterian Ministers that People may understand the Grounds of our Religion as well as may be not only to lay down even in the Catechism the Scriptures where such Doctrines are Taught that the Peoples Faith may stand on that sure Foundation but also they Explain the Catechism and all the Doctrines contained in it to them when they Catechise and sometimes in Preaching and do not content themselves that the People can Repeat the Words of the Catechism and therefore it is no sufficient Objection against the Catechism that any Passage in it is not so Obvious to every Capacity as might be wisht Notwithstanding of all that I have said I do not yield that this or any other Passage in the Catechism is Unintelligible by an ordinary Capacity where Attention and Diligence is used toward Attaining of Knowledge 7. Tho it were to be wished that all the Lords People were Prophets and that every one of them were able to Debate for the Truth and to stop the Mouths of Gainsayers yet we think it should be endeavoured that cople generally should know the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of these Revealed Truths which are Conducible to their Salvation and to Direct them in the Way of Duty and if some cannot Attain such a Measure of Knowledge in them as is Desireable others who are more Docile should not be Deprived of what Advantage they can attain § 20. Our Author having set down the Question and Answer saith there is nothing in it but is Dark and altogether beyond the Comprehension of Illiterate People yea that it cannot be understood without Acquaintance with the Language of the School Men he calleth it Clouds of Unknown Language all this is as easily denyed as it is asserted and with far more Reason for we can give the Instances of many tho may be they will not be willing to be Named as he requireth who can give a good Account without School Terms of the Doctrine here Comprised who yet know no other Language but their Mother Tongue He telleth us that the first Difficulty is de reatu peccati primi hominis I confess if he propose it thus in Latine it will puzzle most of the Vulgar whom he Despiseth under the Name of Plow Men but there are Plow Men and others who in their own Language can tell you that thus it is with us that we are guilty of Adams Sin and can bring Scripture Proof for what they say out of Rom. 5. 12 14 15 16 17 18. Our Countrey People can understand that in that Passage of Scripture it is plain that we are guilty of Adams Sin and that we are justified by Christs Righteousness and so they will tell you that Scripture holdeth forth the Imputation of both and they understand what is meant by that hard Word His next Difficulty is de privatione justitiae originalis and he Complaineth that the English Word doth not determine whether it be Privation or Negation our People can tell and some are Sensible of it and Weighted with it that they have no Righteousness of their own nor Rectitude in their Nature that they are neither Born with it nor can Acquire it but must have it from Christ or perish without it for the Terms he mentioneth they do not trouble themselves about these nor do we think it necessary that they should His third Remark seemeth to make the Answer to the Question not only Obscure but Erroneous for he maketh it to insinuate that the Rectitude of Mens Souls is wholly lost and that there are no remains of the Divine Image left on the Soul of Man It is no wonder that he thinketh the Vulgar cannot understand this Answer when so Learned a Dr. doth so foully Misapprehend it I shall not impute this to want of Capacity nor to the Objective Darkness of the Thing but to his Prejudice or want of Attention for it is plain to any who will understand that this is neither said nor hinted and that it is manifest that the Corruption of all the Faculties not the total Corruption of all or any of them is there Expressed Such a Blunder as this in another he would have Insulted over A further Evidence of the Obscurity that he would Prove that our sinful Estate consisteth also in all the actual Transgressions that proceed from this Original sin He must have a very dark mind to whom this is unintelligible But the Great Matter is that he that Answereth must Re-collect all these â—hings and they are but 4. in Number before he understand this Matter What mighty Difficulty is in that or wherein lyeth the Necessity of Metaphysicks for understanding these Particulars or making Re-collection of them I cannot Comprehend nor can I understand how Peoples being