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

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

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

Table of contents

Title page

To the Right Honourable, PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT, Viscount of BLASONBERRY, LORD POLWARTH, of POLW ARTH, REDBRAES, and GREENLAW, &c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND.

TO THE READER.

ERRATA.

§

THE Good old way defended, &c.

SECTION II.

SECTION III.

SECTION IV.

SECTION V.

SECTION VI.

SECTION VII.

SECTION VIII.

SECTION IX.

SECTION X.

SECTION XI.

SECTION XII.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE GOOD Old WAY Defended, Against the Attempts of A. M. D. D. in his BOOK Called, An Enquiry into the New Opinions, (Chiefly) propogated by the Presbyterians of SCOTLAND: Wherein the Divine Right of the Government of the Church by Presbyters Acting in Parity, is Asserted; and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is disproved: the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Episcopacy as now Pleaded for, are made Manifest from Scriptural Arguments, and the Testimony of the Antient Writers of the Christian-Church: and the groundless and unreasonable Confidence of some Prelatick Writers exposed. Also, the Debates about Holy-Days, Schism, the Church-Government used among the First Scots Christians, and what else the Enquirer Chargeth us with, are clearly Stated, and the Truth in all these Maintained against him.

Likewise, some Animadversions on a Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery; in so far as it misrepresenteth the Principles and Way of our First Reformers from Popery: where the Controversie about Superintendents is fully handled: and the Necessity which led our Ancestors into that Course for that Time is Discoursed.

By GILBERT RULE, one of the Ministers of the City, and Principal of the College of EDINBURGH.

EDINBURGH, Printed by the Heirs and Successors of Andrew Anderson, Printer to the King's most Excellent Majesty, Anno DOM. 1697.

To the Right Honourable, PATRICK EARL of MARCHMOUNT, Viscount of BLASONBERRY, LORD POLWARTH, of POLW ARTH, REDBRAES, and GREENLAW, &c. LORD High CHANCELLOR of the KINGDOM of SCOTLAND.

[Page]

[Page]

My Noble Lord,

I Have presumed to Prefix your Lordships Name to this Work, hoping that your Lordship will count it no dishonour for the Greatest of Men to Patronize the least of the Truths of GOD: and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns, as for the State, so for the Church of CHRIST, as now Established [Page] in this Nation. My Design in this Dedication is not to seek the Rul [...]rs Favour: having had for many Years, the Honour to be more Regarded by Your Lordship than ever I could deserve: nor to Engage your Lordship to own our Church against her open and secret Enemies; knowing how steadily you have appeared for the True Interest of the Church, and of the Nation, In utraque fortuna; and how fixed your Principles are with respect to both. But what I aim at is, to express the true Sense I have (as I know my Brethren also to retain) of your Lordships Wisdom, Zeal, and Fortitude, encountering the Greatest of Hazards, and enduring the most grievous of Hardships, for that Holy Religion that ye Profess; and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey. The eminent Post your Lordship is now in, as it is a Token of your Princes Favour, and His Majesties Wise Choise of a sit Instrument for High and difficult Work; So it is the LORD'S Reward for your hard Services; and his giving you the Opportunity to do him further Service, of another Sort: and his Trying you whether ye will Eye GOD'S Glory above all things (when ye have the Occasion, and Temptation of seeking your own Things) as ye did when ye Ventured, and lost your All in this World for him. GOD expecteth that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble; and that ye will be singly, and actively for him: the Time is short wherein we can Walk or Work, and Occasions are uncertain. There will be great Peace in Reflection (when our Work is at an end [...]) on sincere Endeavours, and Application of Mind, to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand. That the LORD may long Preserve your Lordship, and continue your Capacity to do Him Service, and that he may Blessyour Noble Family with His best Blessings, is the earnest prayer of,

Edinburgh, December, 20, 1697.

My Noble Lord,

Your Lordships Devoted and most Humble Servant, G. R.

TO THE READER.

[Page]

THat I again appear publickly in this Paper War, (being, for my Age Miles emeritus) needeth no other Apology than the Necessity that the Months that were so Widely Opened against the Truth, and right Ways of GOD, should be Stopped: and I knew of no other Endeavours this Way, when I entered on this Work, nor till I had finished it. After it was in the Press, and some Progress made in it, I read the Learned and Industrious Mr. William Jamesons Nazianzeni Quaerela, & Vo [...]um Justum; wherein the same two Authors that I Deal with, are solidly Refuted, and the main Subject that I Treat off, is Handled: which made me think that B [...]ok might Supersede mine. Yet the Advice of others Wiser than my self, and my own second Thoughts, finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expected: And that the one Work is more Historical, the other more Argumentative; so that they may make up a complete Answer to what our Adversaries have now thought sit to say; and Considering that some Debates are here insisted on which he hath not touched: and that two Witnesses are better than one: these Considerations (I say) determined me not to stop the Press, And indeed, the Unaccountable Confidence of these Authors, on the slenderest Grounds, should be exposed as much as may be: while they Build so Important Truths and Practices (and press them so warmly) on Phrases, Words, and Modes of Speaking used by the Ancients, which signified quite another thing then, than what now they are commonly applyed to. The Learned Clericus, in his Preface to Ars Critica, Sect. 3. at the end, [Page] hath these Words here very apposite. Quot & quanti viri crediderunt se Historiam Christianarum Ecclesiarum, & Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur, in numerato habere, qui revera Hospites ea in re fuerunt? nempe, Vocabula nuda didicerant, aut Voces, quibus ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant. If we lay such Weight on Ways of Speaking of old used, as sufficient Arguments for Prelacy, it is reasonable to allow the same with Respect to Popery: And in that Case, Thou art Peter, and on this Rock will I Build my Church: and, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. shall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Reason, as the Fathers Ascribing Jurisdiction to the Bishop, without mentioning the Presbyters at the same time, doth infer his sole Power: seing, as our Lord in another Place, giveth the same Power to the rest of the Apostles, that here He seemeth to give to Peter alone; so do the Fathers often speak of the Ruling Power of Presbyters, as well as they several times mention that of Bishops, without mentioning Presbyters. No Protestant will admit the Consequence in the one Case; wherefore neither ought we so to Argue in the other Case.

ERRATA.

[Page]

PAge 1. line 16. read Principle. p. 5. l. 25. r. Theorems. p. 50. l. 5. r. James. p. 136. l. 8. r. Matters of Fact. p. 146. l. 7. r. Praeses. p. 150. l. 36. r. them. p. 181. l. 37. r. approved. p. 186. l. 37. r. great. p. 194. l. 11. r. Struggling. p. 198. l. 38. r. Rank. p. 199. l. 2. r. the. p. 204. l. 15. r. Andabatarum. p. 207. l. 2. r. injoyn. p. 242. l. 36. r. Holy. p. 247. l. 1. r. Congregations. p. 247. l. 26. r. Religious. p. 257. l. 16. r. sound. p. 279. l. 33. r. Ceremony. p. 284. l. 37. r. Solemnities. p. 297. l. 13. r. acquainted. p. 309. l. 16. r. Things. p. 310. l. 35. r. Writings.

If there be any other Mistakes of the Press, it is left to the Readers Candor to Correct them.

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE Good old way defended, &c.

IT hath been observed by some, who have read this Book, that the Author hath been much beholden to some of the Jesuits and other Papists, not only for his Arguments; but even for his Invectives and Reproaches cast upon his Adversaries (had he been so just as to acknowledge the true Authors of his fine Notions, there had been less blame in it) and even the imputation of Noveltie, of the Opinions of Presbyterians, (with which the Frontispiece of his Book is adorned) is the same Reproach that the Romanists do constantly cast on the whole of the Protestant Doctrine, which in their ordinary cant, is, the new Gospel. If he hath proved, or shall prove, that our Principles for Paritie, and against Prelacy, is newer than the first settling of Gospel-Churches by the Apostles; he hath some advantage against us: Yet if our way have been owned, and practised in Scotland, before the Papacy, and among the Waldenses, for many Ages; The edge of his prejudice against it, will be a little blunted: The former I have already debated with some of his Partie, and may have occasion to resume that Dispute, before I have done with this Book. The other may be easily made appear; For in their Confession of Faith (after they had fled to Bohemia) called Confessio Taboritarum, Joan. Lukawitz, Waldensia P. 23. They expresly deny, that By Scripture warrant, Ordination is to be performed only by Bishops; and that Bishops have more Authority than single [Page]Priests. Perin. Hist. of the Vaudois, p. 53, 62. (cited by Owen of Ordination, p. 4.) Sheweth, that they had no other Ministers for 5 [...]0. years, than such as was ordained by Presbyters. Walsing. Hist: of England. pag. 339. Telleth us, that the Lollards (the same Sect with the Waldenses) had their Ministers Ordained by Presbyters without Bishops. Now of this Sect, even their Enemies witness that they were very Antient. Reinerius, an Inquisitor, in his Book contra Haereticos, sayeth, that it had continued longest of all the Sects; For some say, (these are his Words) they have been from the days of Pope Silvester. 1. (who was in the time of the first Nicen Council) others from the dayes of the Apostles.

§ 2. It may also be made appear, that his own opinion, of the Divine Right of Prelacy is much newer than ours, not only by the Fathers (as will after appear,) but even the Church of England, was not of that Opinion, till Bishop Lands time, and but few of them after it. Spellman, p 576. In the Canons of Elfrick and Wolfin, hath these words, Ambo siquidem unum tenent eundem ordinem quum sit dignior illa pars Episcopi. Catal. test. verit. To. 2. saith of Wicklif, tantum duos ordines min [...]strorum esse debere judicavit, viz. Presbyteros & Dia [...]onos. Fox. Act. monum. T. 2. Among the Answers that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45. Questions put to him, hath these words, p. 400. As touching Priest-hood in the Primitive Church. there was no more Officers in the Church of God, than Bishop and Deacons, as witnesseth the Scripture full apertly. He citeth also Jerom, for this. After the Reformation, in the Book called, the Institution of a Christian man, made by the whole Clergy, 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament, to be preached through the whole Kingdom, it is said, That the new Testament mentioneth but two Orders, Presbyters or Bishops, and Deacons. Cranmers, and other Bishops Opinion I have Cited. S. 2. § 2. Out of a Manuscript in Stillingfleets Ira. In the Book called the Bishops Book, it is said, that the difference between Bishops and Presbyters was a device of the ancient Fathers, not mentioned in Scripture. For the same Opinion, Owen of Ordination, p. 114, 115. citeth Jewel, Morton, Whitaker, Nowell, and the present Bishop of Sarum.

[Page] § 3. Yea that this our Opinion for Paritie, and against the Divine right of Episcopacy, is as old as the Reformation from Popery; is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici, signed by Luther, Melanchthon, and many other Divines; as they are set down lib. concord. Printed An. 1580. Lipsiae art. 10. p 306. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Pastors, without Bishops. And cite Jerome saying, Eam (Ecclesiam Alexandrinam) primum ab Episcopis Presbyteris, & Ministris, communi operâ gubernatam fuisse. These articles were agreed on, An. 1533. After, p. 324, 325. They affirm of Jurisdictio, & Potestas excommunicandi & absolvendi, that, liquet confessione omnium, etiam adversariorum nostrorum, communem esse omnibus qui presunt Ecclesiis sive nominentur Pastores, sive Presbyteri, sive Episcopi. And they cite Jerome, as holding the same Opinion, and from his words observe, hic docet Hieronymus distinctos gradus Episcoporum, & Presbyterorum, sive Pastorum, tantum humana authoritate constitutos esse: idque res ipsa loquitur, quia officium & mandatum plane idem est, quia autem jure divino nullum est discrimen inter Episcopum & Pastorem, &c. These Articles were subscribed by the Electoral Princes, Palsegrave, Saxonie, and Brandenburg, by 45. Dukes, Marquesses, Counts, and Barons, by the Consuls, and Senates of 35. Cities. Yea, to shew that this Opinion was not then disliked, even in England; Bucer, and Fagius, who subscribed them, were brought into England by Cranmer, and employed in promoting the Reformation. The subscriptions of the Noblemen mentioned, you may find at the End of the Preface of that Book.

It is, then a confidence beyond ordinary, to call the Presbyterian principle of Paritie a new Opinion.

§ 4. It is further to be considered, that as Antiquity is not, by it self, a sufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion; So Noveltie is not alwayes a just prejudice against it. If our Adversaries plead Antiquitie for Prelacy, so may it be done for many principles which themselves will call Errors; and this sort of Arguments, hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide: It is Divine Institution, not humane practice, Custome, or Antient Opinion, that must be [Page] a Foundation for our belief: and when they expose our way as new, they should consider, that what is Eldest in respect of its beeing, and Gods appointment, may be new in respect of its discovery and observation: What is old in it self, may be new to us; because, by the corruption of many Ages, it hath been hid, and at last brought forth to light again: So Christianity it self was a Noveltie to the Athenian Philosophers, and by them treated with disdain and mocking, on that account; more than with rational refutation, Acts 17. 19, 20. Augustins Doctrine of Conversion, is looked on by some as what was new in that time. So was Luthers Doctrine, and Calvins, and that of the other Reformers in their day, respectivè. If my Antagonist can make it appear, that our Opinion about Parity, was never countenanced by Scripture, nor practised in the Christian Church, till of late in Geneva, or Scotland; Let it then pass for a Noveltie, and on that account be condemned: but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchie; tho for many Centuries; it was not practised under the Reign, and in the Kingdom of Anti-Christ. We are very willing, according to the place of Scripture, he putteth before his Book, to ask for, and walk in the old paths: but these paths must be such as God of old prescribed to his People (as some expound the place, of the way that Moses taught them) and which they walked in, who, we are sure did not err. (as Grotius expoundeth this place, of the way of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) we know that error hath been abetted under the Notion of the old way, Jer. 44. 17. Neither do we think our selves obliged to follow all the paths of some Antient good men, more then the Jews were to do as Aaron did, in making the Golden Calf, tho that was a very old practice, and that Calf worshipping had been before Jeremias dayes, both Antient and Universal.

§ 5. Some things are to be observed in his Introduction, and first, the ill words that he very liberally, and at [...] random, bestoweth on these who are not of his way; calling their Principles, and Writings, Lybels, Spiritual Raveries p. 2. He insinuateth that we have wickedly combined to defame them p. 3. If p. 4. it be not his business to [Page]complain of them, whom he supposeth, do persecute them, I am sure it should less be his work to Rail; with such unmanly, and unchristian revilings, at them who no other wayes oppose him, and his Partie, but by dint of Argument. He doth p. 5, 6. Suppose, The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bishops with Apostolical Authority, and telleth us, How in the Primitive times, they were opposed, by men chosen by the People, who calculate their Doctrine, to the fancies and humours of the Multitude, and prostituted the Gospel to promote error, and delusion, in stead of serving our blessed Saviour, they became slaves of the People, by whom they were originally imployed; and because they were so unhappily successfull, as to gratifie their lusts, they were therefore voted the most Edifying Teachers. Whether this be to vvrite a Satyre, or to plead for Truth, to the conviction of them vvhom he dealleth vvith, vvise men vvill judge. It is rather to be lamented, than denyed, that there are such Ministers in the Christian, yea, in the Reformed Church: but I may confidently say, they are not more zealously disliked among any partie of men, than among the Presbyterians in Scotland: Whom it is evident, that by all this Discourse, he designeth to defame; We preach against this Inclination, even as it is in mens hearts: and vve censure it, vvhen it appeareth in their practise, either to the promoting of Error, or disturbing the Peace of the Church. More of this he hath, p. 7. of Ministers reconciling the moralls of the Gospel to mens wicked practises, and looser theorms, and the severe Discipline of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie, and true faith, that worketh by love, to airie notions and mistakes. Whether these vvords afford us the lineaments of this mans temper, or of the Presbyterian Ministers, I shall leave to others to determine. I am sure, they who know the Scots Presbyterians, and do not spitefully hate them, will not say, that either their Doctrine, or their Exercise of Discipline doth tend to promote Loosness and Luxurie. This Author is pleased to represent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpose. Whether the Presbyterian, or [Page] Prelatick Church Discipline, as they have been exercised in Scotland, come nearest to the severe Discipline of the Antient Church, it's easie to determine, by them who have seen the one, and can judge of both, without prejudice.

§ 6. I gladly would understand what he meaneth by his Assertion, p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion, had their immediate commission from heaven, and accordingly they endeavoured to restore the image of God in Men: To whom he setteth in opposition these ill men above mentioned. If he mean the Apostles, I shall not contradict his Assertion; but must look on it as most impertinent: Seing the other, who he saith, had their Authority from Men, were distinguished from, and opposite to, not only the Apostles, but the ordinary faithful Ministers of the Church, who were in, or after their dayes. Also the Assertion, so understood, could make nothing for Prelacy, or against Paritie, in the primitive Church, which seemeth to be the design of this Passage. If he understand it of Bishops, who, he fancieth to have succeeded to the Apostles; this is a new opinion, with a Witness; and for any thing I know, himself first hatched it: and we shall allow him the honour of this new discovery, that Bishops have their Immediate Commission from Heaven: I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians, so new as this, of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions. Sure, if it be so, they must then shew their credentials from Heaven, and the signs of Apostles wrought in them. As 2 Cor. 12. 12. And these might supersede the King's Congedelire, and their Consecration, and also, all the debate that is about their Prelation, and will excuse us from owning them, till we be satisfied in this matter, wherein we promise not to be unreasonably incredulous.

§ 7. He proceedeth in his Reproaches, and unaccountable Extravagancy; while p. 7. He speaketh of the shaking of the foundations of Ecclesiastical Unitie, (as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way) and trampling on Antient Constitutions with great Insolence, and Impiety. Supposing (without any semblance of Proof [...]) that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded [Page] but demolished, when Episcopacy is laid aside, and that without these sacred Vehicles (viz. The Antient Constitutions about Prelacy,) true Religion must evaporate into giddiness and Enthusiasm. If this wild talk be not spiritual raverie, (to use his own words) I know not what can be called by that Name. It is of the same strain, that the extravagance of these last dayes, (which is wholly charged on Presbytery) is boundless, and Sceptical, and Christianity is more dangerously wounded, by the delusions of some that are Baptized (Presbyterians) then by the open blasphemies of Infidels; and that the first (viz. the Presbyterians) are altogether inaccessible by reason, that they pretend to extraordinary illuminations, and will not be instructed, their Errors are made stronger by their vanity. And much more is falsly and injuriously said to this purpose. To which I have no other Reply, but the words of Psalms 12. 3, 4. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things, who have said, with our tongue will we prevail, our lips are our own, who is Lord over us, and Psal. 120. 3, 4. What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, O false tongue. We can answer his Arguments, and are willing to be Instructed by him, and attacked that way: But who can stand before this kind of Topicks? I have not met with any Person who is of opinion that Presbyterians think to make their Calling and Election sure, only by Division and Singularitie, save this Author. p. 8. Who seemeth to take the same Liberty to himself, of speaking all the ill he can devise of Presbyterians, that the Author of pax vobis doth against Protestants of all sorts. I am not at leasure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author; But it is evident that the strain of both is the same: I shall take little notice of his confident insinuation. p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Saviour, taught by his Apostles, and received by all Churches in the first and best Ages: For the truth of this is to be tryed in the following Debate; But I cannot overlook his suposing, that we reject certain Ritualls and practises, which by the plainest and most undenyable consequences are agreeable to the general Rules of Scripture, and the uniform[Page]Belief of all Christians: If he can prove the Contraverted Ceremonies to be such, we shall correct our Opinion about them.

§ 8. He layeth some Foundations, p. 10. and 11. For his following Dispute, which we cannot allow, as first, that the first Christians were agreed among themselves about not only the great Articles of Religion; but also about the General Rules of Ecclesiastick Order, and Discipline; under which Head, he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church. It is to be lamented, that even in Doctrine, there was not that Unitie, that was fit, in the Primitive times: we read of many Heresies early broached: for Order, it was not the same among all, there were sad Schisms, as well as Heresies: and for Ritualls, we find no General Rule they agreed in, for Ordering them, save the Word of GOD, contained in the Scriptures. For General Councills, that medled most with these, were later than the times we speak of. And it is well known, what Fatal Contentions there were about some of them; such as the time of observing Easter. Yea, the first Churches had different Ritualls, about which they made no Divisions, but used Christian forbearance. Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this; which is, C. 21. of lib 5. of hist. Ecclesi. Iraeneus reproving Victor, for Excommunicating the Quarto Decimani, hath these words, [...]. And at large sheweth, that the Primitive Christians did not censure one another, for difference of Rites and Customs observed among them. Every one knoweth how far the Churches of the first Ages were, from uniformity in their Fasting; Some abstaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat: in the frequency of Communicating: about the time and manner of Baptising: about the time and degrees of publick penance, placing the Altar, or Communion Table, &c. It is evident then, that the first Christians did not look on Ritualls, as that about which Christian Concord should be judged of: They minded things of higher moment, and greater necessity.

§ 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is, that by this uniformity in Doctrine and Rituals, they (the Primitive Christians,) strenghned[Page]themselves against Infidels and Hereticks. This Assertion with respect to Rituals, is wild and absurd; not only because such Uniformity was not found, nor much regarded among them, as hath been shewed; but also, because this Uniformity in Matters so extrinsick to Religion, could afford them no strength; more than an Army is the stronger, by all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the same Fashion and Colour. It was their Unity in the Truths of God, their Managing the Ordinances of God by one Divine Rule, and their Love and forbearance of one another, in the different Practice of such Rituals as were not Instituted by Christ, in these as the Means, did their strength ly. Yet another strange Position; he supposeth the Constitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Christians, (which never hath yet been proved) and affirmeth, that despising these overthroweth the Foundations of Peace and Charity; and consequently, we exclude our selves from the visible Fellowship of Christs Houshold and Family. His Supposition (which p. 11. and often else where, he considently layeth as a Foundation of his whole Debate) is groundless; as I hope, will appear in the Progress of this Disquisition. His Assertion is false and dangerous. For 1. There was Peace amongst the primitive Churches, where several of the Constitutions he talketh of, were practised by some, and neglected or despised by others; as may be Instanced in the Trina Immersio, and many others. 2. Even about some Truths and Ordinances of God, there were Debates in the primitive Churches, and some differed from that which was generally held, and yet they were not Excommunicated, but dealt with by more soft Means, and born with, till the Lord should enlighten their Mind, according to the Apostles direction, Phil. 3. 15, 16. 3. It is the way of the Antichristian Church, but of few others, to unchurch all Sister Churches who differ from them in any thing, even in Rituals: this is not the Spirit of the Gospel. If he understand that they only exclude themselves from the Church, who differ from what all and every one hold who are Christians, his Assertion cannot be contradicted; yet it may be Ridiculed, for that is impossible for any who is a Christian, to do: but if he speak of what is commonly received, this very Assertion doth Sap the Foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church: that all they were to be Treated as Apostats from the Church and Christianity, who have a singular Sentiment about any one Point of Doctrine, or Ceremony, even though they Dissent never so modestly: and this will Authorize all the Severities [Page] of the Inquisition. Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane Devices carry them?

§ 10. What followeth, doth surmount all that we have heard. p. 11. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wisest and best of Christians, (their learnedst Bishops and Presbyters) must be received as the infallible Truth of God▪ else we have no certain Standard to distinguish the Catholick Church in former Ages, from the Combinations of Hereticks. And a little below, The uniform Voice of Christendem in the first and purest Ages, is the best Key to the Doctrine and Practice of the Apostles and their Successors. I make here two Observes, before I consider the thing that is thus boldly Asserted. The former is, that (may be through oversight) he giveth Presbyters a share in Determining, or decisive Power about what must be received as the 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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.

[Page] § 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with, or we can charge on them; (which Comparison I cannot now stay to make in the Particulars in which it may be stated) yet they contend that Prelacy is exactly what Christ willeth to be exercised in the Church: and we say the same of Parity: and herein lyeth the Question. 8. It is to be noted that our Controversie is not about the name, but the power of a Bishop. The Pastors of the Church are called Bishops, Acts 20. 28. 1 Tim. 3. 1. and else where: for the power of a Bishop, (as this name is appropriated to one Presbyter.) We deny not that very early in the primitive Church, the Praeses in their Meeting for Discipline and Government was fixed, and had that place during life, and due management of his Office: and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings, and was subject to their Censures. But our Brethren are not content with this; but affirm, that by Divine Institution, and primitive Practice, the Bishop had a majority of power both extensively, that is over the Pastors and people, which other Presbyters had not: and that over the Pastors and people of many Congregations, which we call a Diocess: and also intensive, that is, that he hath power in some things wherein the other Presbyters have no such power: for they reserve to him the sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction. It is true, some of them shun the word of sole power, and call it but a Majority of power: which is but to cover the nakedness of their Opinion, and inconsistent with their own practice: for they will not say that the Presbyter is assumed by the Bishop in plenitudinem potestatis, but only in partem sollicitudinis: they make the Presbyters subject to the Bishop as a Rector, and as a Judge, in that they can do no act of power without his allowance: and he by himself may censure them, and cannot be censured by them, even in their collective Capacity: yea, they maintain that it is of the Bishops good will, not necessitie, or obligation, that he taketh the ad-Vice of the Presbyters in any act of Government: that he is the only Pastor of the Diocess; and all the rest of the Clergy are his Curats. It is true, some are more modest in expressing their Sentiments in this matter,; but these things are held by many in terminis, and particularly all this must be owned by this Author, (though he giveth us no distinct [Page] account of his Principles) seing he maketh Bishops Successors to the Apostles in their governing the Church, and that in their Rectoral Power, which he describes p. 97. to Preach, Govern the Church, give Rules and Directions to their Successors, and to all subordinate Ecclesiasticks, to inflict Censures, &c. This power Apostolical, he contendeth to have been communicated unto the Bishops, and not to all the Presbyters I. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age, talketh high of this Power' of the Bishops Majesty, Monarchy, singular Prerogatives, which I have else where examined.

§ 4. It is to be considered, 9. That there are diverse Opinions amongst the Episcopalians, who ascribe this power to the Bishop, about the Foundation of it, or how he cometh by it: some of them say, that Christ while he was on Earth, Instituted this Authority in the persons of Bishops, and made this difference between them and Presbyters. This the Bishop of Worcester denyeth, while Iren: p: 197. he saith, that Christ gave equal power for ruling the Church, in actu primo, to all Ministers of the Gospel: others make it to be of Apostolick Institution; affirming that the Apostles after Christs Ascension, did appoint it. About this we contend not; but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right and unalterable, if either of these can be proved: for what the Apostles did in settling Church Order, was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God. Others again hold, that this power was not settled till after the Apostles time, and that it was brought in by Custume, which obtained in process of time, and by degrees: but being of such reverend Antiquity, and practised by the Fathers, and all the primitive Churches, it may not be altered. There are also among them who say, it is only Juris Ecclesiastici, and was settled by the Church, and may be by her Authority changed. Our Opinion is, it hath none of these Foundations: that it was never settled by Christ, nor his Apostles; but that they settled the Government of the Churches, by Presbyters acting in parity: nor gave power to the Church, or any man, or men, to alter this Constitution: and so that this Power is usurped and unlawful.

§ 5. Out of what hath been discoursed, our present Controversie turneth on this Hinge: whether the Government of the Church, which by Divine appointment, is to be used in all the ages and parts of the Christian Church, should be by one Prelate, managing it by his sole Authority, and the counsel of Presbyters, so far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it: or by the Presbyters of the Church in their several Classes or Combinations, [Page] acting with parity of power: the former part of the Question my Antagonist pleadeth for: I stand for the latter part of it: so that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government; nor about what is practised by this or that Party, (for no doubt there are many things on both sides that want to be reformed, and which we can pretend no Divine right for) but it is about the Essentials of it, Prelacy or Parity.

§ 6: Be [...]ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or con, I shall briefly examine what my Antagonist is pleased to premise to his examining of our Arguments: which may possibly clear our way in some things to be after debated. I first notice an expression he uses in representing our Opinion; that we hold, that in all Meetings of the Church, Presbyters act in perfect parity: so p. 12. I hope he will suffer us to explain the meaning of that Expression, (if any have used it, which I do not remember) we pretend not to such a parity as excludeth the ordinary power of a temporary Moderator, as hath been above expressed: neither to exclude the majority of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that [...]re only ruling; nor of both above Deacons: nor do we by perfect parity, exclude that Influence that one by his Reason, may have on others who are not so well gifted. Wherefore, we own a perfect parity, in no other sense, but that preaching Presbyters are of the same order with a Bishop; and that he cannot act in matters of Government, without their concurrence, more than any of them can act without him. 2. I take notice that p. 22. he saith that such a Doctrine (the Divine right of parity) must be of dangerous consequence; because it is altogether new. What is to be thought of its noveltie, I have shewed Sect. 1. §. 1, and 2. As also, how weak the consequence is from its noveltie (such as I have acknowledged) to its being false. The dangerous consequence of it is, in general asserted; but he hath not told what hazard, in particular, ariseth to the Church from this way of Government: many think that the greatest and most essential concernments of Religion, have been more promoted under Parity, than under Prelacy: if he will prove his Assertion, making the contrary appear, we shall consider the strength of his Reasons.

§ 7. He asserteth, that our Opinion is not only different from the uniform Testimony of Antiquity, (which we deny, and shall consider his proofs in the subsequent Debate) but also the first Presbyterians among our selves; who declare, in their Confession of Faith, that all Church Policy is variable: [Page]so [...] one they from asserting that indispensible Divine and unalterable Right of P [...]rity. He addeth, that they only pretended that it was allowable; and more to this purpose. Let me a little examine this confident Assertion of matter of Fact. I suppose by the Confession of Faith of the first Presbyterians, he meaneth that Summ of Doctrine which they appointed to be drawn up 1560, as that Doctrine that the Protestants would maintain: there, Artiole 22, are these words: Not that we think any Policy, and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages, times, and places: for as Ceremonies, such as men have devised, are but temporary; so may and ought they to be changed, when they rather foster Superstition, than edifie the Church using the some. Here is not a word of Church Government▪ neither can these words rationally be understood of Ceremonies in a strick sense, as contradistinguished from Civil Rites and natural Circumstances in religious actings: for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion, the reforming Protestants of Scotland never owned, but such as were of Divine Institution. But that they did not hold the Government of the Church, by Prelacy or Parity, to be indifferent, is evident, in that in the Book of Policy, or 2d. Book of Discipline, they do own only four sorts of ordinary and perpetual Office bearers in the Church: to wit, Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons, where the Bishop is plainly excluded: nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers; but for the present necessity of the Church, not yet constituted. It is like this Debate may again occur: wherefore I now insist no further on it.

§ 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians, which sometimes miss them, and wound his own party: as p: 13, he hath this Assertion, when a Society of men set up for Divine, absolute, and infallible Right, they ought to bring plain proofs for what they say; else they must needs be lookt on as Impostors, or at least self conceited and designing men; and much to this purpose. Is it easie to subsume, but this Author and his Partizans set up for Divine, absolute and infallible right for Prelacy; and yet they bring not plain proofs for what they say: therefore he and they are Impostors, self conceited and designing men: they indeed pretend to plain proofs; and so do we: let the Reader then judge whose proofs are plainest, and best founded; and who are to be judged Impostors, by his Argument. But in truth there is no consequence to a mans being an Impostor, from his owning a Divine Right, even though his Arguments be defective in plainness, and in strength: it only followeth that such do mistake, and understand not the mind of God in that matter, so well as they should; and [Page] that their strength of Reason doth not answer the confidence of their Assertion: and if this be a Blame (as I think it is) no men in the world are more guilty than his party; nor among his party, than himself: as will appear in examining his Assertions and Arguments. For self conceit, the Reader will easily see where it may be observed, if he consider the superciliousness with which his Book is written. If Presbyterians be the designing men, they are great fools: for there are no Bishopricks, nor Deanries, nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way: which might be the Objects of such designs. Who are the head strong men that will knock others on the head, unless they will swear they see that which indeed they cannot see, may be judged by the Excommunications, and the Capias's and consequents of these, which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity. I am not acquainted with these Presbyterians, who say that none but wicked men will oppose our Government: this is none of our Doctrine: it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church such as are for Presbytery, and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of such: we do not Excommunicat any who differ from us about Church Government, for their Opinion, nor for not joining with us. Neither do we pronounce such a heavy Doom on the Prelatists who separate from us, as I. S. doth on them who separate from the Episcopal Church: Principles of the Cyprianick Age, p: 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and intricat Consequences, obscure and perplexed Probabilities, Texts of Scripture sadly wrested and Distorted, p. 15. This I say is a silly Artifice to forestal the Readers mind before he hear the Debate; which will take with few, even of his own party. We are not ashamed to produce our Arguments, for all this insolent Contempt.

SECTION III.

Some Arguments for Parity, not mentioned nor answered by the Enquirer.

IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to answer our Arguments: and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of two Texts of Soripture, (which yet he confesseth that our ablest Writers, such as Beza and Salmasius, lay little weight on) one Argument from the Homonymie of the names of Bishop and Presbyter, and some Citations of the Fathers. Here we desiderate: Ingenuity, [...] in his picking out our most doubtful Arguments, while he doth not [...] these [Page] which were hardest for him to answer: also representing them in such a dress as we do not so make use of them, and they may be easiest for him to Debate. It had been fairer dealing if he had represented our cause in its full strength, and then answered what we say. Before I come to these Arguments which he is pleased to name, I shall propose some others which he, or some others, may consider, when next they think fit to write.

§ 2. Our first Argument shall be this: our Lord hath given power to Presbyters, not only to dispense the Word and Sacraments; but to rule the Church, and joyn in the exercise of the Discipline of the Church: but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the rest, nor made this exercise of that power to depend on one of them; therefore he hath not Instituted Prelacy, but left the Government of the Church to be exercised by Presbyters acting in paritie. The first Proposition many of the Episcopalians yield. yea, the Bishop of Worcester saith plainly, that Christ hath given equal power to them all; which is the foundation of his Irenicum. But it may be this Author will deny it; and therefore I shall prove it: to wit, that preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Discipline. 1. Preaching and ruling power are joyned, as given joyntly to the ordinary Pastors of the Church, Heb. 13. 7. The same persons who watch for the peoples souls (as all Pastors do) rule also over the Church, ibid: v. 17. they are called in both places [...], Leaders: the word is used to express any kind of Authority, whether Civil, Military, or Ecclesiastick: but Church Rulers only can be here meant, viz. who speak the word of God to the people, and watch for their Souls; and such as they had at that time; seing they are bidden salute them, v. 24. To understand this of Dyocesan Bishops, as some do, is most absurd: for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is, Preaching and Watching, which are things not peculiar to the Bishop: wherefore not he only is to be obeyed: and thence it followeth, that not he only doth rule in the Church. 2. They who are sent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord, and have power to command and require people (by vertue of their Commission from Christ) to obey what they enjoyn them, have also power of Spiritual correction of them who (professing subjection to Christ) do not obey his Laws: for we do not read that Christ committed to some the one of these powers, and the other to others: neither is there the least foundation in Scripture for that Fiction, that Christ impowered [Page] Pastors to teach people and gather Churches, over whom he would afterward set some more eminent Pastor to rule them: the strain of Scripture seemeth to run contrary: That the Apostles gathered and settled Churches, and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Order. Yea, it were strange, if this had been designed, that no hint is given about that more eminent Pastor, that should afterwards be set over Pastors and people. Neither can it be imagined, that the Office of begetting of Souls to Christ, can be separated from a power of correcting, as spiritual Fathers, or that Presbyters should be Pastors without governing power. 3. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3, 4. It is committed to the Elders that were in the Church, to feed the flock, and take the oversight of them, ( [...]) and to beware of lording it over them, which plainly saith that they had Authority; which they should beware of abusing, or stretching too far: now these Elders are told of their being accountable to Christ, but not a word of a superior Presbyter, or Bishop, to whom they must be answerable: and this power is given to as many as were Feeders, or [...]; which cannot be denyed to Presbyters. It is true, the word Elder may be applied to a Bishop, yea to an Apostle, and the Apostle here designeth himself by it; tho he was more than an ordinary Elder: but that it cannot here be so restricted, appeareth, because the Injunction is to Pastors or Feeders in general, as hath been said.

§ 3. Our second Proposition of this Argument I prove, because all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture, and all the Injunctions that are given to any to rule in the Church, do respect the people as the Object of that work; we find no Commission to any man to rule over the Pastors of the Church: let our Adversaries shew us such a Commission given to any man, either directly and expresly, or by good consequence. We read of feeding the Flock, 1 Pet. 5. 2. and taking heed to themselves (each of them) and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers, Acts 20. 28. Here are Bishops of the Flock, but no Bishop of Bishops, or of Pastors: they were to be corrected, not by one set over them, but each by the Meeting of the whole. Again, if the power of the Pastors of the Church (I mean them who dispense the Word and Sacraments to the people) did depend on the bishop, is it imaginable that it should not have been told us that Ministers may not preach, nor baptize, &c. without the Bishops leave? This was needful to clear the Consciences of Ministers: Christ hath charged them to [Page] preach, and that diligently; 2 Tim. 4, 1, 2. If the exercise of this power depend on the Bishop, he may supersede this Charge; neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bishop forbid him: now what Minister of the Gospel can satisfie his Conscience in this Matter, unless he see a clear warrand from the Scripture, that the Bishop hath this power over them. Further, this is to make all the Ministers of a Diocess to have their Commission from the Bishop, and to be in a proper sense his Curats: which (tho I know some of our Brethren own, yet) hath this absurdity following on it, that it maketh the Ministers of the Gospel contemptible in the eyes of the People, who depend on them (not on the Bishop, whom, may be, they shall never see, nor hear) for the means of their Edification: this is not the way to put Ministers in a Capacity to edifie the people, it is to make them the servants of one Man, not Rulers in the house of God, under their Master Christ.

§ 4. Our second Argument we take from the Apostles enumeration of all the Officers that, by Divine appointment, are set in the Church: whether extraordinary, which are now ceased; or ordinary, which are to continue to the end of the World. But among all these there is no Bishop, with power over Presbyters; ergo, no such Officer is appointed by Christ: but the Church must be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity, and without Subordination to such a superior Officer. That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine appointment made in the Scripture, is evident; for an enumeration of them is often made, as Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Ephes. 4. 11. This enumeration is either complete or defective: if complete, that is, what we desire: there can be no Church Officer owned, as Juris Divini, but what is in some of these places to be found: if any say that this enumeration is Defective; not only in some one of these places, but in them all: that is, that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them; he reflecteth a blame on the Holy Ghost, which an ordinary Writer (who pretendeth to any measure of ca [...]or & accuracy) would be ashamed of. The design of these Scriptures is to instruct the Church, what officers Christ hath appointed to be in his Church, that people may know from what sort of men they should receive Gods Ordinances, to whom they should Submit, whom they should hear and own. Now if there be some Officers whom Christ hath appointed to teach and rule his Church, who are not in some of these Catalogues mentioned, this is a lame instruction in this matter: and we [Page] are still at a loss whom we should own as Christs Embassadors to us, and what should be our carriage toward them.

§ 5. I suppose the second proposition is that which our brethren will most controvert with us: which if they do, they must shew us where they find a Diocesan Bishop in any of these places, or in any other enumeration of Church officers; if they know of any more. Here some of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks, to find my Lord Bishop among all these Church officers. If he be found Rom. 12. It must be v. 8. He that ruleth [...], I have met with none of them who insist on this place. The current of Interpreters either hold in the general: mentioning rulers. So Estius, Tolet, Hamond: or understand it of ruleing Elders, who were distinct from preaching Presbyters, as Vorstius, Gomarus, Beza, Parraeus: Grotius also saith, they were [...], de quibus Tertull: praesident probati quique seniores: horum erat diligenter attendere ad singulorum mores, monere titubantes, lapsos censura corrigere, Praescribere panitentiae tempus, & modum; interdum & relaxare. No man will think that Grotius here meaneth a Diocesan Bishop, who hath many thousands of Souls under his Charge, whose manners he cannot particularly inspect. Some pretend that the Bishop is designed 2 Cor. 12. 28. Under the name of Governments, [...]: but first, it is plain that here is meant a sort of Governour distinct from the Teacher, who is here also named: but this is not competent to the Bishop; but to the ruling Elder. 2. Though an Argument drawen barely from the order wherein these Officers are mentioned, were not of much force; yet in this place, where the Apostle doth accuratly note the order and dignity of these Officers, by a first, and secondarly, and thirdly; it must needs be very significant. Especially seing our Opposites themselves do take notice of the Apostles words as marking out out the Degrees of the dignity of these Officers. Grotius, and Hamond, Estius also, observes the eminency of the Apostles, from their being first mentioned, with this Note, first; the former two also on these words, Secondarly Prophets, call them Apostolis honore proximos. Let it then be considered, when the Apostle is so exact in setting down the order and dignity of Church Officers, whether it be consistent with this, that Governments, if by them were meant Diocesan Bishops, should be placed after the Pastors and Teachers; that is Presbyters. If it be said that Helps, whom we take to be Deacons, are set before Governments, whom we make ruling Elders; though the latter be of more respect in the Church than the former. I answer: after the Apostle hath [Page] ranked the chief Officers in the Church, both these who were extraordinarie, & who are ordinarie, he doth not use that exactness in these that are inferior of either sort: but while he doth expresly place the teachers (who are Presbyters) in the the third place of Dignity, it were absurd, either to take no notice of the place in which the Bishop should be ranked, or to put him behind the Presbyter. If any alledge that the Bishop is meant both by the teacher, and by Governments: this were to admit of an absurd tautologie in a very short list of Church Officers: beside that it were to exclude Preaching Presbyters, as no Officers in the house of God: for by this gloss no mention is made of any teaching Presbyter, except Bishops.

§ 6. Others fancy that they find Bishops under the name of [...] Helps: so Grotius, and Hamond: the latter laboureth to establish his Gloss, first, in that Graeci complures, quod hic est [...] explicant [...]. But he is neither pleased to tell us who these Greeks are, nor what reason they give for this Explication. 2. He seemeth to plead that here is expressed a part of the Episcopal power, cujus rei causa (saith he) est quod haec erat specialis pars muneris Episcoporum, quod ipsorum fidei commissa est cura pauperum, & dispensatio facultatum Ecclesiae: ut testantur Justin: Ignat: Polycarp: &c. Et Acts 20. 35. This Author rather than not find a Bishop in the Text, he will turn him to a Deacon: contrarie to the Institution of Christ, by his Apostles Acts 6. 2, 3, 4. what Justin: &c. Say in this point, I cannot examine, because he hath not pointed to the places: but I am sure Acts 20. 35. saith no such thing: nor can I understand what should move this Author so to expound the place, unless it be because he findeth [...] in that Text, and he will force that word to express the work of a Bishop: it is plain, even from the records of antiquity, as well as from Scripture, that the Bishops had no further the Dispensation of the goods of the Church, than that the Ministers and Elders had a directive power in that matter, and the Deacons did execute what was appointed by them. But for the Text Acts 20. 35. It is far from aiming at any such matter: the Apostle setteth before them his Example, in working with his own hands; by which he did two ways support the infirm; both by spareing the Poors Stock, in his not taking the maintainence that he might have demanded, and also by giving of what he gained by his Labour, for their relief: I do not exclude from the meaning of this Text, Acts of mercy toward Souls, by spiritual instructions, and Consolations, Administred to distressed Consciences. [Page] Menoch: Estius, Piscator, Vorstius, Sclater, Beza, apply this Tex [...] to both sorts of support. Aquinas in locum, maketh them to be, illi q [...] ferebant opem Majoribus praelatis in universali regimine sicut Archi-Diacom Episcopis. But to expound it of distributing the Churches Money, when it is rather to be understood of giving of our own to the Poor, is a strange Gloss. Further, if this meaning of the Text were admitted, and if a Bishop had a hand in the Distributions to the Poor, is it imaginable that, when the Apostle is about to instruct the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church, that he would give us n [...] clearer Light about so important a Matter, and that the Government o [...] the Church and the practice of all her Members is so much concerned in, than by designing him by one of the lowest pieces of his Work; and which is most extrinsick to his Character? A Notion so absurd and i [...] founded, could hardly have been expected from a person of Doctor Hamonds learning. If the Bishop be here known by the name of Help, o [...] Supporter of the Poor by Alms: that is the meanest (if any) part of his 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 of one person, to wit, a Prelate. The major cannot be called in question: for if it were otherways, Christ should bid men act contrary to his own Institution; which to imagine, is most absurd. For [Page] the minor Proposition: Christs Injunction is, tell it to the Church; which word doth always signifie a plurality of men met about some common work; never a single person acting by himself. I need not here debate with Erastians, who by the Church understand the Magistrate: nor with Independents, who hence argue for the peoples Church power: these my present Antagonists condemn, as well as I do. But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy: whether over the whole Church, as Papists; or over the several Districts in the Church, as Prelatists: both of them agree in this, that they place Church Jurisdiction in a single person; and by the Church, must here understand such a person. Against this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it self. First, the Gradation that Christ here recommendeth, in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment: that the offended person must first deal with the Offender by himself alone: next (that failling of its effect) he must take the Assistance of two or three: if this prevail not, he must bring the Matter to a greater number, to wit the Church. The learned Drusius, on this Text, citeth the Passage out of [...] which sheweth, that this Gradation was used in the Jewish Church, and that as their Discipline, as the name of the Book importeth. After the Author hath enjoyned the first and second Step (as the Text doth) he addeth; Si nec hoc modo quicquam profecit, debet eum pudefacere coram multis, ejusque delictum publicare: which sheweth, that the third Step of Reprehension among them, was not to tell the Crime to a single person: wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church, it is not like he meant a single person, however of more Authority than the two or three.

§ 10. A second Proof of this is, the word Church [...], in Hebrew [...], is never so used; but always signifieth a Plurality: why should it then be so used here? 3. When Christ speaketh of a Ratification of the Sentence of this Church to whom the Complaint is made, and whom the stubborn Offender will not hear, he doth not speak of that Church as a single person: what ye shall bind, and what ye shall loose. 4. He speaketh of that Church which correcteth the Offender, as what may consist of a very small number, two, or three, v. 20. but giveth no hint that a single person can be so lookt on. 5. Chrysostom expoundeth this place of a Plurality; [...], Sutlif: de Pontif: Rom: lib: primo c: 5. argueth against expounding this of the Pope, from such Topicks as will militate as much against understanding it of a [Page] Bishop, in his District: his words are, Per Ecclesiam non unus aliquis (nam hoc verbi ratio prohibet) sed plures Ecclesiae praesidentes, intelliguntur. Ut autem unus Ecclesiae summus Monarcha designetur per nomen Ecclesiae, fieri non potest, repugnat enim natura & nomen Ecclesiae, quae est congregatio ex pluribus; & in uno consistere, si propriè loquimur, non potest: repugnat deinde & Patrum interpretatio, qui una voce non unum Pontificem, sed Episcopos & praesidentes Eccelesiae; seu ut Patres synodi Basileenses loquuntur, Ecclesiae praesidentium concilium designari volunt: Here is a plain Confession out of the mouth of an Adversary. For it is evident that Complaints must be made to lesser Churches, and not to the Universal Church only: and why one man set over a Province may be called the Church, and one set over all the Christian Church may not get the same Designation, is unaccountable. It is here objected by some, that this place is to be understood of the Jewish Sanhedrim, not of the Christian Church: and this they pretend to prove, because the incorrigible Offender is to be lookt on as an Heathen or Publican. To this I reply, first, if in the Jewish Church, where was an High Priest, there was not a Monarchical Government; much less is there ground for it in the Christian Church. 2. That Christ gave this Direction for the Christian Church, (which then was presently to be set up) is evident; because this Injunction is given to the Apostles, who had no hand in the Government of the Jewish Church; and the same power of binding and loosing which here is supposed to be in them, is expresly given, and called the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, Mat. 16: 19: John 20: 23: This alluding to Jewish Customes, and expressing New Testament Discipline by looking on scandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans, is no Argument against what I have said; this being frequent with Christ and his Apostles; yea with the Prophets, long before, to express Gospel matters by Old Testament terms.

§ 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apostles, were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly, without a Bishop set over them; Ergo the government of the Church by a Bishop set over Presbyters, is not of Divine Right: The Consequence cannot with any shew of Reason be denyed: for the Apostles were more vigilant and faithful, than to suffer such encroachment to be made upon a Power that Christ had given to his Servants. It is a most irrational fancy, that the Apostles in their own time, allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Inspection; but after their death appointed Bishops to rule alone. [Page] For first, this had been to allow the exercise of a power in Presbyters, that not only they had no right to, but which did belong to others by Divine Institution. 2. What ground is there to say, that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary, or that it ceased at the death of the Apostles? Especially considering that some of the Apostles did long outlive others of them; how should the expiring of that Power of Presbyters be determined: nor do we read of any ceasing of what Power they once had. This is a Fiction that no account can be given of. Wherefore our Debate is about the Antecedent of this Argument; which I must prove by Instances.

§ 12. And first the Church of Corinth was thus governed; not only by the Apostles connivance, but by his express Direction and Approbation; as in the case of the incestuous man, 1 Cor. 5. That a plurality of Church Rulers, and not a single person, had power to censure that man, is proved first; the Apostle, v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had not cast out this man from among them by Excommunication; they were not duely affected with the Crime, and did not mourn for it; neither did set about censuring of it: both these were the effects of thei [...] not being so sensible of the evil of it, as they ought to have been: In this sense Ambrose understands this place: for on this occasion he saith, Si autem quis potestatem non haber, qui scit reum abjicere, vel probare non valet; immunis est. So also Chrysostom, on the place [...]: non accusat quod non ei significaret; sed quod non deplorarent ut tolleretur: ostendens quod etiam sine monitore id fieri opportuit, propter peccati evidentiam. What can be more plain, than that these Fathers lookt on a Community of Church Rulers in Corinth, as having the power of Church Censures? Yea, that the Apostle thought so too; otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter. 2. The Apostle giveth his Opinion, that this scandalous person should be Excommunicated (delivered to Satan) by them assembled together; (not by one Bishop among them, and of this their assembling for this end, he saith two things; which imply their power: that his Spirit should be with them; that is his good Wishes, Approbation, and hearty Concurrance) Menoch: in locum; congregatis vobis quibus ego adsum praesens Spiritu, affectu, & Sollicitudine. Next, that this was to be done by them in the Name and Authority of Christ, and with his Power, or Vertue, by which he would bless this his own Ordinance, and make it effectual: none of these could be said of this Act, if it were done by a Company of men who had no [Page] power from Divine Institution. 3. The Apostle saith expresly v. 12. that they (not thou Bishop, but ye) judged them who were within; that is the Church Members. 4. The Apostle speaking of this Excommunication when it was past, saith, that it was the rebuke of many, 2 Cor. 2. 6. not of one Bishop. 5. He after directeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence, the man being now truly penitent, 2 Cor. 2: 7. which is an Act of Church Authority, and they could not take off the Sentence if they had not power to lay it on.

§ 13. Our Adversaries make some Exceptions against this Argument. First, that the Apostle doth not enjoyn the Corinthian Elders to Excommunicate the man; because he saith, [...], I have judged: he passed the Sentence, and enjoyned them to publish, and execute it. This is said without ground: for it is evident, that the Sentence was not passed when this Epistle was written; as is clear from the Arguments above adduced: the man was not yet purged out, he was not delivered to Satan: the Apostle saying he had judged already, [...] ▪ signifieth no more but that it was his Opinion, in which, after deliberation, he was determined, that the thing should be done: beside, that his judging did not exclude the Presbyters judging with him, more than when James said Acts 15. 17. [...], I judge, it barred the authoritative Judgment of that Council that sat with him. Again they except, that these Presbyters were not at libertie to excommunicate this man or not, seing the Apostle had commanded it; Ergo, this Excommunication was not in their power. Reply: the Consequence is naught▪ for this necessity did not proceed from their want of power, but from the plain discoverie of their Dutie, held forth to them by the Apostle. Any Minister of the Gospel may require any person to do that which is a plain Dutie; and yet not deprive the person of his power in that Act. When the Prophets held forth the Mind of God to Kings about any Act, they did not take away their Regal power that they had for these Acts. 3. They alledge that this delivering the man to Satan, was not Excommunication; but an extraordinary inflicting some bodily Punishment upon him, which only the Apostle, and others having the Gift of Miracles, could do: and therefore it cannot argue any power in the Presbyters of Corinth. Reply: This Exposition of the place (though I deny not some of the Fathers have used it) is without all ground, or example in Scripture; and a pure Invention to serve a turn. Again, the Apostle reproveth the Corinthians that they had not done this; bids [Page] them, with his Spirit joyning with them, do it: but it was never heard, that they who wrought Miracles did it with the Concurrence of others: Further, this Punishment was inflicted by many, to wit the Elders of Corinth; but they had no power of working Miracles. Lastly, Erastus (the chief A better of this Opinion in these latter ages) held that this power was given to the Apostles, and some others, till there should be a Christian Magistrate in the Church, to punish Scandals: from this it would follow, that the Magistrate should now purge out by death, all the Scandals which the Apostle appointed to be purged out by Excommunication, or delivering to Satan; such as Drunkards, Fornicators, Railers, &c. which are mentioned 1 Cor. 5. 11. which would make the Church like a Shambles.

§ 14. Another instance of a Church governed by a Plurality of Presbyters, and not by a Bishop, is that of Thessalonica. 2 Thess. 3. 14. where the Apostle enjoyneth them to note, or set a mark upon such as obey not the Apostles word, and to withdraw from them: this note, is the ignominious Mark of Excommunication, which should make a persons company be shunned by all Christians. Erasmus in locum, ut signamus boves cornupetas, quo vitentur: my Argument from this Text is this, the Colledge of Presbyters at Thessalonica had power, and that by the Apostles allowance, to Excommunicate them who were disobedient to the Rules of the Gospel; Ergo, they, and not a single Bishop, did govern the Church. The Consequence is plain: the Antecedent is founded on the Apostles Injunction: he commandeth them to exercise this Discipline; which he would not have done, if they had not had Authority so to do. Neither doth he here design the person or persons, who were to be Excommunicated; but owneth them for proper Judges of that, and giveth a general Rule by which they should judge, telling for what Crimes this Censure should be inflicted. The Prelatists labour to take off the strength of this Instance, by another reading, and Gloss, on this Text: they read it thus, if any man obey not our word, note, or signifie that man by an Epistle, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. So that they make this to be the Apostles meaning: that they should write to him, giving him an account of the Scandals that should fall out among them, to the end that he might Excommunicate the guilty persons, and then the Church should shun their company: the Presbyters were to examine the Matter, and find it sufficiently proved; and upon their Information the Apostle was to pass Sentence.

[Page] § 15. To this I oppose, for strengthening our Argument; 1. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpreters; AEcumenius, Theophylact, Basilius, Ephrem Cyrus, all cited. Altar: Damasc: p. 201. Yea though Estius cite some who are for that reading, yet approveth our reading in these words; Si quis non auscultat praecepto meo, quod per hanc Epistolam significo: he also, and Menochius, make the design of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ab omnibus; which could not properly, nor immediatly result from their Complaint and Information sent to the Apostle: of which more after. The Syriack Version, as also the Arabick, doth read this place as we do. 2. The Greek [...], cannot bear this Interpretation: for it signifieth to set a Mark on a person, or thing; not to give Notice, which is the signification of [...], Scapula rendereth the first word (which is the word of the Text) insignio, noto: and he citeth for it Graegor: [...] And Athen: lib. 2. [...]: but [...], he turneth, signum do, significo: and giveth sufficient authority for that signification. In the New Testament I find not this word but in this place: for [...], it is used John 12. 33. and 18. 32. and 21. 19. Acts 11. 28. and 25. 27. And it is evident, to all who read these places, that it cannot signifie to set a Mark on a thing; but to signifie, or hold forth. It must then be to put force on the Text, to draw it to express their giving notice, by a Letter to the Apostle, of the mans faults. 3. It is evident that the Apostle speaketh of this Epistle of his; not of an Epistle to be written to him from that Church: for he saith not by an Epistle; but by the Epistle, [...]: the demonstrative Particle doth restrain the signification to that Epistle vhich he sent to them; which Epistle brought to them the word that they should obey, but could not bring from them, to him, notice of what Scandals fell out among them. 4. Upon this noting of that man, did immediatly, and necessarly, follow their abstaining from the company of the person so noted; as is clear in the Text: which cannot be said of their giving notice to the Apostle of any Scandal among themselves, because the Apostle (notwithstanding of their informatary Letter) might not think fit to Excommunicate the person accused, either because the Crime was not relevant, or the Proof not sufficient; but it must needs follow on their setting the Mark of Excommunication on him.

§ 16. Argument 5. If even the Apostles in settled Churches, did not exercise any part of ordinary Church Discipline, or such as was to continue [Page] in the Church, by themselves, and without the Authority, or the authoritative [...]oncurrence of the Presbytrie; then Bishops may not do it: but the former is true, Ergo: I think the connection of the Major will not readily be denyed: nor can it; unless our Brethren will exalt their Bishops higher than Christ did his Apostles, and give them a Power that is wholly boundless. They cannot alledge, that the Apostles might have used such a Power if they would. For that is to be proved: and further, their not using it, was a binding example to them who should come after them, from which they ought not to swerve. Before I come to the proof of the Assumption, I take notice of two Cases in which the Apostles used a singular Power, by themselves, in the matter of Church Discipline, or Correption, or other Church Acts. First, when a bodily Punishment was miraculously to be inflicted; as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. 2. When Discipline was to be exercised in a Church not yet constituted, nor furnished with them who had the ordinary Power; as many think, in the case of Hymenaeus and Philetus. Saravia, a great Patron of Prelacy, defen. Cap. 20. § 2. hath these words: Apostolos & Evangelistas, rebus & Ecclesiis jam constitutis, & in Parochias Episcopis distributis, nihil quod ad communem Ecclesiae statum pertinuisset fuisse facturos inconsultis & invitis locorum Pastoribus, & Episcopis, me firmiter credere. That the Apostles in other cases did not act by themselves, but with the Presbyterie, I prove by Instances of their acting in conjunction with the Presbyterie: and I challenge our Brethren to bring Instances to the contrary. First, Paul did not ordain Timothy by himself; but with the Presbyters: though the laying on of his hands be mentioned by it self: 2 Tim. 1. 6. yet, that the Presbyterie concurred is clear, 2 Tim. 4. 14. The effect of the Imposition of Hands is ascribed to that of the Presbyterie, as well as to that of the Apostle; which is a clear Indication of a joint Power. 2. The Apostle did not, by himself, Excommunicat the Incestuous Corinthian; as hath been shewed. 3. The Apostles did not judicially determine the Question about observing the Law of Moses; Acts 15. by themselves, but with the Elders and Brethren. They object that the Apostle by himself delivered Hymenaeus and Philetus to Satan. It is to be proved by the Objecters, first, That these two men were Members of a settled and complete Church. 2. That if so, the Apostle did this by himself, without the Concurrence of the Presbyterie: neither of which can be proved.

[Page] § 17. Argument 6. We find no Superiority of Power that one had over the rest, in any sort of Church Officers; Ergo, it is not among the Pastors or Teachers of the Church neither. The Antecedent is clear; if we go through all the sorts of Officers mentioned in the Scripture: there was no Apostle had power over the rest, as all confess who are not for Peters and the Popes Supremacy. No such Disparity among Prophets, or Evangelists, or among the Governments, or ruling Elders, nor among Deacons. I confess after Ages brought in a Disparity among all these Orders, and invented new ones: it was no wonder then, that an Arch-Presbyter, or Bishop, was brought in too: but no Foundation in Scripture (which alone can found a Divine Right) for any such Disparity or Subordination. The consequence cannot be denyed; unless our Adversaries can prove, that this Disparity is Instituted by the Lord; though no such Disparity in the rest of the Orders be: which they shall never be able to do. It were strange, if the Lord should intend a Majority of Power of one Pastor over another, and yet not Hint that Disparity, when he is setting down all the Officers in his House: and while that he hinteth no Majoritie among any one of the sorts of Church Officers, this only should admit of such Subordination. I have brought these few Arguments for Paritie, and against Prelacy, that the Reader might see how slightly, and unfairly, my Antagonist dealeth with us, when he will have the World believe that we have no sufficient Arguments, because he hath refuted one or two of them, which he was pleased to single out, as easiest for him to deal with.

SECTION IV.

The Arguments for Parity which our Author pretendeth to answer, Vindicated.

I Took notice in the beginning of the former Section, that this Author singleth out some of our Arguments, and these none of the most evident, and with a great deal of Confidence triumpheth over them, as if he had laid our Cause in the dust: I shall now try if even these Weapons, rightly managed, be able to wound his Cause; for as he representeth them, they can do us little service: but his unfair dealing will appear in this Conduct. Before I come to the Arguments themselves, I cannot overlook the general account that he giveth of the Arguments on our side, p. 15. That they may all be reduced to three Heads. [Page]First, either they pretend that this Parity of Presbyters is expresly commanded by our Saviour. Or 2. They endeavour to support it by Consequences from several Texts of Scripture. Or 3. from some Testimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church. The latter two sorts of Arguments we do indeed use, but who ever pretended to the first, I know not. I confess, I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named, nor such words as these, that the Church shall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum consilio, nor that it hath been [...] said, there shall be no Prelacy among Presbyters: and I am sure, the Scriptures that he mentioneth as containing our Arguments of this sort, were never said by any of us, to be an express Command for Paritie; though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed, and which may be drawn out of the words by good Consequence. He saith p. 16. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently insist on this (arguing from express command in Scripture) than any of the forraign Presbyterians: which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation, from what hath been said: for many of the forraign Presbyterians do assert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do, though I cannot reckon the frequency of either their, or our insisting on it, that I may compare them, I am sure many more of them have written for it, than have defended it so in Print, in Scotland (I mean the Parity of Presbyters, which is the cardo controversiae; whatever difference may be between some of them and us, in some other things) Calvin. instit. lib. 4. c. 11. § 6. & alibi. Beza, de triplici Episcopatu contra Sarav. Paraeus, saepissime. Gers. Bucer. disser: de gub: Eccles. Blondell. apologia. Salmasius, Turretin, loc. 18. quaestion: 29. Leideck. de statu Eccles. Affric. Voet. passim. Vitringa, de syn. Vet. and many others. Likewise Smecttym. & jus div: regim: were not written by Scots Presbyterians: also Paul Bayn Dioces: Tryal.

§ 2. The Argument from express command in Scripture which he insisteth on, is Mat. 20. 25, 26, 27, 28. and Mark 10. 42, 43, 44, 45. and Luke 22. 25. We think here is a strong and concludent Argument against Prelacy and for Parity; though we did not call it an express Command. As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture, let it be considered, that this Discourse of Christ is immediatly and directly to the Apostles, to whom he was then speaking; and by consequence, it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers, ordinary and extraordinay. It is a good consequence, Christ here forbiddeth Prelacy among the Apostles; Ergo, among the ordinary Pastors of the Church likewise. And ergo, among the Elders, whose work it is to [Page] rule. And ergo, among the Deacons: our Lord is not here saying that there shall be no diversity of Degrees, or Orders of Officers, in the Church; for he hath plainly Instituted the contrary, 1 Cor. 12. 28. But among the Apostles there shall be no Soveraignty, nor Subjection, neither among other Officers who are of the same Order, and whose work is the same. 2. Let it be also noted, that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny, or abuse of power, that was exercised among the Heathen Magistrats, over them who were subordinate to them; but only Dominion and Authority, which they might lawfully exercise: so that what he aimeth at is, that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers; but no such thing should be among Church Rulers. 3. Though we deny not that there are, by Christs Appointment, divers Orders of Church Rulers; yet we see no ground to think that one of these Orders is subject to another, or is to be commanded by it: we hold that Ministers have no Jurisdiction over the ruling Elders; but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church. Before I state our Argument from this Text, I observe how groundlesly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we use, and (overlooking all of our side who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Cause) he only citeth as pleading from this Scripture, Mr. David Dickson on Matthew who toucheth it very transiently, and on occasion of his commenting o [...] that Text: and my Book against Stillingsfleets Irenicum, where it is said expresly p. 98. I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose: or do I there use that place as an Argument, further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonist; which is here also my work I now draw this Argument from the words cited. That Dominion an [...] Authority that Civil Magistrats in their several Jurisdictions did, an [...] might, exercise over these Under-rulers, is not to be allowed in th [...] Church; but the Jurisdiction of Bishops over Presbyters is such a Dominion and Authority, (that is, the one is real Jurisdiction as well as th [...] other) Ergo it should not be exercised in the Church.

§ 3. I shall now examine his Answers to this Argument. First, he saith that Christ here supposes Degrees of Subordination among his own Disciples, as well as other Societies; and therefore, he saith, this Text referreth [...] the Methods of attaining Preferment; that it must not be by force, violence, and other Arts that are so fashionable in secular Courts: thus he p. 17, and [...] 19. he commandeth them that they should not exercise their Jurisdiction as the Lords of the Gentiles, by a spirit of Pride and Domination. This and what [Page] followeth he seemeth to have borrowed from Grotius, de imp. summar potes. circa sacra. p. 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy; as of Parity. To all this I oppone first, That Christ supposeth here Subordination among his Disciples is grat is dictum. I deny not that there is Subordination among them (taking his Disciples for all Christians; but taking the word for the Apostles alone we deny it) and that both in respect of Degree and Authority. The people are subject to the Rulers; one sort of Church Officers is inferior to another; which they may be, without being subject to their Authority: but there is no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here said: for mens Ambition prompts them to make superior Offices in the Church, that themselves may enjoy them; as well as to aspire to these Preferments that are extant and allowed. Again, Christ saith not, there shall be no Superiority in the Church; but among them, the Apostles This is evident from the occasion of this Discourse; which was the ambitious address of James and John presented to Christ by their Mother; that they might be preferred to the rest of the Apostles, in that worldly kingdom that they imagined Christ was to have on Earth: they aimed at such Authority as Civil Magistrats have, the Superior over the Inferior: our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nature; neither was there any such Subordinations to be among his Apostles. 3. That Christ here recommendeth Humility, and condemneth Ambition and Pride, cannot be denyed; the occasion given for this Discourse led him to it: but that this is the only Scope of his Discourse, is said without all Warrant: for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Rulers, to have place among them; which yet might be exercised by humble men. 4. That his scope is to forbid the exercise of their Apostolick or Episcopal Jurisdiction by a spirit of Pride and Domination, is also said without Book: That this he condemneth, we acknowledge: but that he only condemneth this, and not Monarchical Jurisdiction it self, is a groundless fancy, and contrary to the words of the Text, which mention the one, but not the other. He telleth them also, Mat. 23. 8. that they were all brethren: where Camero observeth that Damnat rem tituli; viz: magisterium & authoritatem. 5. It cannot be said, that all the Rulers among the Gentiles, were proud and tyrannical; though not a few were such: but here Christ forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen (yea it may extend to Christian) Magistrats, whether they obtain it ambitiously, and exercise it tyrannically, or not. It shall [Page]not be so (as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exercised) among you. The two Brethren sought an Authority which they fancied would be in Christs Kingdom; not which he intended or instituted: and our Lord not only told them that no such thing was to be expected by any person in his Kingdom, that one Apostle should be above another, or one of the ordinary Pastors of the Church should have Jurisdiction over another; and so of the other Orders of Church Rulers: but he also reproveth their Ambition in so seeking such preferment, if any such thing were to be in the Church.

§ 4. His second Exception against our Argument is, p. 18. The Apostles exercised such Jurisdiction over inferior Ecclesiastics, therefore they did not so understand Christs words, as forbidding all Prelation in the Church. This is sufficiently obviated by what is already said: they did not understand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church; but among themselves: It shall not be so among you. Yea, they did not understand it as forbidding Superiority of Degree or Order; but Jurisdiction over Church Rulers; such as is in the Civil State, over inferior State Rulers. His third Exception, which he saith doth bassle and expose this, Argument to all Intents and Purposes (big words, as his manner is, when the Matter is very improportionate) that he (our Lord) did that himself among them, which now he commanded them to do to one another; and therefore the doing of that toward one another, in obedience to the Command, should not infer a Parity; unless they blasphemously infer, that Christ and his Apostles were equal. This is far more easily baffled, and more exposed; if what hath been said be duely considered. But further that our Lord setteth before them an Example of Humility, and being far from ambitious Aspiring, doth no ways infer their Paritie with him; unless he were here only discharging Paritie among the Apostles; which we do not say, but have asserted the contrary. He is also condemning the Ambition and Pride that appeared in James and John, and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards; and with respect to that, he setteth his own Example of Modesty and Humility before them. Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity (as he fancieth p. 19.) but rather than drawing such a Consequence from that Scheme, deserveth that Reproach. That the Apostle Paul, and the Fathers of the Church, carried as Servants under the Apostolical or Episcopal Dignity, proveth nothing against us: beside that we own no Episcopal Dignity in the Fathers; but shall controvert it with him when he will, [Page] If Walo Messalinus (as he saith p. 20.) layeth no great stress on the Argument from th [...] Text, and mean, that we have stronger Arguments; I do not differ from him: and if Beza say, that here is not forbidden all Jurisdiction; I have already said the same. He maketh yet a 4th Attempt on this Argument, p. 20, 21. That in the Jewish Church there was a Hierarchie, and Subordination, by Divine appointment: and if our Saviour had pulled down that ancient Policy, and commanded an Equality among the Presbyters of the New Testament, he would not have stated the Opposition betwixt his own Disciples and the Lords of the Gentiles; but between them and the Priests of the Mosaick Oeconomie: as he doth when he reproveth the corrupt Glosses introduced into the Church by the Scribes and Pharisees. The weakness of this Reasoning will plainly appear, if we consider 1. That it is too great sawciness in us, to teach our Lord how to reason: If he think fit to make use of one Topick, and if it be to the purpose (as all that he saith must needs he, and what is here said is manifestly so) we ought not to presume to say he would have used another Argument, if he had so meant. Indeed if our Adversaries can make it appear that this way of Reasoning was not here apt, we shall yield that Christ did not mean as we think he did: But that can never be done. 2. He falsly supposeth that we disown all Subordination in the Church, and that we think Christ here did intend to condemn it. 3. The Old Testament had not been so pertinent an Example here, because it was now to be dissolved, our Lord would no longer allow it in the Church; whereas the Magistratical Authoritie, in the several Subordinations of it, was to continue; and he would have a Difference between the Church and State, to be continually visible in this very thing. Beside that the Old Testament Hierarchie is no more a Pattern for Episcopacy, than for Parity; unless our Author will say we must have a Pope, as they had a High Priest, with universal Authoritie over the Church. 4. Our Lords reproving the false Glosses brought in by the Scribes and Pharisees, is strangely drawn in here, and the Impertinency of it is unaccountable; for how could he mention any other as bringing these Doctrines, than the true Authors of them: as he else where warneth his Church of Heathen Doctrines and Practices, and then he nameth them, and not the Teachers of the Jewish Church. The 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.

[...]

[...]

[Page]

[...]

[Page]

[Page] 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.

[Page] § 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 [Page] 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 that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator, who presided among them, and did, with the rest, authoritatively Consult and Determine; this we grant: but it maketh nothing for him. 3. What he meaneth by the Bishops particular Advice and Authoritie, I cannot well guess. If he mean that he Advised and Determined with the rest; that is what we hold. If, that he had a negative Vote; so that all the rest could do nothing without his consent, he ought not to call for Proof from us against that; the Probation is to be expected from him, who affirmeth it. If, that he determined by himself, and the rest were but his Council, this we deny also, and he must prove it. It is enough, that we prove that others with the Bishop, Moderator, or Praeses, did manage the Affairs of the Church: for which the Arguments above brought may be thought sufficient. What followeth in several pages, is to prove, that the Jews and Grecians did sometimes Dichotomize their Clergy; yet at other times they mentioned the Distinctions of the High Priest from other Priests: so of the Bishops from the Presbyters. This would indeed weaken our Argument, if it had no more force than he giveth it; If we had argued simply from the Church Officers being sometimes divided into Bishops and Deacons, without distinguishing Bishops, or [Page] Presbyters among themselves. But our Argument being taken not only from this indistinction of Presbyters in some, but in all places where they are mentioned; and also from the Scripture not distinguishing them by their Offices, Work, Qualifications, or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work: these Distinctions of Presbyters that some of the Ancients use, make nothing against our Argument: unless he can prove that when they mean Bishops as distinct from Presbyters, they ascribe also a superior power to them, which he often asserteth, but never proveth. We confess that after the Apostles age, the name Bishop began soon to be appropriated to the Praeses in the Presbyterie; but in the three first Centuries the Bishop did not rule alone, nor had superior power to the rest. I have lately defended against another of our Episcopal Brethren: and shall also endeavour it against the Assaults of this Author, when he shall please to attempt this proof. Mean while I am not concerned further to Answer what he insisteth on to p. 39. (where he engageth with another of our Arguments) than to examine some few Hints that seem to be intended as argumentative, wherewith his Discourse is interspersed.

§ 10. He telleth us p. 31. that Cyprian asserts the Jurisdiction and Prerogative of the Episcopal power, upon all occasions, with great Courage and Assurance. What my last Antagonist brought for this end, out of the Writing of that holy Martyr, I have endeavoured to Answer: with what success, it is not mine to judge; if this Author will either re-inforce the same Citations, or bring new ones, I shall not decline the Debate with him. That Polycarp: (as he hath it, p. 32.) distinguisheth himself from the subordinate Presbyters, while he inscribeth his Epistle, Polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him. Who (saith our Author) if he had stood on a Level with these Presbyters, would never have distinguished himself from the Community of his Brethren. This reasoning (I say) is so remote from Concludencie, that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in using it. For first, whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence inferred, as Polycarp being an older man than the rest, or Praeses in the Meeting; it is ridiculous to infer from this, either Superiority, or solitude of power. 2. Polycarp might be the Author of the Epistle, and the rest Assenters to it; that might give occasion to his being named. 3. Will any say, that when a Letter is thus directed to a Presbyterie, for N. Moderator, and the rest of the Brethren of the Presbyterie of E, that this inferreth Episcopal Jurisdiction in the person of him who is so named? [Page] Such stuff is not worth refuteing. P. 33. He telleth us that Hermas reproveth some who strove for the first Dignity and Preferment: and if then was no such Precedency there in the Church, there was no ground for his Reprehension. Apage nugas. Have not some striven for unlawful Preferments, as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church, like that of the Lords among the Gentiles? Yea, we deny not all preferment in the Church: may not some ambitiously strive to be a Minister, or an Elder, yea, or a Deacon? All which are Preferments, if compared with the people: and may not a Presbyterian Minister strive to be Moderator, without designing Episcopal Jurisdiction. That Blondel, Salmasius, and Dally, laboured to support this Argument, as our Author represents it, is falsly asserted, p. 35. As is also, that this Opinion (about Parity) was never heard of before the days of Aerius. If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently asserteth, his Book would swell to a great Bulke Sir Thomas Craig (whose Memory is venerable in the learned World) must here also be lashed, as ignorant of Divinity, and of the Fathers, because he was prebyterianly inclined I find nothing more that is observable, or that can derogate from the strength of our Argument, as stated by us, in this his Discourse: only his unmannerly, as well as false, Assertion, p. 38. that the Ecclesiastical Levellers (so in reproach and contempt he calleth the Presbyterians) flee to this Argument as their first and last Refuge; and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling. He may see, if he will be at pains to read what he pretendeth to refute; that they have other, yea better Arguments: and will find it hard to give a solide Answer to this Argument, represented in its full Strength.

SECTION V.

Testimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonist pretendeth to wrest from me, Vindicated.

HE mentioneth these p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity. Whereas if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our side; he might have found thrice as many more, and of more strength than any thing that he maketh us to say. But this, and the two Arguments above debated with him, are all that he will allow us to have on our side. His Introduction to this piece of his Work smells rank of such a temper of mind as I am not willing to name; while he calleth [Page] them who possessed the Government, and Revenues of the Church, Atheists and Enthusiasts; and that without exception or Limitation. Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers of England (as well as others) charactered by him. We will not retaliate; but the learned and religious world had, and have another Esteem of not a few who then were in the Ministry; and judge that Atheism, and other sinful Evils, have been diffused into the Church after that time; though we deny not that then it was too manifest among some. He saith that Blondel employed all his Skill to make the Antients contradict themselves, and all 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 the Countrie, and in Villages, as well as in Cities. 2. That the City Bishops had no Authority over the chorepiscopos or Countrie Bishops. 3. That there were but two sorts of Church Officers, Bishops and Deacons; besides some other things which are not so much to our present design. Our Author, in his Answer, overlooketh the two former, which tend most to ruine his Cause (for the Bishops of that time could not be Diocesans, but Pastors of Congregations, if these two Observations hold, as they plainly follow from Clement's words) and he insisteth only on the [Page] third, the Dichotomie of the Clergy: which hath less probative for [...] than the rest: yet it hath more strength in it, than his Answers are able to enervate: which I now shall make appear. His Answer is, that he hath already answered our Argument taken from the Dichotomie of the Clergie. Reply. Though we do not make that an Argument by it self, in all cases where it is found; yet in some cases (and this in particular) it is concludent. Clement is here giving account what Officers the Apostles settled in the Churches: and if they settled Bishops distinct from Presbyters, and Deacons, this account is very lame, and useless. His second Answer is p. 44, &c. Clement, by Deacons, here understandeth all Ministers of Religion; whether Presbyters in the Modernnotion, or Deacons, who, by the first Institution, were obliged to attend upon Tables? And so by Bishops and Deacons, we may (saith our Author) understand Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Attendents upon Tables. And then, at great length, he proveth that which no body denyeth, that the word Deacon, is used i [...] a great Latitude, for all sorts of Church Officers. Reply. The Question is not how the word Deacon may be used in some cases, & on some occasions, but what Clement here understandeth by it: I affirm, that it is absurd to understand it here in that Latitude that our Author fancieth. For first, his meaning should be, the Apostles appointed in the Churche [...] that they settled, Apostles, Bishops, Presbyters, and Attendents on Tables: so that every Church in every Village, must have its Apostle, and Bishop too; beside inferior Officers. 2. If Clement had so meant, it was superfluous to mention Bishops and Deacons too: it had been enough to tell the Corinthians, that the Apostles settled Deacons; that is, Officers in Churches; seing all sorts are signified by Deacons. 3: To say that Presbyters are to be understood by Deacons, rather than by Bishops, is without all imaginable ground: the word Presbyter is as largely used in Scripture, as that of Deacon: if we thus, at pleasure, expound Names, or rather Words, we may maintain what we will. 4. This Dichotomy being used on such a design, as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church, by Apostolick Warrand, that they were to have regard to; it would not answer its end, if there were Bishops whom they and the Presbyters must obey: for either they were to understand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bishops; but then they had no Instruction about the Ruling Bishop, and the Teaching Bishop, as distinct, and how they should regard each of them: or under the word Deacon; and then they were at as great a [Page] loss, what sort of Deacons he meant; whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church. 5. Though the word Deacon, be often applyed to any who serve God in publick Office in his Church, (yea, or in the State) yet that ever the Rulers, or Teachers of the Church are signified by it, when it is used distinctively from some other sort of Church Officers (as it is here) is more than I know.

§ 4. Another Answer he bringeth to this Passage of Clement, p 46. that Clement speaketh not of Ecclesiastical Policy, as it was at last perfected by the Apostles; but of the first beginnings of the Christian Church, immediatly after the Resurrection of Christ. Reply. If it be granted, that at first the Aposties settled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters, and served by Deacons, as this Answer seemeth to yield; they must let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apostles did alter this Policy, and set Bishops over the Churches that they had once thus settled: we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit; though I know that some of our Prelatick Brethren affirm, that the Churches were governed by Presbyters, under the Inspection of the Apostles while they lived; but after their Death, Bishops were appointed to rule over them. We may rationally expect that they should give us good assurance for this Change; which yet I have not seen: if they will bring Arguments for it, we shall consider them. A 4th Answer he bringeth p. 47. that Clement's words cannot bear such Parity as Presbyterians plead for; because he doth also Dichotomise the Jewish clergy: among whom were the High Priest, Chief Priests, Priests, and Levites. Reply. If Clement, when he so divides the Jewish Clergy, were on purpose instructing us how, and by whom the Affairs of the Jewish Church were managed, this Answer were pertinent: but if this Distinction be used occasionly, without this design, it is not at all to the purpose: in the one case Distinction is required; in the other case, it is enough to express the thing in general, and undistinguished terms. He bringeth yet a 5th Answer, p 47, 48. That Clement exhorting the Corinthians to Order and Harmony, setteth before them the beautiful Subordinations under the Temple Service; and immediatly recommends to them, that every one should continue [...] in his own order. Reply. If this Reasoning be at all significant, it will conclude, there must be a Pope, as well as Bishops, in the Christian Church: as there was a High Priest over all the Priests, and other Jews. We must then understand Clement, that there must be Order in the Christian Church, as well as in the Jewish Church; and every one must keep within [Page] the Station that God hath set him in: but it noways hence followeth, that there must be the same Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other. What he citeth out of Jerome, Ep. ad Ewagr. admitteth of the same Exposition; and is plain to be the whole that Jerome intendeth by these words, quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclesia: viz. That, as in the Temple, there was a Subordination of the Levites to Aaron and his Sons, so should the Deacon be to the Presbyter, whom Jerome, through that whole Epistle, proveth, to be the same with the Bishop. But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Author. A 6th Answer is p. 48, 49. (for this Citation galleth him sore, and maketh him look on all hands for Relief) Clement himself distinguisheth the [...] from the [...]; and the last may signifie Office and Age both together. Reply. He no otherways distinguisheth them, than as the one word signifieth Office, or ruling Power; the other, the Age of them who use to be put into that Office: and though Presbyter is often used to signifie the Office; yet not when it is joined with, and distinguished from [...]. And it is clear, that in that place Clement is exhorting them to be subject to the Presbyters, as he had done several times in the Epistle; as they were [...], Rulers, (not one, but more in the Church of Corinth) and as they were [...], elder in years: wherefore he exhorts young men to Sobriety.

§ 5. It is unaccountable Tergiversation, that this Author, pretending to examine some of the most remarkable Testimonies brought from Antiquity by Blondel, insisteth only on that which is of least weight; even in the Testimony already mentioned, as is above shewed: and likeways passeth over all the rest brought out of the same Fathers Writings, without so much as mentioning them. Blondel sheweth out of the Epistle of Clement already mentioned, that Clement telleth us, that the Apostles knowing per Dominum, by Divine Revelation, that there would be Contentions about the Name of Bishop; therefore they appointed Presbyters and Deacons to manage the Affairs of the Church: so far were they (saith Blondel) from thinking Prelacy the best, or only Remedie against Schism; as some did in after ages. He doth also shew, how Clement teacheth, that the Presbyters (or Bishops, for he often interchangeth these two Names as signifieing the same persons) were set in the Church by the Apostles, and after by other excellent men (so that the Apostles made no Change in the Government) that they were placed with the consent of the whole Church (not by the Bishop [Page] and Patron) and he pleadeth that such as had well done the work of a Bishop should not be turned out, for the holy Presbyters who have finished their Course, need fear no Change. And after sheweth, how absurd it was that the most ancient Church of Corinth (it had then stood, as it is thought, about 25 years) should move Sedition against her Presbyters: some turbulent Spirits among them withstood, not a single Bishop (of whom not a word in all this Discourse) but the Presbyters of the Church: and he adviseth the Seditious rather to depart, that the Flock of Christ might enjoy Peace, [...]; with the Presbyters that were settled in it: it seems he did not name the Bishop, nor provided against Sedition against him; because he knew no such person at Corinth. And again he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters. Now all this insisted on by Blondel, he passeth by (which was his wisdom) and insisteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy; which hath far less weight than these Passages have.

§ 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Polycarp; which is, that writing to the Church of Philippi, he taketh no notice of their Bishop: that he biddeth them be subject to the Presbyters and Deacons, not mentioning the Bishop, but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church. His Answer to all this is, first, that Blondel himself taketh notice that Polycarp distinguisheth himself from the rest of the Presbyters, while he saith, Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi: and that by this he assumes a kind of Prelation above the rest of the Presbyters at Smyrna. He fancieth that this is mighty uneasie to Blondel: but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection against himself, and answereth it fully and easily, calling it nuda Conjectura, and giving several Reasons for Polycarp's naming himself, from his being the older man, and the older Minister: And being ordained by an Apostle (which was a Dignity, though it gave no Superiority of Power) as being better known to the Philippians: and Blondel bringeth abundance of parallel Passages, where no Superiority of Power can be imported. All this our Author passeth over in silence. Next he saith, this is still the Bipartite division of the Clergie, which is a mistake; for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune; which could not all be Diocesans: and their Head, the Bishop, is not noticed: and his Dichotomie here is Argumentative; because (as was above shewed of Clement) he is telling them what Church Officers they should respect: where the Bishop was chiefly to be mentioned, if such a person had been in that Church. He will prove, [Page] p. 51: that this can be no Argument for Parity. Because first, Iren [...] refutes the Heresies of the Valentians, from the unanimous D [...] preserved among the single Successors of Polycarp; which could be no Argument, if the Ecclesiastical Power of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colledge of Presbyters. I ask him, how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument? Do not Ministers in any Church, succeed one to another, as well as Bishops? And if they be faithful, they will continue the true Doctrine, and hand it down to their Successors, as wel [...] as Bishops would do. Neither hath it any force, that single Successon are mentioned; for if there were more Flocks and Pastors in Smyrna there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie; who is mentioned as more eminent, though having but equal power. If there was but one Pastor and many ruling Presbyters; he and his Successors did preserve the Truth by faithful Doctrine, not by Episcopal power. His other pro [...] is, the Epistles of Ignatius are zealously recommended in that Epistle of Polycarp; in which Episcopal Jurisdiction is asserted: of which our Author w [...] speak in due time. When he shall please to speak of Ignatius, we sh [...] consider what he saith; and hope to find, that all the proof he ca [...] thence bring is insufficient. Mean while it is an odd way of arguing an Author commendeth a Book, Ergo, he approveth all that is in it. [...] he had said Polycarp commendeth Ignatius's Epistles, in that they ass [...] Prelacy, that had been to the purpose; otherways his Inference [...] without all force.

§ 7. The next Father cited by Blondel is Hermas, in his Book calle [...] Pastor: on whom he layeth very little stress, as is evident to any wh [...] will read Blondel, without prejudice: and I think Blondel needed not [...] have mentioned him: both because he is of little Authority; it bei [...] most uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book; whether [...] mentioned Rom. 16. 14. or the brother of Pius: Blondel bringeth not few Authors on both sides. Also this Hermas saith little either for or against Parity. I observe several things of my Antagonists conduct wit [...] respect to Hermas. 1. He pretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences fro [...] him, that Episcopacy was the Ecclesiastical Government when that Book w [...] written: which he laboureth to prove p. 5. because the sending circul [...] Letters is insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement, then Bishop [...] Rome. Answer. This Evidence (and the other will be found to b [...] like it) is so far from being palpable, that it is not intelligible, ho [...] this (to a Protestant) should be an Evidence for Episcopacy: for first if it prove any thing to his purpose, it will prove the Papacy: viz. tha [...] [Page] Clement Bishop of Rome had Authority over all the Churches, and by that power might write Circular Letters to them. 2. Circular Letters may be written containing Advice or Information, where there is no Authority: and this was very proper for Clement, who resided in the Imperial City, which had Correspondence with all places in the Empire. The 2d palpable Evidence is, that Hermas reproveth some who were ambitious to exalt themselves, & primam Cathedram habere: whence he wisely inferreth; If there be no Power, there can be no abuse of it. To which I answer, I wish there were no Ambition but among the Prelatists. May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Profession, strive to set up Episcopacy, that he may be a Bishop? Was there Episcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660, and 61, when ambitious Men laboured, and prevailed to make a prima Cathedra, that themselves might possess it? And might there not be such in the days of Hermas; as there appeared to be afterward, and as was in the Apostles times, when Diotrephes was marked as a [...] 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Presbyterians; the Moderator's Chair, and there may be Ambition in seeking after even that pettie Preferment. The Principatus that he after mentioneth, may have the same signification: it doth not always signifie Authority; but often a Superior Dignity. The next thing I observe is, he neglecteth (as is customary with him) that which seemeth to have the most strength, among the Passages cited by Blondel out of Hermas; viz. [...]; which last words Blondel translated, tu ante renunciabis Presbyteris Ecclesiae. Biblioth: Patrum, hath it thus, Tu autem leges in hâc Civitate cum Presbyteris qui praesunt Ecclesiae. Either way it maketh more for the Parity of Presbyters, and their Power, in ruling the Church, than what else our Author hath thought fit to take notice of out of Blondel. The other Citation brought by Blondel, and so laboriously answered by our Author, I lay little weight on: only I observe his charging that learned Author with a fraudulent Trick, p. 55. and distorting the words; whereas the words, as cited by Blondel, and by him, are the very same.

§ 8. The Testimony of Pius Bishop of Rome, is next brought by Blondel, out of his Epistlle to Justus Bishop of Vienne: where he telleth him, Presbyteri & Diaconi non ut majorem; sed ut Ministrum Christi te observent. My Antagonist taketh this only for an Exhortation to Humility. I know not whether his Superiors will think it inconsistent with Humility to be obeyed by their Presbyters; or if any of them will be so humble, [Page] as to disown all Majority with respect to the Presbyters: that Humility is here insinuated, we grant; but that no more is required, cannot be said without doing Violence to the words I shall not contend whether this Epistle of Pius be legitime; or spurious; but I suppose it may be safely asserted, that if it was written by a Presbyterian, that Opinion is much older than this Author will allow. Another Argument Blondel bringeth from Marcion, being rejected by the Presbyters at Rome; and not admitted to their Communion: whence he inferreth, that the Church of Rome was then governed by Presbyters in common. Our Authors answer is first, they denyed to receive Marcion; which is a better Precedent to regulate our Opinions and [...]ractices by, than the Petition of a lewd and profligate Heretick. Reply. If they had denyed on account of their want of Power without their Bishop, (for the See was then vacant) this Answer should have some sense: but they pretended no such thing; neither did they reprove him for his Address: if he had addressed to a single Presbyter to be received, he would surely told him that it was not in his power to Determine in that Matter: but when he addressed to a Colledge of Presbyters, they gave another Reason for their refusal; of which anone He bringeth a second Answer, with his wonted Confidence: as if we were all out of our Wits who say not as he saith in this Matter: and indeed it hath need of this to strengthen it; for it is very weak of it self: it is, that in the vacancy of the See, the Colledge of Presbyters might manage the ordinary Policy and Discipline of the Church; though they never medled with such special Acts of Jurisdiction as were always reserved, by constant Practice, and primitive Institution, to the Episcopal Order: though they might have received Marcion upon Repentance, in the vacancy of the See, I hope no man will thence conclude that they would have enterprised any thing of this nature and consequence, if their Bishop were alive, or if another were chosen in his room. Reply. 1. Here the Question is manifestly begg'd: that there were reserved Acts peculiar to the Bishop, by constant Practice, and primitive Institution: the Practice is what we are debating: and such Institution we desire to be instructed in: we find it not in the Bible; which can be the only ground of that Divine Right we are now contending about. 2. As the Question is begg'd on the one hand,; so he yieldeth it on the other, by owning Governing Authority in the Presbyters without a Bishop: if they have power, they have it from Christ, Ergo, he hath not given all Ruling Power to the Bishop, and made the Presbyters only his Council. Or let him shew us by what Rule [Page] of the Gospel, Authority which they had not before, devolveth on the Presbyters when the Bishop dieth. This Government by Presbyters without a Bishop is not Episcopal Government, Ergo, it is not contrary to Divine Institution (by this Answer) if the Church be governed without Bishops, which is inconsistent with the Divine Right of that Government. 3. I know not what Act of Jurisdiction is higher than receiving or excluding, and casting out Church Members: wherefore if Presbyters have this, we must see some special Warrand from Scripture, before we can deny them another part of Church power. 4 That they would not have acted so without their Bishop, if he had been alive, is said without ground: if he had been absent they might have done it: as I have else where shewed that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyprian's retirement. If he could be with them it was irregular to act without him, as being their Praeses; though having no majority of power. Before I pass from this Argument, I observe a greater strength in it, than Blondel hath mentioned, or my Antagonist hath attempted to answer: for clearing which, we must reflect on the History from which the Argument is drawn: which is Marcion, the Son of a Bishop in Pontus, for a lewd Act that he had committed (ob illatum per summum nefas Virgini stuprum) was driven away from the Communion of the Church, by his own Father; on which occasion he came to Rome, and attempted to be received into that Church: he was rejected by the Presbyterie; after which he preached his Errours in that City, and made great Disturbance. Now the Argument that we draw from this Passage is, not only that the Presbyterie did not reject his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Case; but their Answer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter: for they tell him, [...], we cannot do it without the permission of thy worthy Father (nor this because of his Fathers Episcopal power, but) because there is one Faith, and one Agreement; the Bond of Unity between Rome and that Church in Pontus (I think its Name was Sinope) and was that which they gave as the reason of their Refusal: seing he was cast out of one Church, it was not reasonable that he should be received into another without her consent. Romes Headship was not then known. But what followeth is yet stronger for our Cause; [...]: we cannot go contrary to our excellent Collegue (or Fellow Labourer) thy Father: where Presbyters look on a Bishop as their Collegue, and in no higher Degree; and that when they are speaking of the Exercise of Church Authority: [Page] they plainly suppose, that they had the same power to take in, that he had to cast out: but they would not irregularly exerce that power, as they must have done if they had recived Marcion.

§ 9. Another of Blondel's Citations, our Author answereth with a great deal of slighting and contempt; its taken out of Justine Martyr's Apology for the Christians; where he giveth an account of the Church Order that was among the Christians; and mentioneth no Officer in the Church but Praepositus & Diaconus. His Answer to this is, Justine's design was only to vindicate the Christians from the Reproaches cast upon them about their Meetings; he had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy: the Christians concealed their Mysteries as much as they could: and the Names of Bishop and Presbyter as well as their Offices, were known to the Heathen. How to make the parts of this Answer hang together, I know not: if the Heathen knew their way, why did they conceal it? Neither is there any ground to think that they concealed their Mysteries, the Knowledge of which was the mean of convincing Heathens. Yea, the design of his Apology was to make their Mysteries known, that it might be seen how excellent they were. And to say that Justine had no occasion to speak of the Hierarchy here, is a mistake; for he did mention some of the Church Officers, and because he mentioned no more, it is like he knew no more He seems now to be weary of his undertaking (and no wonder, it hath succeeded so ill with him) and therefore p. 60. he telleth us how nauseous it is to repeat more: and hudleth up some other Citations cited by Blondel in a general Answer; that it is a silly Quible to found an Argumen [...] on Dichotomies: and telleth us, the Names, as well as the Offices, were distinguished in the earliest Monuments of the Church, and for this he citeth Usher, mentioning Acta Martyrii S: Ignatii: but is not pleased to name Book, nor Page, of that learned Author; who hath written many things. The same he doth with Clemeus, Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and Origen; but neither words nor place he mentioneth: such arguings are to be neglected. Blondel also citeth Papias, calling all the Ministers of the Word, Apostles, and others from whom he had learned what he wrote, Elders or Presbyters. This Author will have it to be meant of their Age, not Office. I lay not much weight on this Testimony, more than he doth. But that Papias doth not mean the Age only of them whom he mentioneth, may be gathered from what he saith of the second John, whom he mentioneth (for after he had named John among the Apostles, he nameth another, John after Aristion) and him he calleth [Page] [...]. This cannot be meant of his Age, when he saith John the elder; for John the Apostle was older than he. It must then be understood of his Office. And Euseb: lib: 3: c. 35. telleth us that there were two Johns buried at Ephesus, and that the Monuments of both remained in his time. Being now weary with arguing, and it seems fretted with what he could not well answer. He falleth to downright Railling, p. 61. he putteth on a Confidence beyond ordinary: this is the way of some when they are most at a loss. This Conduct will not take with wise and considering Men. He telleth of the unconquerableness of Prejudice (in the Presbyterians no doubt; because they will not yield to his Dictats, and what he looketh on as an Argument) and of their miserable Condition in reading the Ancients, with no other design than to distort their words. Before he taxeth us for not reading them, now we read them, but with an ill design. I must tell him, it is too much for him, either to judge how we are employed in our Closets, and what Books we read, or what inward designs we have in our reading. We think he distorteth the words of the Ancients (we judge not his designs in reading them) he thinketh we distort them, let the Reader judge. Next he representeth us as having sold our selves to the Interest of little Parties; and shut our Eyes against the express Testimonies of these Fathers, whose broken Sentences we torture and abuse, to support Novelties, and more of this Stuff; which it is not fit to answer, because of the Wise Man's Advice, Prov: 26: 4.

§ 10. Now he will p. 62. have the Reader to make an Estimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Instances. The first is, Blondel citeth the Gallican Church sending Irenaeus to Rome, and calling him a Presbyter, when he was Bishop of Lyons. Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bishop; and that Photinus his Predecessor, was not then dead. This piece of Chronology, though maintained by Eusebius, and Jerome, Blondel disproveth, by many Authentick Records, as he thinketh. And now where is the want of Candor in this case? Is every man who after diligent search into History, doth mistake in Chronology, about a Matter of Fact so disingenious; and that to such a Degree as this Author's Clamour would represent. This I say, supposing that Blondel doth mistake in this Matter. I think it not worth the while to examine the large Discourse he hath, and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion, finding that Debate somewhat Intricate (whether Photinus was then alive or not, when Iraeneus was sent to Rome, and [Page] called a Presbyter) and the Matter of it is of no great Consequence. It seems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leasure now to take, about this Debate, but referreth you to Dr. Pearson for satisfaction; and yet he hath the confidence to charge so great a man as Blondel was, with perplexed Conjectures, and affected Mistakes: we think it neither Christian, nor Manly, nor Scholar like, so to treat the learned Men of his opposite Party. The other Instance, whereby he thinketh to prove want of Candor; yea Impudence, in the Presbyterians, is p. 63. that we sometimes cite Cyprian on our side; and can name nothing plausibly, but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Division of the Clergy. He thinks it needless to bring Testimonies against us out of Cyprian, there are so many: he calleth us also Schismaticks, and supposeth that we have not read Cyprian. Who can stand before such potent Ratiocinations? He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expected. I suppose he meaneth I. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age; which I saw long before I saw this Book of his: where indeed all that can be drawn from Cyprian (and much more) is carefully gathered together. And I refer him for satisfaction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government, to the Answer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bishop examined. In which Book I shall take this occasion to confess a Chronological Mistake, (this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor, or what else he pleaseth to impute to his Adversary) it is p. 20, near the end, Basil, and Optatus, are said to live in the same Age with Cyprian; whereas they lived in the next Century: this was occasioned by an over hasty Glance into the Chronological Tables: I hope the Reader will pardon this Digression. Thus my Antagonist leaveth Blondel in quiet possession of the far greatest part, and most evident Testimonies, that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity: some will think he had better not begun this Work, than thus leave it imperfect; if others have answered all Blondel's Citations, what he hath done was needless, if not, he doth his Work but by halves.

§ 11. I shall add some other Testimonies out of the Fathers; which our Author, at his leisure, may consider Chrysost: on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Question, why the Apostle passeth from giving Directions in, and about, the Qualifications of Bishops, immediatly to Deacons, omitting Presbyters: and giveth this Answer, that there is almost no difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter: and the care of the Church is committed also to Presbyters, (which maketh it evident that Chrysost: did not think that Bishops ruled alone) [Page] only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination; which he is so far from looking on as of Divine Institution, that he maintaineth, saith Durham, that, in the Apostles time, Presbyters ordained Bishops. This same Author on Tit. 1. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was to ordain in every City, understandeth Bishops; because (saith he) he would not set one over the whole Island: and after; for a Teacher should not be diverted by the Government of many Churches; but should be taken up in ruling one: where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the same person: also assigneth but the Government of one Church to one man: both which are inconsistent with Diocesan Episcopacy. Ambros: in Tim: 3. 9. hath this Passage; qui tanta cura Diaconos eligendos praecepit, quos constat esse ministros Sacerdotum; quales vult esse Episcopos, nisi, sicut ipse ait, irrepraehensibiles: where he plainly supposeth all the Church Officers, who are not Deacons, to be Bishops: and a little after, Post Episcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinationem subjecit, quare? nisi quia Episcopi & Presbyteri una ordinatio est; uterque enim Sacerdosest; Episcopus tamen primus est; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter sit, non tamen omnis Presbyter Episcopus; hic enim est Episcopus, qui inter Presbyteros primus est: Denique Timotheum. Presbyterum ordinatum significat; sed quia ante se priorem non habebat, Episcopus erat. All this seemeth to be a Description of a Presbyterian Moderator: for he giveth the Bishop no Prelation but that of Precedency, or Priority, to a Presbyter: and that, not by a new Ordination, which should give him a superior power; but a Seniority, or Priority of Ordination, which was the way of a Moderator's being set up at first; but was after changed into Election; when it was found, that sometimes, the oldest man was not the fittest man for that Work. From all this, it is clear, that in the time of Ambros: (which was in the fourth Century) Majority of Power in a Bishop above a Presbyter, was not lookt on as Juris Divini; nor that a Bishop must have (after he is ordained a Presbyter) a new Ordination, or Consecration; whereby he getteth Jurisdiction over his fellow Presbyters, and their Flocks: I do not deny but that Ambrose doth, in some things, mistake the primitive Order of the Church: and misunderstand the Scripture account that is given of it, wherefore he ingeniously confesseth on Ephesians 4. 11. thus, ideo non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostolica ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia: yet he giveth ground to think, that even then, the Distinction between Bishop and Presbyter was not arrived at a Majority of Power, or sole Jurisdiction. I observe here also, obiter, that ordinatio, in the primitive times, did not always [Page] signifie authoritative setting apart one for a Church Office; which our Author else where doth with much zeal plead. If the Reader please to add to these, all the Testimonies cited by Blondel (which out Author thought not fit to medle with) he may see abundant cause to think, that our Opinion about Paritie is not so Novel, as this Enquirer fancieth it to be. Though I lay little weight on the Opinions of the School-men, in the controverted Points of Divinity; and especially, in the Point of Church Government: yet considering, that they owned the Roman Hierarchy, a Testimony from them, or other Papists, seemeth to be a Confession of an Adversary, extorted by the force of Truth, Lombard: lib: 4: Sententiar: dist: 4: after he had asserted seven Orders of the Clergy, when he cometh to speak of Presbyters, p: 451. Edit: Lovan: 1567, apud veteres (saith he) idem Episcopi & Presbyteri fuerunt, & p. 452. cumque omnes (nempe septem ordines Cleri) spirituales sunt & sacrae, excellenter tamen Canones, duos tantum sacros Ordines appellari consent; nem [...] Diaconatus & Presbyteratus; quia hos solos primativa Ecclesia legitur habuisse; & de his solum praeceplum Apostoli habemus. Cajetan, on Titus 1. 5. 7. hath these words; ubi adverte, eundem gradum, idemque officium, significari à Paulo nomine Episcopi & nomine Presbyteri; nam praemisit, ideirco r [...] liqui te in Creta, ut constituas Presbyteros; & modo, probando regulam, dic [...] oportet enim Episcopum, &c. Estius, lib: 4: Sententiar: dist: 24. when he i [...] proving Episcopal Jurisdiction above a Presbyter, doth not refer it to Divine Right: quod autem (saith he) Jure Divino Episcopi sint Presbyte [...]is superiores, & si non ita clarum est è sacris literis, &c. And he provet [...] it by the Authority of some Popes, and Councils. As also Lombard. [...] supra, fetcheth the Original of the several Degrees of Bishops from the Heathen Flamins, Archi-flamines, and [...]roto-flamines; not from Scripture Bellarm: citeth Medin: condemning Jerome as erroneously holding the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter: this Bellarm: hath lib. 1. c. 15. de Clericis: Object: 6. Medina doth there affirm, August. Ambros. Sedul. Prima [...]us, Chrysost. Theodorat. AEcumen. and Theophylact. to be of the sam [...] mind: and he addeth, alque ita illi viri alioqui sanctissimi, & sacrarum literarum consultissimi; quorum tamen sententiam prius in [...]erio, deinde in Waldensib [...], postremo in Wiclefo damnavit Ecclesia, &c. It is here evident that others as well as the Scots Presbyterians, held the Opinion about Parity to be no Noveltie. Also Sixtus Senens. Biblioth: Sanct: lib: 6: Annotatio: 324: looketh on Jeromes Opinion as being for the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter; and citeth as agreeing with him, Ambros: Chrysost, [Page]Sedul: An selm: Thom: Valdens: against Wiclife: who refuteth him as being of Jeromes Opinion in this: and of Alfonsus Castrensis he saith, non veretur fateri Hieronimum hâc in parte errasse: to these Schoolmen I shall add some of the Canonists, as plainly against this Jus Divinum of Episcopacy. Gratian: dist: 60. cap: ult. Ad verbum Papa; sacros ordines dicimus Diaconatum & Presbyteratum: hot quidem solos primitiva Ecclesia habuisse dicitur. Joan: Semeca: Gloss: in Jur: Can: dist: 95. Dicunt quidem quod in Ecclesia prima primitiva commune erat Officium Episcoporum & Presbyterorum, & nomina erant communia. Ibid. c. olim. Et officium erat commune: sed in secunda primitiva coeperunt distingui & nomen & officia. So Owen of ordination p. 108. who also citeth to the same purpose, Concil: Aquisgr: can: 8 Concil Hispal. c. 2. Canon. 7. and Concil. Constantiens. where Presbyters were determined to have decisive voices with Bishops; because in the Law of God Bishops were no more than Presbyters. I am far from inferring from what hath been said, that all these were Presbyterians. But it is evident that some of them did not hold Episcopacy to be Juris Divini, as this Enquirer doth: and that none of them lookt on Paritie as so late an Invention as he doth.

SECTION VI.

His Answers to our Citations from Jerome and Augustine, examined.

THis learned Author hath singled out the Testimonies brought by Presbyterians out of these two Fathers, and promiseth p. 65, to examine them more narrowly, as being the chief strength of the Presbyterians, that is to be found in the Writings of the Ancients. I shall adventure to examine his Examination. He taxeth Blondel for inscribing his Book, Apologia pro Sententia Hieronimi, as if the Presbyterians Doctrine had been certainly espoused by Jerome; and bringeth this Argument against this Conduct of Blondel. At this rate (saith he) his Contemporaries were very much to be blamed who placed Aerius among the Hereticks, and yet on all occasions make honourable mention of Jerome, if he taught the same Doctrine for which Aerius was condemned for a Heretick. This reasoning is of no weight: for it is well known on how small grounds some in the fourth or fifth Centuries were listed among the Hereticks. 2. It is no rare thing in the World, to heighten the same Action, or Opinion in one person, which they excuse or extenuate in another: We know how the Pope [Page] condemneth the same Principles as Heresie in Calvine, which he passeth no such Censure on when they are taught by the Jansenists: and how Alvarez chargeth Calvine with Heresie, for the same things that he himself holdeth: and is at much pains to shew the difference, where indeed there is none. Jerome was a man of great esteem, so as it seems Aerius was not. 3. It is thought by many, that Aerius managed his Principle more unpeaceably than Jerome did: that he opposed himself more fiercely to the growing Usurpations of that time; and made a Schism about the Matter. And it is evident that many of them who are by Epiphanius called Hereticks, were at most, but Schismaticks. Neither do I by this yield, that Presbyterians now may be called Schismaticks; for I know not that Aerius was justly so branded, on account of that Opinion. Nor do I think that Episcopacy was come to that intollerable height when Aerius opposed it, that it is come to in our days, and came to [...] soon after his time. 4. Magdeburg. cent. 4. c. 5. p. 399, 4 [...]0. edit. Ba [...] 1560. sheweth that Epiphanius maketh him an Arian. So August: a [...] Basil [...] say he was the Author of the Heresie of the Syllabici; which w [...] indeed Arianism: from which Magdeb concludes, that we have litt [...] certainty about him. 5. Some men of great worth excuse Aerius: [...] Whitaker, Reinolds: and affirm, that he was innocent of these Heresies they charge him with, only he had angered some great men of t [...] Age; by questioning some of their Usurpations; and also by zealou [...] opposing some of the Superstitions that were then creeping into t [...] Church; and had too much Countenance from some eminent Men: such as Praying, and offering for the dead, and Praying to Saints. [...] Aerius was not esteemed a Heretick by all the Fathers of that, or t [...] following Age: none call him so but Epiphanius; and Augustine, w [...] implicitely took it from Epiphanius. Neither Theodoret, nor Socrat [...] nor Sozomen, nor Euagrius, have any thing of the Aerian Heresie.

§ 2. He maketh a Collection of the Citations we bring out of Jerome, and then giveth us his Remarks on them. I must also transcrib [...] them, that the Reader may have them before him, while he is upo [...] this Debate about them. The first is out of Hieron: on Tit. 1. Diligenter (saith Jerome) Apostoli verba attendamus, dicentis, ut constituas per Civitates Presbyteros, sicut ego disposui; qui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, [...] sequentibus disserens, hoc ait, si quis est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir, &c. Postea intulit, oportet enim Episcopum sine crimine esse tanquam Dei dispens [...] tor: idem est ergo Presbyter qui & Episcopus; & antequam Diaboli instinct [...][Page]studia in religione fierent; & diceretur in populis, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae; communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecelesia gubernabatur. Postquam vero unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse, non Christi: in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus, superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis Ecclesiae cura pertineret, & Schismatum semina tollerentur. Of what followeth in Jerome the Enquirer giveth but a lame account; telling us that Jerome proveth the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter from Phil. 1. Acts 20. 1 Pet. and Epistle to the Hebrews. But I shall give a more full account of his words; He addeth to what goeth before, putet aliquis non scripturarum sed nostram esse sententiam, Episcopum & Presbyterum unum esse, & aliud a [...]atis, aliud esse nomen Officii; relegat Apostoli verba ad Philipp: dicentis, Paulus omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis & Diaconis: Phili [...]pi (these are Jerome's words) una est urbs Macedoniae, & certe in una civitate plures (ut nuncupantur) Episcopi esse non poterant; sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore, quos & Presbyteros appellabant, propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc alicui hoc videretur ambiguum, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur, in Actis Apostolorum scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum, miserit Ephesum, & vocaverit Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem; quibus postea inter catera sic locutus, attendite vobis & omni Gregi in quo Spiritus Sanctus vos posuit Episcopos, &c. Et hic diligentius observate, quomodo unius civitatis, Ephesi, Presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit. Si quis vult recipere eam Epistolam quae sub nomine Pauli ad Haebreos scripta est, (for that Epistle in Jerome's days was controverted, whether it were canonical Scripture or not) & ibi, aequaliter, inter plures, Ecclesia cura dividitur, siquidem ad plebem scribit, parote principibus vstris (behold, Jerome calleth the Presbyters, principes, from their ruling power; from which Title given to Bishops, our Brethren often argue for their sole Jurisdiction) & subjecti estote, &c. Et Petrus, qui ex fidei firmitate nomen accepit, in Epistola sua loquitur, [Page]dicens, Presbyteros ergo in vobis obsecro, compresbyter, &c. pascite gregem Domini, &c. Haec propterea ut ostenderemus (this our Author citeth) apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros, quos & Episcopos; paulatim vero (ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur) ad unum sollicitudinem esse delatam. Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui sibi praepositus est esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispensationis Divinae veritatis Presbyteris esse majores; & in commune debere Ecclesiam regere: imitantes Mosen; qui cum haberet solus praeesse populo Israel, 70 elegit, cum quibus populum judicaret: videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit.

§ 3. He bringeth also Jeromes Epistle to Oceanus, where I confess I find nothing for our purpose, but what is more fully and clearly said by Jerome in the place cited; and which followeth. Next he bringeth Jerome's Epistle to Euagrius, (which is next to that to Oceanus) in which he citeth the same Scriptures; but to them he prefixeth (which this Author passeth over) audio quendam in tantam erupisse verecundiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris i. e. Episcopis, praeferret: nam cum Apostolus perspicuè doceat, eosdem esse Episcopos quos Presbyteros, quis patitur ut mensarum & viduarum Minister supra eos se tumidus eff [...]rat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque consicitur. Quaeris autoritatem, audi testimonium; and so he citeth Phil. 1. and Acts 20. And then, ac ne quis contentiose in una Ecclesia plures Episcopos fuisse contendat; Audi & aliud testimonium, in quo manifestissime declaratur, vel comprobatur, eundom esse Episcopum aut Presbyterum: and so he citeth Tit. 1. and also 1 Tim. 4. 14. where Timothy is said to be ordained by laying on of the Hands of the Presbyterie: and 1 Pet. 5. and taketh notice of the Emphasis of the Charge given to Presbyters in the Word [...], unde, (saith he) & nomen Episcopi est tractum: and then he citeth Joh. Ep. 2. and 3, where that Apostle calleth himself Presbyter, or Elder. After all this, the words that the Enquirer citeth, do follow. Quod autem postea unus electus est qui cateris praeponeretur, in Schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque[Page]Eeclesiam ad se trahens, Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam & Alexandria à Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heracleam, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collatum, Episcopum nominabant. Quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi eligant de se quem industrium noverint, & Archi-Diaconum vocent. Quid eum facit Episcopus, excepta ordinatione, quod Presbyter non facit: nec alt [...]ra Romanae urbis Ecclesia, altera totius orbis aestimanda est; & Gallia, & Britannia, & Oriens, & Persis, & Judaea, omnes barbarae nationes, unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis: Si authoritas quaeritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit Episcopus sive Romae, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriae, sive Thanis, ejusdem meriti est, ejusdemque Sacerdotii: potentia divitiarum & paupertatis humilitas, vel superiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Caterum omnes Apostoli successores sunt. After this he proposeth an Objection against himself, from the practice that then was at Rome, that a Presbyter ordinabatur ad testimonium Diaconi: which seemeth to make for the preference of a Deacon before a Presbyter: which is that he opposeth through that whole Epistle; and having answered that Objection, and condemned that Practice, he proceedeth thus, sciant quare constituti Diaconi; legant acta Apostolorum: recordentur conditionis suae Presbyter & Episcopus: aliud aetatis, aliud dignitati [...] nomen est: unde ad Tit. & ad Tim: de ordinatione Episcopi & Diaconi dicitur, de Presbyteris omnino reticetur, quia in Episcopo & Presbyter continetur. Qui promovetur de minori, ad majorem prove [...]itur. Aut igitur ex Presbytero ordinetur Diaconus, ut (not aut as our Author saith) Presbyter minor Diacono comprobetur, in quem crescat ex parvo: aut si ex Diacono ordinetur Presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem sacerdotio esse majorem. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento; quod Aaron & filii ejus, & Levitae fuerant in Templo, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia. There is yet another place of Jerome which this Author hath not mentioned (I shall not say he hath not read Jerome, though he cite him; [Page] which he imputeth to these on our side, on less occasion given) it is Ep: ad Heliodor: Tract: 3. tertiae partis, fol. (mihi) 284, 285. This person being Jerome's intimate Friend, it seems was averse from an Eremetical Life, and desired rather to be in the Ministry. Jerome taketh much pains in this Epistle, to perswade him to go to the Desert, and there serve Christ; and having occasion to speak of the Clergy, he saith of them, without Distinction; absit autem ut quicquam de his sinistrum loquar; qui Apostolico gradui succedentes; Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt: per quos & nos Christiani sumus: qui claves regni coelorum habentes, quodammod [...] judicii diem indicant. Qui sponsam Dei sobria castitate conservant. And a little after, mihi ante Presbyterum sedere non licet (it seems neither he, nor Heliodorus were then ordained, though they both were afterward) Ill [...], si peccavero, licet tradere me Satanae, in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus [...] in die Domini Jesu.

§ 4. Let us now see how my Antagonist answereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome. To which I premise that our present Debate is not whether what Jerome writeth be true or false, sound or unsound but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted; and consequently whether Jerome be on our side, or on the opposite side. I observe also that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there wa [...] a time when the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consili [...] But he thinketh Jerome mistook in this, and in that Period (which he taketh to be in the Apostles time, before Bishops were setled in the Churches) the Apostles governed the Churches which they had planted, by their personal and Apostolical Authoritie I must examine this before I proceed It is not to be denyed, that when the Apostles, by their preaching, had converted a Company of people to Christianity while they were not formed into Societies, and had no Officers to teach and govern them, they managed the Affairs of these people, by their own Authority; and it could not be otherwise But here are three mistakes. 1. That the Apostles first setled Teaching Presbyters in these newly converted Churches, who might teach them, but not rule them; and afterward set Bishops over them to rule them: this is a groundless Fancie, nor can any shadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it: if he shall offer any thing as a proof of this, we shall consider it. We think that the Apostles setled Presbyters among the new converted Societies, both for teaching them, and ruling them; and that the Apostles gave these Elders Direction, by the infallible Spirit, both what they [Page] should teach, and how they should govern: the latter needeth no proof: the former we prove from Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. where we read of ordaining Elders [...], and [...]; and the other Scriptures above cited Sect. 3. § 12, 14. by which it is made appear, that these Elders ruled the Church, as well as instructed her, as at Corinth, and at Thessalonica, and else where. Another mistake is, that the Apostles by themselves governed any particular Churches that were setled, and had Presbyters among them. The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Elders governing the Churches: and from this, that our Adversaries can produce no such Instance. Paul had indeed the care of all the Churches on him, whether they had Officers or none: but it doth not thence follow, that he ruled them all, or any of them, personally: his care was that they might be well taught and well ruled, by them who were appointed to that Work; over all whom he, and every one of the Apostles, had a Superintendency. A third mistake is, that the Apostles in their time, made a change of the Government that they had setled in the Church; by setting up Bishops, where formerly they had setled Teaching Presbyters, and had ruled the Churches themselves: and particularly that at Corinth upon the Divisions mentioned 1. Ep. Ch. 3. a Bishop was set up there, as this Author hinteth, p. 69. Can he, or any man else, give any thing that looketh like a Warrant for this Imagination? Surely if such a Change had been made by the Apostles, we should have had some hint of it in their Writings, or in the History of their Acts.

§ 5. This Author hath an other observe, in the same page, as wilde, and wide from the Truth: that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bishops above Presbyters, was occasioned by the Contentions at Corinth; so he thought that this Remedy of Schism, was appointed by the Apostles themselves; and that it was not the Invention of after Ages: but the Apostles by their own experiance immediatly found the Inconveniency of Paritie; and therefore appointed, that unus praeponeretur caeteris. This is strange Confidence, and little Evidence of that Candor which he so much desiderateth in Blondel, and other Presbyterians. Can he produce any Word, or Passage in Jerome, from which this may be inferred? Yes, he pretendeth to prove it: after he hath stated this as the present Debate, whether it was Jerome's Opinion that the Apostles themselves set up Episcopacy as the Remedy of Schism; or that Parity continued sometime after the Apostles; and the Church in after Ages set up Prelacy, because Parity was [Page]apt to breed Schism. The former he maintaineth, we hold the latter. That Blondel saw, that Jerome thought that the Apostles turned the Government from Paritie to Prelacy, is a strange Assertion, when the great design of his Book was to prove the contrary. And the proof of it is yet stranger; Blondel entereth a Caveat, that none should think that the Apostles themselves appointed the Remedy of Schism mentioned by Jerome. Is it not a good Consequence? This is an absurd Thought, saith Blondel, ergo, I believe it was Jerome's Opinion. Blondel maintaineth, and so do I that not only it is not true that the Apostles in their time appointed the Remedie; but that Jerome was not of that Opinion.

§ 6. His first proof, that such was Jerome's Opinion, is p. 7. Jerome thought that the occasion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclesiasti [...]. Government, were the Disputes in the Church of Corinth; and therefore [...] change made must needs be Apostolical: they only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick, and they were zealous to prevent Confusions. No other Decree could be meant by Jerome's toto Orbe decretum est, for no other De [...] could oblige all, nor would have been so universally received: neither was th [...] any Council that had so decreed. This Apostolical Constitution Jerome calleth [...] his Commentaries on Titus, consuetudo Ecclesiae; which he distinguishe [...] from dispositio Divinae veritatis, meaning that the Prelacy of one Priest abo [...] many, was introduced rather by Apostolical practice, than the personal mand [...] of our Blessed Saviour. Such Discourse from a Presbyterian, would be exposed by this Author, with great scorn: but I shall shew the absurditie of it by Reason. 1. That Jerome did not say, nor mean, that the Apostles made this change in Church Government, is manifest. For [...] He saith it was done paulatim; whereas apud veteres, [...]idem fuer [...] Presbyteri qui & Episcopi: so on Phil. 1. as we cited § 2. These veteres canno [...] be the Apostles; but they who lived in the first Ages after the Apostle are so called; but whatever he in that; an Apostolick Decree for Bishops, and bringing them in, paulatim, do not well agree. It is henc [...] plain, that Jerome thought, in the first Ages after the Apostles, the Church was governed communi Presbyterorum consilio: but Schism arising in process of time, like that in Corinth, while the Apostles lived; tha [...] Paritie was by degrees and first in some Churches, after in others, turned into a Prelacy. Certainly if the Apostles in their Life-time, had made a Decree for Prelacy, all the Churches would presently have set up tha [...] way, in its due Height, and not brought it in paulatim. 2. The very design of Jerome, in the places cited, which he laboriously prosecuteth [Page] is to prove, by Testimonies of the Apostles, that Bishop and Presbyter are one: how is this consistent with his thinking that the Apostles decreed the contrary? this were to make the learned Jerome to speak, yea to think, the most palpable contradictions. 3. Is it imaginable, if Jerome had thought that the Apostles first for a time setled Paritie, and then by degrees (or otherwise) changed it into Prelacy, that he would be at so much pains to tell us where the Apostles did the former, as in all the places he citeth: and yet not point to one place in all their Writings, where this Decree for a Change should be found? He may believe what he will, who can be perswaded of this? If Jerome had thought that the Apostles then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arose at Corinth; and that it was done on occasion of these Debates, and as a Remedie of them, he had been very absurd, and pleased himself with a groundless Fancy: for when the Apostle was reproving these Schisms, and labouring to cure them, and prevent the like among Christians, he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them: but on the contrary, reproveth the Presbyters of that Church, for being defective in the exercise of their Church power, cap. 5. of that same Epistle; and cap: 12. 28. telleth them what Officers were to continue in the Gospel Church, and no mention of Bishops among them.

§ 7. Another thing in this Answer is most absurd; that he calleth this Apostolical Decree, consuetudo Ecclesiae: a Decree and a Custome are two different things: nor was it ever heard of (till this new Master of words arose) that a Decree was so called: Custome may follow on a Decree; and the same thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Custome; but to say a thing (ex: gra: the setting up of Bishops as the remedie of Schism) had its Original from Custome, and to mean it had its Rise from a Decree, is to speak non sense: which no wise man will impute to that learned Father. Wherefore it is evident that Jerome, by consuetudo Ecclesiae, meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apostles (for to say it was the practice in their time, is inconsistent with what he confesseth to be Jerome's Opinion, that the Church was then governed by Presbyters) which came in by degrees, paulatim. 3. It is an unaccountable Absurditie, to make an Apostolical Decree, or Practice, so opposite to dispositio Dominicae veritatis, as are Parity and Prelacy. Were not the Apostles guided by the Spirit of Christ? Is it then imaginable, that He appointed Parity, or did not appoint Prelacy; and the Apostles finding Parity inconvenient, would appoint Prelacy. Neither [Page] could Jerome mean, that Bishops were not appointed by any Command given out personally by Christ while he was on earth; but by the Apostles after his Ascension: for that had been impertinent, and nothing to his purpose. For what different influence could that have on Bishops, to keep them from undue exalting themselves above the Presbyters (which is manifestly Jerome's Scope in these words) whether they were instituted by a personal Command of Christ; or by his Apostles guided by his infallible Spirit; for the Sense would be, Bishops are not above Presbyters by Christ's appointment; but they are above them by the Apostles appointment: which either sets these two Appointments in opposition the one to the other, or maketh the words to be ridiculous and absurd. 4. That the Apostles only had power to erect the Ecclesiastick Fabrick, and that there was no other obliging Decree at that time, is true but it doth not hence follow, that Jerome's toto orbe decretum est, is meant of such an Apostolick Decree. It is rather meant of a Resolution (decretum est doth not always signifie an authoritative Sentence passed) through the several Churches, in most parts of the World (so toto orbe may we [...] be restricted) to set up a constant Praeses, whom they particularly called the Bishop. The Phrase toto orbe decretum est, cannot be understood of a Decree made in one place (as that of the Apostles must be) though for the whole World; but of what was done in the several places of the World.

§ 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divisions at Corinth, and did not look on them as the immediate occasion of the Change that we made, I further prove. 1 The Schisms that Jerome speaketh of, [...] introducing the Change, were made by the Presbyters; who had baptized the people, and every one set up a Faction with these whom he had baptized: his words are plain; postquam autem unusquisque quos baptizaverat suos putavit esse, non Christi, toto orbe decretum est, &c. Now the Divisions at Corinth were among the people, not among the Pastors I hope he will not say that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, fell out about dividing the people among them, as their Followers disagreed. Wherefore Jerome could not mean this Schism, though he allude to it 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apostles that they would setle one Church Order, and so quickly change it into another, as they must have done, if the change were on occasion of the Schism at Corinth, which fell out soon after the setling of that Church; and while other Churches were not yet setled. They no doubt foresaw the Divisions that would be, and [Page] did, at the first setlement of Churches, provide what Remedie the Holy Ghost thought fit for that Church disease. Especially, is it imaginable, that after they had found how ill Paritie succeeded at Corinth, they would setle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation, which must quickly be razed, and a new one laid. The Apostle wrote his Epistle to Corinth, wherein he reproveth their Schism, from Ephesus, in the year of Christ 51. as is commonly thought: and about that time (for he stayed at Ephesus two years) he was setling that Church in Paritie (for we find many Bishops or Presbyters in that one City; as Jerome observeth: calling them that were called from Ephesus to Miletum by the Apostle, Presbyteros Ecclesiae ejusdem) now can any man think that he would have thus setled the Church of Ephesus, and not presently setled a Bishop in it, if at the same time he had found the want of a Bishop to be the cause of the Tumuits at Corinth; and a Bishop to be the proper Remedy of them.

§ 9. The next Attempt that my Adversarie maketh on Jerome, is to prove that he held Episcopacy to be as old as the Apostles days, from his words, Epistola ad Luagrium; Nam in Alexandria, à Marco Evangelista, usque ad Heracleam, & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri unum ex se electum, &c. Here he saith, Salmasius leaveth Jerome, and doubteth of the Truth of this History: which he need not think strange; seing himself also chargeth Jerome with a Mistake, p. 69. And I think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote. But I shall not question the Truth of what he relateth; it may be the peculiar Name of Bishop to the Moderator, or primus Presbyter, began at Alexandria, as the Name of Christian did at Anti [...]h. And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words. What [...]er may be said of the Evangelist Mark, who founded the Church of Alexandria, and it is like, by his extraordinary power, ruled it at first by himself; and that but for a small time; for he left Alexandria, and preached and planted Churches in Lybia, Marmorica, and many parts of Egypt, as Beronius sheweth. That Jerome did not include Mark (as Dounam absurdly saith) among the Bishops so chosen at Alexandria, is evident: for how could the Presbyters chuse him to be their Head, who had an extraordinary Commission, and had been the Instrument of converting them, and who by his extraordinary power, had setled them in a Presbyterie, for the rest, if our Author will draw any thing from Jerome's words for his purpose, he must make him flatly contradict all [Page] that he had said, and laboriously proved, concerning the equality of Bishop and Presbyters: wherefore, they who came after Mark, and were chosen by the Presbyterie, were only set in excelsiori gradu, they had the [...], were Moderators, and had the Name of Bishops given them usually, whereas the rest were called Presbyters: but that they had, so early as Marci tempore, Jurisdiction over their Brethren, the Presbyters who chused them, Jerome doth not say, nor can it be gathered from any of his words. And I do not question, but that in other Churches, as well as Alexandria, the Presbyters chose a Moderator, and, may be, he continued during Life; only Jerome thinketh that the Distinction was more taken notice of there than elsewhere; or sooner had the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Praeses. If this Sense, that our Author dreameth of, were put on Jerome's words, they must either contradict the whole of his Epistle, which is to prove that Bishop and Presbyter were one, till Ministers contended among themselves, and a Superiority came in paulatim, upon that; or it maketh Jerome to say, that Parity was observed in all other Churches till these Dissensions arose; but at Alexandria was Prelacy: which we cannot impute to Jerome, without making him absurdly contradict all Antiquity; which doth represent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter; and not such Discord. It is further evident, that Jerome did not mean, that there was a Prelate, with sole, or superior Jurisdiction, set up at Alexandria; in that he was chosen by the Presbyters from among themselves; and ordained also by them: he had no Prelation above them, but what they gave him: whereas a Bishop must be ordained by other Bishops: again, this is not spoken of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters must do, as being of Divine Institution; but what themselves chused.

§ 10. He hath another Exception against our Argument from Jeromes Authority, p. 74. that he asserteth that the Apostolical Traditions were taken from the Old Testament. Where saith he, two things are asserted. 1. That the Hierarchy of the Christian Church is founded upon Apostolical Tradition. This is an absurd Inference. Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at first, was founded on Apostolical Tradition, contained in the Scripture: but he is so far from making it to be a Hierarchy (in the Prelatical Sense) that he opposeth that, and pleadeth for Parity. The second thing he observeth is, that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view, when they erected this Plat-Form and Polity in the Church; the Bishop was the same with the High Priest in the [Page]Temple: and our Saviour made no Change but what was done did necessarly result from the Evangelical AEconomy which he was to stablish in the room of Levitical worship. Hence the Ancients so often reason from the Jewish Precedents to regulate the practice of the Christian Church. Here are diverse things to be examined, 1. How far Christ and his Apostles had respect to the Jewish Model, when they framed the Government of the Gospel Church, I shall not now determine. I suppose they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an old House, to build a new one: he doth not tye himself to the Dimensions, the Form, nor number of Stories, or Rooms: yet what was in the old House that was for his design in the new, he will readily observe. We are sure the Gospel Builders neither intended to reform, or patch, the old Jewish Church Fabrick. Such methods in Building, use to impare the Beauty, as well as usefulness, of the Fabrick. It is certain that they did wholly demolish the Fabrick to the Foundation; (I mean, as to what was instituted, and not of the Law of Nature) as the Apostle sheweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the Priesthood, and also of the Law. And it is certain that the use of Priests, and of Levites to (whose Work was to serve the Priests in their Sacrifices) ceased, as soon as Christ offered up his Sacrifice once for all. Wherefore, as there was a new Priesthood (to speak in his Dialect) to be set up; which had another sort of Work to do; to offer up spiritual Sacrifices: So our Lord and his Apostles accommodated their Institution to what was needful, and convenient for that design; and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewish Church. Hence if he can shew that there is the same use of Bishops under the New Testament, that there was of the High Priest under the Old Testament, he gaineth this Argument: but this, I hope, he will not attempt. The High Priest was a Type of Christ, as He is the Head of the Church, and as He offered up that one Sacrifice, which all the inferior Priests under the High Priest's Conduct and Authority, were especially employed in. Must we therefore have a multitude of Bishops in the Christian Church, to represent a Saviour for every Diocess, under whom the Presbyters offer up spiritual Sacrifices? 2. That the Bishop is the same with the High Priest, is not only said without all Scripture Warrant; but is most absurd: for the High Priest was one in the whole Church of God; but the Bishops are many in the Gospel Church of Christ. And indeed this way of Reasoning will either establish the Pope as Head of the Universal Church, or it is wholly insignificant. 3. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was necessary [Page] for the Evangelical AEconomie, is first said without Book he used his Libertie, nor did he tye himself to the old Pattern. Next, the new AEconomie did require this change that there should be no High Priest: because one man could not so manage the Affairs of the whole Christian Church, as he could do of the Jewish Church. 4. Jerome doth not here infer a Prelacy among Presbyters, from the Subordination of Priests in the Temple: his whole purpose is to shew that Deacons, the Servants of the Church, were inferior to Presbyters, the Rulers of it; and this he setteth forth by the Similitude (not binding Pattern) of the Levites being inferior to the Priests, whom they served in the offering of Sacrifices: wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bishops were what the High Priest was; and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were, and the Deacons what the Levites were; but he sets Aaron and his Sons on the one side, and compareth them with the Bishops or Presbyters (whom he had been proving to be the same) and the Levites on the other side to whom he compareth the Deacons. 5. If he can shew us that any [...] the Ancients do so reason from the Jewish, to a Christian Hierarchie, [...] to infer that they should be alike, or that they infer any more from [...] than diversitie of Degrees of Church Officers, we shall consider what they say.

§ 11. A further Effort he maketh against what we bring out of Jerome: he taketh notice p: 74, 75. That, Jerome citeth the genuine Epistle of Ignatius; in which the Divine Original, and Institution, of Episcopal Eminence and Jurisdiction above Presbyters, is frequently and plainly expressed And after, when we find him citing the Epistles of Saint Ignatius as the genuine words of that holy Martyr, it must be acknowledged that he never dreamed of any Interval, after the Apostles, in which the Church was governed by [...] Parity of Presbyters. This is a strange way of reasoning: Jerome saith that Ignatius wrote such and such Epistles, Ergo, though he teacheth Doctrine flatly contradictory to what they contain, yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is said in them: neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Ignatius was a good man, and a holy Martyr good Men may have different Apprehensions of things, and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine. All that Jerome saith is, that Ignatius wrote an Epistle to the Ephesians, another to the Magnesians, &c. He doth not cite one word out of them for Episcopacy, nor can any man assure us that these Epistles now Extant are the same that Ignatius wrote, and that Jerome mentioneth; or that they are not vitiated. [...] [Page] will not digress to debate about Ignatius's Epistles, whether they be spurious or legitimate; whether they were by Ignatius the Martyr, or by an other of that Name, long after: but I much question what our Author confidently asserteth, that the Divine Original and Institution of Episcopal Eminence or Jurisdiction above Presbyters, is, in them, frequently and plainly expressed. When he shall think fit to produce the places where this is done, we shall consider them. He bringeth another Evidence, as he thinketh, of what was Jerome's Opinion in this Matter, p. 77. out of his Commentaries on Mat: 23. Quod fecerunt & Apostoli per singulas Provincias Episcopos & Presbyteros ordinantes. I do not find that Commentarie among Jerome's Works, and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Discourse, of what he designed by that Expression: but the words contain no Argument; for bare mentioning of Bishop and Presbyter doth not prove them to be distinct; especially out of the mouth of one who had taken so much pains to prove them to be the same. Jerome might well say, in the Dialect of his Age that the Apostles ordained Church Rulers, whom we now distinguish by these Names. What he bringeth next is wholly against Sense and Reason; that this Constitution (setting Bishops over Presbyters) followed immediatly upon the Confusions and Schisms that arose in the Apostolical Church; because Jerome in Epistola [...]d Titum, saith, priusquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos puta [...]it esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus, &c. The absurdity of this Fancy I have above shewed: if he would prove what he designeth from this Testimony; he must assert that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirs, not Christs; and that they were the Authors of the Schism at Corinth. which I hope he will not say: It is evident that Jerome speaketh of a Schism made by ambitious and selfish Church men: and after that Schism Bishops were set up; which no man will say was in the Apostles time. He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy: p. 78, 79. out of his Catalogus scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum, where he giveth account of several Bishops ordained and fixed in places, by the Apostles themselves. The Answer is plain and easie: the Apostles did indeed fix Bishops in Churches; that [...]s Ministers, who were to teach and rule them: but that these Bishops who are also called Presbyters) had Jurisdiction over other Presbyters, [...]s the question, and is not determined by this Argument.

§ 12. He next citeth Jerome, Epistola ad Nepotium. Esto subjectus pontifici [...]o, & quasi animae parentem suscipe: quod Aaron & silios ejus, hoc Episcopum[Page]& Presbyteros esse neverimus. This Citation is lame: between the two Sentences which our Author conjoineth, there is, besides other things, this Passage; sed Episcopi Sacerdotes se sciant esse, non Dominos: honorent Clericos quasi con-Clericos: Ut & ipsis à Cloricis quasi Episcopis hon [...] deferatur: scitum est illud oratoris Domitii, cur ego (inquit) te habe [...] ut Principem, cum tu me non habeas ut Senatorem. Then followeth, qu [...] Aaron, &c. And he addeth, unus Deus, unum Templum, unum etiam [...] Ministerium: and he citeth to this purpose, 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3. and addeth, pessimae consuetudinis est quibusdam Ecclesiis tacere Presbyteros, & praesentibus Episcopis non loqui; quasi aut invideant, aut non dignentur audire. It is evident that Jerome is here speaking of what was the way and practice in his time, and not of what was the Apostles practice, or what was Divine Institution: and therefore nothing here said can serve my Adversaries purpose: for our present Debate is, whether Jerome thought the Episcopacy was of Divine Institution. Next, it is also manifest, that Jerome is here reproving the height that some Church men were the [...] aspiring to; not approving the way of that time. We deny not the in that Age, the paritie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached upon; in some places more, and in some less; though we see no cause to think, that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonist pleadeth for. 3. It appeareth by a strict and unbyassed View of all that Jerome here saith, that no further Prelation is here hinted at, than that of any Minister of the Gospel, or of the Moderator of a Presbyterio: for every Minister may be called Pontifex, and Parens anime, (as the Dialect then was) and may clame Subjection from the people in the Lord. What is said of Aaron and his Sons, importeth no more but that all Ministers have Authority, as all the Priests had: it is a Similitude, and it must not be stretched to an exact agreement in all things 4. That Jerome maketh a Distinction between Episcopos & Clericos, ca [...] be drawn to no more but this; that in his time, there was an observable Prelation in matter of Dignity; it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurisdiction; though I deny not but that some were then aiming at i [...] His Citation out of Ep. 54, Hieron. I find not, he hath not told us to whom that Epistle was written. It seems these Epistles are not the same way ranked in my Edition and in his. That he saith there, Episcopi apud nos tenent locum Apostolorum; cannot prove his point: for the same may be said of all Presbyters; and Jerome saith so expresly of them, Ep. ad Ocean: as I cited § 3: they succeed to the Apostles in that part of [Page] Church power that is competent to them: and he cannot prove that Bishops succeed to them in all the power they had: but the Dispute about this will fall in afterward. That Jerome speaketh about an Ecclesiastical Prince, or Governour, is also inconcludent: for the Fathers sometimes speak as big words of Presbyters. He citeth also Ep. ad Paulinum, Episcopi (saith he) & Presbyteri habeant in exemplum Apostolos & Apostolicos viros, quorum honorem possidentes habere nitantur & meritum. All that he can draw from this is, that there was such a Distinction in Jerome's time; which is not denyed: but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of these had above the other. He had been telling Paulinus, how Men of other Professions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way; and instanceth the Roman Captains, Philosophers, Poets, Orators; and this he applieth to Church men; that they also should follow the best Examples: it were ridiculous to strain it to this sense, that Bishops should imitate the Apostles, and Presbyters the Apostolick men: especially seing our Author will say that many of these were Bishops. His exors & ab omnibus eminens potestas, he mentioneth by so indistinct a Citation, that I know not where to find it; and therefore shall say nothing of it. To his Recapitulation of all that he had said on Jerome p. 79, 80. I oppose the Answers I have given to the several things he there mentioneth; which duely considered, let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Discourse with.

§ 13. Our Author proceedeth p. 80, & seq: to vindicate Augustine, that he was no Presbyterian. And, pray, who ever said he was one? That way was past its Meridian in the World a little before his time: only we bring his Authority to prove, that some great Lights of the Church did not look on Episcopacy as of Divine Right; or to have been in the Church from the Apostolick Age. He prefaceth this Dissertation with a Digression (as himself calleth it) containing insolent Contempt of, and Reproach against the Presbyterians; calling all that have written, beside Blondel and Salmasius, the little Bouffoons of the Party: he must here understand the London Ministers. the five eminent Men under the name of Smectymnus, Rutherford, Didoclavius, Gersom Bucer, and many others. If Presbyterians did incline to act the part of Bouffoons, this Book, and many others like it, might furnish them plentiful Matter. He chargeth them with Impiety, p: 82. calleth them factious and unmortified Men: their Opinions, Dreams: saith, they have nothing more in their view than to gratifie their Revenge, and other Passions: imputeth Impudence and Irreligion [Page]to them, on account of this their Opinion. And his Confidence swelleth so high as to tell us, how astonishing it is that so much is written for Parity: If we believe the Ecclesiastical Records, there remaineth no Debate that Episcopacy is Divine, Apostolical, received without Interruption, and that by the Universal Church. That Scepticism will (by natural Consequence) pull down things more sacred, than the outward Hedge of Government: If his Arguments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words, there can be no standing before him. He had been wiser if he had asserted less, and proved more: and if he had managed this Controversie with a more sedate Mind, it may be his success had been no less. I will not contest with him in Railling, nor huffie and bold asserting what is in controversie: but am willing to reason the Matter fairly and calmly. The Passage out of Augustine which Blondel and Salmasius bring is, Ep. 19. which is ad Hieronymum: quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam Ecclesiae usus obtinuit, Episcopus Presbytero major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est. I freely yield to my Antagonist, that the design of that Epistle is to invite Jerome to use all freedom in their Epistolary Conversation: and I add that this was needful, considering the higher Character (in the common estimation of that Age) that Augustine sustained, above Jerome, a Presbyter; and therefore I lay not the stress of our Argument on his owning Jerome to be in some things above him; nor do I think that Augustine lookt on himself and Jerome as standing on a Level, in respect of Dignity, as then it was esteemed: but I place the force of our Argument on these two; the one is, Augustine insinuateth no Prelation that he had above Jerome, even according to the Sentiment of that Age, but what was secundum honorum vocabula: he had a higher Title, he giveth no hint of a Superior Jurisdiction, that he, a Bishop, had above Jerome, a Presbyter: which had been much more pertinent, and full as consistent with the Modesty and Humility that he expresseth. The other is, that even that superior Honour, he doth not derive from Divine Institution, or Apostolical Tradition, or constant Practice from the beginning; but from the Custome of the Church that then (that is in that Age) prevailed.

§ 14. After setting down at length this Testimony from Augustine, he undertaketh to shew that the latter Sectaries (so he is pleased to dignifie the Presbyterians) mistake his meaning, and that Augustine never thought that Parity obtained in the Christian Church. He endeavoureth then to prove, that by usus Ecclesiae, Augustine meant no other thing, than the universal[Page]Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning: and that this Notion is very familiar to him, that Catholick and universal Customes had their Rise from Apostolick authority. Before I consider what he saith on this Head, I shall suggest one Consideration that will make it wholly unserviceable to his Design: viz. that our Argument is not built simply upon the Phrase usus Ecclesiae: but partly in his distinguishing Bishops from Presbyters in respect of Dignity, not Jurisdiction; partly on his mentioning usus Ecclesiae not which semper obtinuit, sed which jam obtinuit. He speaketh not of universal Practice, nor of perpetual Practice; but for a Practice that in his time had become common. I shall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Austines meaning: he telleth us p. 85. that this Father complained that many Usages had crept into the Church that were burdensome and uneasie, of which they knew the Original; but for such Customes and Constitutions as were received universally, in all Churches, from the very first preaching of the Gospel, these he always considered as Sacred, and inviolable, and of Apostolick Authority: and of this sort, he saith, Austine thought Episcopacy to be: and he bringeth in Augustine reasoning thus: that what was confirmed by universal Custome in the Christian Church, could have no beginning latter than the Apostles: his words are, quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum, non nisi authoritate Apostolorum traditum rectissime credimus. He telleth us again p 87. to make his Assertion surer, as much as repeating it can do; that usus Ecclesiae in Austine's Language, signifieth nothing else than the universal Practice of the Christian Church, which obtained in all Ages, and in all places, and therefore must needs spring from no lower Original than Apostolick authority. And hence he pleadeth, that unless we can shew what Council, Provincial or AEcumenick, introduced Episcopacy, it must be purely Divine. To all this I oppose a few Considerations. First, that upstart Customes of whose Original we can give account and these that are immemorial, are not only to be distinguished, but differently regarded, I think it is very reasonable: and this learned Father did wisely observe it; but that so much weight is to be laid on this Distinction, that every thing is to be accounted Divine, the first Rise of which we cannot account for, I cannot assent to that; nor do I find that Austine was of that Opinion. There were Customes, even in the Apostolick Church, which he will not say were of Divine Institution, and yet he cannot tell when and by whom they began: such as the Love-Feasts; to which I may add the osculum pacis, which though the manner of it was enjoyned [Page] by the Apostle, that it should be done holily, without Hypocrisie or Lasciviousness; yet I think few will say, the thing was enjoyned; for then all the Churches should sin in neglecting it. And if there were such Customes that then crept in, why might it not be so afterward?

§ 15. I observe 2. From his Discourse, that there is no ground to think that Augustine thought every Custome Apostolical, of which the Original, or time of beginning, could not be shewed: because that were to make Custome, and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice: and it would likewise infer the Infallibility of the Church, not only in her Decrees, but in her Customes: which is a stretch beyond the Papists themselves. If this Doctrine be true, no Custome of the Church can be contrary to, yea, nor without Warrand from Apostolick Tradition: it is not to be thought that Austine thought so, who every where pleadeth for having Recourse to the written Word of God, where there is any Controversie about our Faith or Practice. The words cited cannot be so far stretched; but are to be understood, in Subordination to the Scripture; where a Custome hath always, and universally obtained; and it is not inconsistent with the Scripture Rule; that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original, if it be in a Matter that Religion is nearly concerned in. If we should yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Customes, as a Rule of Faith and Practice; yet it must be understood to comprehend the Custome of the Apostolick Age, together with that of after times: for to say that after the decease of the Apostles no Custome could creep in which was not Divine, is a bold Assertion. If while the Apostles watched over the Church, some Weeds might grow; much more after their decease, while men slept, it might be so: 4. If his Doctrine about Customes in general, were never so unexceptionable; how will he prove that Episcopacy is such a Custome, or that Augustine lookt on it as such? Herein lyeth our present Debate; and he fancieth Austine is on his side, because he extolleth Custome; if he can prove that Austine thought that universa Ecclesia semper tenuit, that a Bishop hath Jurisdiction over Presbyters, we shall part with this Argument, and lean no more to Austines Authority. This he hath not attempted, and we are sure he can never perform it. 5. We are not obliged to tell what Council introduced Episcopacy. But we can prove, first; that it might come in an other way, as the Tares grew when Men slept; he might with as good Reason, when we see Tares growing among Wheat, prove that these Tares are good Wheat, because we cannot [Page] tell when, or by what particular Hand, they were sowen. Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would insensibly creep into the Church, by this Parable of the Tares? Sure Decisions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church. 2. If we prove that Episcopacy is contrary to Apostolick practice, and to Scripture rule, it must needs be evil; though it have come in by no Council: if we find a Thief in the House, or a Disease in the Body, we may look on them as such, though we cannot tell how the one got into the House, nor give account of the procatartick Cause of the other: now as to what we contest about, if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture commendeth, or that the Apostles allowed, we must yield the Cause. Before I proceed to what he further offereth, I must take notice of a word that he seemeth to smother, and yet it looketh like an Argument, p. 86. about the middle he saith, Austine intended no more, but that now under the Gospel, by the constant and early practice of the Church, from the days of the Apostles, the Character and Dignity of a Bishop, was above that of a Presbyter. He putteth, now, in a different Character, and expoundeth it by, the days of the Gospel. This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text; for if now be so understood, he must tell us when the time was, that the Distinction of these honorum vocabula, Episcopatus & Presbyterium, were not in use. Were they one and the same under the Law? Or is it imaginable that Austine would after 400 years, or there about, speak so of that Distinction, if it were no newer? He citeth also 1 Cor. 11. 16. We have no such Custome, nor the Churches of Christ: doth he think this Scripture so clear and express an Assertion of his Conclusion, that he saith not one word for bringing it to his purpose: the Apostle is there speaking of things wherein Custome is indeed the Rule, as having the Head bare, or covered, wearing long or short Hair: it doth not thence follow (if the Apostle did there make it the Rule) that it must also be the Rule in other things, p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further, that Austine distinguished the Custome of the Universal Church, from the Custome of particular places, and he maketh the one mutable, the other not so. He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Distinction. I know no body that doubteth of it, nor that reject the Customes that are truly Universal, unless they clash with Scripture. But he should rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us, that Episcopacy hath been so used in the Church, or that Austine meant such a Usage, by his usus Ecclesiae.

[Page] § 16. Another thing our Author undertaketh, for vindicating Austine, is, to prove that he doth positively assert that the Succession of Bishops in the See of Rome, did begin at Peter; and thence argueth against the Donatists; that their Error was a Noveltie, because in all this Succession of Bishops there was no Donatist: if (saith my Antagonist) there was a Period in the Christian Church after the days of the Apostles; in which the Church was governed without Bishops, by a Paritie of Ecclesiastical Officers, the Donatists might evite that Argument, by denying such a Succession. This is one of the silliest of all Arguments: it is captio ab homonymia: there was a Succession of faithful Men, who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for so long a time, among whom was no Donatist: it followeth indeed that the Opinion of Donatists was a Noveltie; but doth it follow that in all that Interval, that Church was governed by Prelates, with Jurisdiction over Presbyters? unless he can prove that every one named in that Succession ruled the Church by himself, without the joint Authority of the Presbyters, he saith nothing to the Purpose in hand. He cannot be ignorant, that the word Bishop, signified in the Scripture Dialect, and in the Age that followed, any Church Ruler: and therefore that these men are called Bishops, cannot prove their sole, nor superior Jurisdiction. Austines Argument from this Succession, is equally strong against the Donatists, whether these called Bishops, were such as do we now distinguish by that Name from other Presbyters, or were the Ministers of the Church of Rome; or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there. If he had taken his argument from Austines naming but one Bishop in Rome at one time, it would have seemed to have more of sense. But even so, it would not be so concludent; for naming of one who might be the oldest, the most eminent, or the primus Presbyter or Praeses in the Meeting, doth no ways infer that he had Jurisdiction over the rest. From this our Author inferreth, p. 90. that usus Ecclesiae, in Austines sense, is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter. I think none else can see this Consequence; for in the one place he is distinguishing Bishops and Presbyters; in the other place (and they are different Books) he hath no occasion to take notice of that Distinction: nor is there any Affinity between the one Passage and the other. He further argueth, that Austine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick, on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bishop and Presbyter. This I have taken notice of above, § 1. It is no way to our present purpose, Austine disliked the Opinion of Aerius, as contrary to the Sentiments that [Page] then prevailed, Ecclesiae usu: doth it thence follow that he thought Episcopacy was Juris Divini? Whether his unseemly Reflection on Mr. Andrew Mellvil, be a better proof of our Authors Christian Temper, and Veracity, or of his Skill in close reasoning, I leave it to the Reader to judge. His repeating the Argument from Succession of Bishops, p. 91. doth not make it stronger. When he can say no more that looketh like Argument, he (according to his laudable Custome) concludeth this part of the Debate, with Railling and abusive Reflections; and confidently asserting his Conclusion, ad nauseam usque. Few of the Scots Presbyterians read any of the Ancients: they consult Blondel and Salmasius, and go no further than Smectymnus: he telleth us of their incurable Peevishness: they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences, torn from their neighbour places, when they have neither the Patience, nor good nature, to consider what the same Author saith else where: he calleth them, bauling People, and their way Confusion, and aequality. It is not only new but absurd; supported by Dreams and Visionary Consequences: their Doctrines contradict the common Sense of Mankind, as well as the universal and uninterrupted Testimony of all Christian Antiquity. Thus he bantereth his Adversaries, when he cannot beat them out of their Principles, by the force of Argument, in this way of Debating I am resolved he shall have the last word: which uses to be a pleasant Victory to Men, or Women, who fight with this Weapon.

SECTION VII.

The Authors Arguments examined, which pretend to prove the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles.

MY Adversarie hath hitherto acted defensively. In his second Chapter p. 94. & seq. he beginneth to assault us with his Arguments for Episcopacy. He placeth his main strength in this, that the Bishops were Successors to the Apostles; and that when the Apostles went off the Stage, they left Diocesan Bishops to rule over the Presbyters and People, as themselves had done. And now he pretendeth to fix the true state of the Controversy: which he should have done before he had so largely debated it: we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time: and neither understood against whom, nor about what we contend. He sheweth his wonted Benignitie, and good Temper, in his Preamble to [Page] his stating of the Question; when he saith, such as design no more than Confusion and Clamour, endeavour to darken the true State of the Controversy That the Presbyterians have such Designs we disown, (and it may be presumed we know our own Designs better than he doth) neither shall we take upon us to judge his design in this Book, but leave that to the unbyassed who read it, and consider his Strain and his Arguments. To his stating the Question he premiseth two things agreed on; that [...] Government is not ambulatory. I am glad that we are agreed about this it was not so when the Magistrate was on their side; we were alway [...] of that Opinion, but so were not they generally; otherways Dr. Stillingfleets Irenicum had not got such universal Acceptance among their as it did. He saith we are likewise agreed that there was a Hierarchy und [...] the Old Testament: whence this Conclusion is necessary, that the Subordination of one Priest to another is not simpliciter unlawful. If I were a Papist, and disputing against A. M. D. D. for the Popes Supremacy, I would likewise pretend to this Concession from him, that under the Old Testament there was one Priest to whom the whole Church of God, Priest and People were subject; whence this Conclusion is necessary, that or single person be Head of the Universal Church, is not in its self simplic [...] ter unlawful. This Author is in a great Mistake, if he imagine that [...] say that Episcopacy is simpliciter, and in it self unlawful: we think that Christ might have set up Bishops, yea a Pope (with such limited Power [...] his Wisdom might have seen to be consistent with the Churches good in the Church, if so it had seemed good to Him. And if He had [...] done, we should cheerfully have submitted to the one, or the other wherefore our Question is not, what was lawful antecedently to Christ Institution, but what He hath appointed, as the way how He will ha [...] His Church governed. The other thing that he premiseth to his stating of the Question, is an Enquiry into the nature of the Apostolick Office: where he laboureth to separate the ordinary permanent, essential Pow [...] of the Apostles, which he maketh to be perpetual; from the extrinsick, a [...] extraordinary Priviledges, and Advantages of that Power, sutable to the fi [...] Plantations of Christianity; which he maintaineth to be Transitory, and [...] have ceased when they died.

§ 2. The Essence of the Apostolick Office he will have to be in the Rectoral Power, or spiritual Jurisdiction that they had over other Ecclesiastick and not in their extraordinary Gifts, nor Infallibility, nor in their immed [...] Call; nor in their being Witnesses of our blessed Saviours Resurrection: and h [...] [Page] proveth of each of these, that others beside the Apostles, had these Priviledges. These things are asserted Dictatorie: but I see not from what Grounds he draweth these confident Decisions. It is not any where told us in the Word, what is precisely the Essence of the Apostolick Office, and what is accidental or extrinsick to it; and therefore we must be very Wa [...]e in determining so positively in this Matter. It might be expected that this Gentleman, who when the Presbyterians hold Paritie to be of Divine Right, requireth of them plain Proofs, else they must be lookt upon as Impostors, p. 13. should give us very plain and positive Evidence for what he doth thus magisterially Dictate; and which he layeth for the Foundation of his Opinion concerning the Divine Right of Episcopacy: but here we are disappointed. He hath not attempted to prove that the nature of the Apostolate is not an Aggregate of all these, preaching Power, with Administration of the Sacraments, Supreme Jurisdiction in the Church, and that with Rule over all Churches, an immediate Call, extraordinary Gifts, Infallibility; to have seen the Lord. If one should assert that they who have all these are Apostles, and none else are Apostles; and so that these are the Properties of an Apostle, which agree to Apostles, omni, soli, & semper; and consequently they complexly taken, are the most essential Attribute of an Apostle, by which we must judge of the Essence of that Office (for we know not the Essences of things, but by their first, and essential Properties) how will our Author disprove this Opinion to establish his own?

§ 3. I shall set before the Reader the Opinions of others (on both sides) about the Matter of the Apostolate; or the distinguishing Characters of an Apostle; that he may be the better able to judge of this Authors Opinion about it; which yet is not his, but is borrowed from the Papists. But I first observe, that Christs twelve Disciples, who are by way of Eminency called Apostles, arrived at that height of Church Dignity and Power, by degrees: they were first called to be Believers: and afterward were sent forth as Preachers; Christ having bred them to that Work by their Converse with Him, for some time: in neither of these Degrees, had they any Church Power, except that of Preaching, and Baptizing: they were no Church Rulers; for there was as yet, no Gospel Church to be ruled, but they were still subject to the Government that was exercised in the Jewish Church: at last our Lord, after his Resurrection, gave them their Apostolick Commission; by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office; and [Page] sent them out, both with Authority to Teach, gather, and setle, and to govern Churches; and their complete Ordination, or solemn setting them apart for that Office, by which also, they were furnished for the Discharge of it, above what they had been before, was when the Spirit was poured out on them, on the day of Pentecost: they got their Commission Mat. 28. 18, 10, 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day, was as it were putting the Broad Seal of Heaven to their Commission; as may be gathered from Act: 1: 4, 5. Luk. 24. 44. It is true, others, beside the Twelve, got some Drops of that heavenly Shower, but they had not the same Commission with them, and therefore the Measure that they got did neither authorize them, nor fit them for Apostolick Work. Another thing that I here observe is, that though the Name Apostle be given to others in Scripture, yet there were some to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner; though the Word is sometime used at large, yet it is applyed to them, so as by it they are distinguished from other Church Officers: hence the Apostle not only taketh that Designation to himself, in the Inscriptions of his Epistles, but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apostle 2. Cor 9. 1, 2. Now our enquiry is, wherein consisteth the nature of that Office that they had, who by way of Eminence were called Apostles; or what are the Characte [...] that they may be distinguished by from other Church Officers? If we can arrive at any Light in this, it will help us to understand whether the Bishops be Apostles, as some plead, or their Successors, as others imagine.

§ 4 I begin with the learned Bishop of Worcester Iren. p 209. where he discourseth of the common use of the Word, but p. 210. he telleth us, that the Twelve were called Apostles, from their immediat Commission that they had from Christ, and that our Lord made use of the word Sending (as applied to them) in the proper and peculiar sense. And he is so far from making Apostles and Bishops to be the same, that he maintaineth, that [...] Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Christs Actions towards his Disciples. Whitaker, against Bellarm: de Pontif: Roman [...] (who hath the same Notion of the Power given to Peter, that our Author hath of that given to the Apostles, and maketh the Pope to succeed to Peter, not in his extraordinary, but his ordinary Power; exactly as this Author saith of the Bishops, compared with the Apostles) Whita [...] I say, bringeth his Proofs against the Popes being an Apostle, from these Characters of an Apostle: and this he borroweth from the Apostle himself, proving his own Apostleship: that he was not called by men, Gal: 1. 1. [Page] Now saith he, the Pope is called by men; so say we of Bishops; that he had his Doctrine, not by mens teaching, but by Revelation, Gal. 1. 2. Eph [...]. 3. This agreeth neither to the Pope, nor Bishops: that he had seen Christ; 1 Cor. 9. 10. That the Apostles were Witnesses of Christs Resurrection, Acts 1. 22. You see then how our Writers maintain the Protestant Cause against Papists: that they gi [...]e other Characters of an Apostle, which they make essential to him: and that this Enquirer hath the same Notions of this Matter that the Papists have. Calvin: In [...] lib. 4: cap: 3. § 4. giveth these Characters of an Apostle: his universal Charge, and not being tyed to a particular Church: and for this citeth Mark 16. 15. and Rom. 15. 19, 20. where he observeth, that there was no bounds set to their Labours, but the whole world was given them to labour in: and that when Paul would prove his Apostolate, he doth not tell us of his gaining one City to Christ: but how he had travelled through a great part of the World, preaching the Gospel. He mentioneth also another Character, that the Apostoli were tanquam primi Ecclesiae Architec [...], qui [...]jus [...]und [...] in [...] or be [...]: They were the first Planters of Churches, of which afterward. If it be objected, that these things belonged to the first, and extraordinary Apostles, not to these that are secondary, and permanent, or ordinary Apostles. This is to suppose what is in Question the Scripture giveth us the Characters of the Apostles that were the first Founders of the Church; but giveth no account of other Apostles; therefore these other are not Apostles, except in the general Notion, as they are sent to do Church work: Gersom Bucer: dissert: de gubern: Eccles. Episceps: 70. p. 269. proveth, that the Apostolate was a distinct Office from all other Church Officers, from 1 Cor: 12. 29. are all Apostles? so that it cannot be confounded with the Episcopal Office, nor differ from it only in these accidental things that this Author speaketh of: and Episceps 98. p. 383. he citeth both Whitaker and Polanus, making the Apostles such a distinct Office, to which there was no Succession in respect of their Degree, and making this a distinguishing Mark of that Office, that their Calling was [...], immediate. The same hath Paul Bay [...], Dyoces: [...]ryal, p. 52. Didoclav: altar: Damascen: C. 4. p. 141. citeth Whitaker, and Junius, to this purpose: and even Tilenus, who was no friend to Presbyterie, Petrum (saith he,) unius loci aut urbis Episcopum facere, est Apostolicam dignitatem ei detrahere. de. Pontif: lib: 2: C. 4. Not: 6. and lib. 1. C. 25. Not▪ 7. he hath these words, neque eam Apostolus ullus uni civitati, tanquam globae, ascriptus fuit, quod Gregarli est Episcopi, non Apostoli. Also lib. 2. C. 12. [Page] [...]

§ 5. I have seen a Manuscript of a learned Minister of this Church, now deceased, which, by an accident, hath stuok in the Birth, (I mean the Press) for some time: the design of which is to prove (and I think he doth it solidly) that the proper distinguishing Character of an Apostle is, he was commissioned by Jesus Christ in an immediate way, to gather and to plant Churches; and to institute all Christs Ordinances, in them: to teach them to observe all that he hath commanded. So he, p: 61. That Apostles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church, as ordinary Officers are for the constant care of it, and administring the Ordinances of it. And p. 64. he maketh the Power of the Apostles, to be instituting the Ordinances of the Church, Ministerially, under Christ, whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them instituted. the Apostles Power of Executing these Institutions arose from this, that every superior Church Officer hath the Power of all [Page] inferior Officers. He further sheweth, that the Office of an Apostle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Church, in the beginning of the Gospel, particularly, the Evangelists (whose Office had the most Resemblance of the Apostolate) in that 1. They had not the same Mission with the Apostles (the one was immediatly from Christ, the other was from Him, by the Apostles: though their Gifts were sometimes immediate, and extraordinary.) 2. They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, as the Apostles were; but were directed and ordered by the Apostles. 3. They had not their particular Instructions from Christ immediatly, as the Apostles, as appeareth from the Epist to Tim: and Titus 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghost by laying on of Hands, as the Apostles had. My design in all this is to shew, that we have little reason to take this our Authors Doctrine about the nature of the Apostolick Office, how ever confidently asserted by him, on his bare word; seing so many of all sorts of Protestants are against him in this: for his talk of the uniform Testimony of Antiquity for what he saith, we look on it as a groundless Fancie; that he can never make out. I find indeed that some of the Ancients call Bishops, and some of them call Presbyters, Apostles, in a large sense; that is Christs Ambassadors: but that some of them think, or say, that the Office of them who now rule the Churches, is the same with that of them who at first planted them, I find not: when he shall please to produce some of these Testimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform, they shall be considered.

§ 6 I cannot pass over without correction, an Argument he hath p. 99. to prove that it was not necessary to make up an Apostle, that he be immediately called to the Apostolate by our Saviour; for Matthias was not immediatly ordained by our Saviour, but by the Apostles; who had power to continue that Succession to the end of the World. A. It is most absurdly said, that Matthias was ordained by the Apostles; for if they had had power to ordain an Apostle, why made they use of Lots? They did not so in the Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer. I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to assent to it, his words are, Apostoli non poterant Apostolum ordinare impositione manuum, prout Presbyteros ordinabant, sed sorte utuntur, quae erat veluti immediata manuum Christi impositio in eum. Nor doth it make against this, that it is said [...]; for Dr. Hammond (who was as great an Asserter of Episcopacy as this Author can pretend to be, and understood as well what could be [Page] said for it) saith, constat Matthiam sorte delectum fuisse, non per hominum suffragia. And Corn: à Lapide in locum, verbum hoc loco Catachrestice usurpatur de qualibet electione; idemque significat quod eligi, accenseri, annumerari. Not only Beza, but Corn à Lapide, expoundeth it, q. d. hic sortis eventus communi omnium sententia comprobatus fuit. And it is certain, that a Lot is a Divine Determination, Prov. 16. 33. Cartwright, Mellis: Hebraic: hath this Note on the Text, quod sortem appellat judicium, docet, non nisi in rebus gravioribus ad sortem esse recurrendum; maxime cum per sortem Deus ipse in judicio sedeat. It was not then the Apostles, but Christ himself, who chose Matthias to the Apostleship: nor was ever any Apostle chosen or called by Men; which the Apostle Paul denyeth of himself, as not agreeing to that Office, Gal. 1. 1. He telleth us, p: 100. that the ordinary and perpetual Power that Christ gave to his Apostles, was derived by them to their Successors. Here he supposeth that the Apostles had an ordinary and perpetual Power; which is that we now contend about; for we maintain that their Power was extraordinary, and ceased with them; and that it was an inferior sort of Power which their Successors got. He telleth next, that the name also was derived to others beside the twelve. That hath been already granted, that that Name, in a large sense, was given to others: yet in another sense it was restricted to the Twelve. But he is very unhapy in his Proof of this uncontested Truth; by Instancing Phil. 2. 25. where Epaphroditus is called the Messenger, [...], of the Church of Philippi: for it is plain from the Text, that he is so called as being sent by the Philippians to Paul, and not as sent of God to them (tho we deny not but that in that sense he might be called an Apostle) for in that he is said, with the same Breath, to be he that Ministred to Pauls wants; and seeing it is as evident from the Text, that he was then with Paul and not at Philippi; it appeareth that he had been sent by them to Paul with some token of their bounty, for the Apostles subsistance. Thus Grotius expoundeth this Place: who saith, that they who gathered and carried the sacred Money were called [...]: and likewise, he saith, that the Philippians had sent Money to Paul by Epaphroditus, which he received, because being in Bonds, he could not then work with his hands For the same interpretation are Beza, Piscator, Zanchius, Uorstius; yea, Estius, who citeth Thomas Aquinas for it; and Cajetan. But he undertaketh to prove his sense of the word, by this Assertion, that an Apostle, in the New Testament, never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men; but always a Messenger sent from God to men. [Page] This he extendeth to other places, as 2 Cor. 8. 23. This assertion is wholy groundless: yea, it is false, as I have already proved with respect to Epaphroditus. Phil. 2: 26. for 2 Cor. 8. 23. The word is not so to be taken there neither; for all his confidence in saying that our Translation is certainly a mistake. Grotius is here also against him; and saith, they were called [...], because of their carrying Aims to the Churches of Judea. And it is evident from the Context, which telleth us of Pauls sending Titus about this Affair v. 27. and v. 18, 19. Another Brother is chosen by the Churches to travel (viz. to Judea) with this Collection: and v. 22. Yet another Brother is sent with Titus and that Brother formerly mentioned. Now the Apostle giveth a Character of these Commissioners; as for Titus, as well known to the Apostle, being in high Station in the Church, and an Evangelist; he telleth that he was his Partner, and Fellow Helper; as for these other Brethren, he insinuateth that they must needs be very commendable persons; being chosen by the Churches, and so entrusted by them; in that they made them their Messengers. What he excepteth against this is frivolous; for they are not called the glory of Christ on account of this Employment; neither could they be called the glory of Christ, simply, on account of their being sent by him to the people; yea, or being Bishops: but they are so called, because of their holy conversation, and faithful discharge of their Office, what ever it was, in the Church. Another Scripture he bringeth Rom: 16: 7. where some are called [...], where saith he, the Greek Phrase may be rendered, inter prima [...]ios Apostolos. This is a Blunder that he would have thought sufficient to ruine the Credit of a Presbyterian for ever, as ignorant of the Greek, and of good sense: for neither can the word [...] signifie Primarius. or Chief; but may well be rendered, of note, noted, or eminent: nor can [...] and [...] agree, as Substantive and Adjective, as this learned Author maketh them to do; contrary to all Rules of Grammar. The meaning is plain, that these men were noted, or eminent in the Church, and so esteemed among the Apostles, or by them; nor doth it at all import that they themselves were Apostles. So not only Beza and Piscator; but Toletus, Vatablus, Grotius. The falshood of his Assertion, p. 100. That the word Apostle never signifieth a Messenger sent by men to men, but always one sent by God to men; is evident from Joh. 13. 16. Neither is he that is sent, [...], greater than him that sent him; where the word is taken at large, for any one that is sent by another. And [Page] the Verb whence it is derived, is often used for a Mans sending; as Mat. 2. 16. and 21. 3: and 27: 19: 2 Tim: 4: 12 & passim.

§ 7. He took notice, it seems, that his Adversaries make Universality of Apostolick Jurisdiction to be one distinguishing Mark of their Office, which Bishops cannot pretend to; and therefore Bishops have not the Substance of the Apostolick Office. Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way, p. 101, 102, 103, 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrowness of the Limits of these Provinces assigned to the secondary Apostles (he meaneth the Bishops) did not alter the nature of their Office, from that of the twelve Apostles; more than the Kings of Juda lost the Honour of sitting on the Throne of David, after the Revolt of the ten Tribes. Here is a gross Mistake of the Question, which is not, whether the largeness or narrowness of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath, do alter the nature of his Office; but whether a limited and particular Charge do not so differ from that which is universal and extended to the whole Church of Christ, as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the other is not in the same Office. Will any Papist say, that the Univers [...] Bishop who sitteth at Rome, hath the same Office in the Church, and no higher than any poor Bishop in Italy or elsewhere? The Similitude brought from the Kings of Juda is impertinent to this purpose: if one had the Empire of the whole World, and lost that, and got the Crown of one particular Kingdom; I think his Office is not what it was. Beside, if we should yield all that he here alledges, it were no loss to our cause: for we do not make universal Jurisdiction the only Character of an Apostle; but that complexly, and in conjunction with others: as is above shewed. Another Consideration that he hath, is, the Apostles themselves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Inspection, but some travelled further than others; yet this did not change their rectoral Power, or Jurisdiction: no more did the confining Bishops in the exercise of their Power, to narrower Limites, make their Power to differ from what the Apostles had: that Restriction not being by the nature of the Power it self; but from the various Necessities and Circumstances of the Church, the Rules of Order, and the multitude of Converts, which obliged them afterwards to more personal Residence. I reply to this, 1. Here is a wide Door left for his Holiness of Rome to enter into the Church by: and it is observable, how naturally, and frequently, this learned Author, and some others of his Gang, do shew their Byass to that side. If nothing but Order, and Circumstances, and not Divine Institution, do confine Bishops to their Sees, whether larger, [Page] or less extended; and every one of them have, actu primo (as may be deduced from this Doctrine) universal Jurisdiction; why may not the exercise of it be committed to one of them; and the rest be subject to him? Some think that this belongeth to good Order, (though ordinary Pastors be related actu primo, to the Universal Church; yet they have not that Jurisdiction that the Apostles had, who needed no more but their intrinsick Power to warrant its Exercise in any particular place.) 2. It is without all warrant to suppose that every Bishop hath universal Power over the Church of Christ, as every Apostle had: they have not that Commission, go teach all Nations: this was the peculiar work of Apostles, to travel and plant Churches: the work of Bishops (if such an Office be in the Church) is to stay at home, and feed that part of Christs Flock which is committed to them. 3. It is falsly supposed that the Apostles had so their several Provinces as that they were confined to these: the World was the Province of each of them; though by mutual Consent, or by the immediat Conduct of the Holy Ghost, who guided their Motions, (as may be gathered from Acts 17. 7, 9, 10.) they went into several places of the World; yet so as they observed not that Division very critically; for we find them meeting sometimes; and though Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision, yet Paul often preached to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Pastors to their several Charges is not the effect of Prudence, and Agreement of them among themselves, alone; but it is Gods Appointment, (though the setting of the Bounds of their several Districts in particular, be a work of men) for Christ hath not only set Pastors in the Church, but he hath set them over their particular Flocks, Acts 20. 18. so as they have the charge of them, and must give account of them; and not of the Souls in all Churches.

§ 8. His Notion, p. 103. that the Apostles divided the World among themselves by Lot, I know is to be found in Eusebius, Dorotheas, and Nicephorus, and some others of the Ancients; and some latter Writers have taken it on trust from them, as this Author doth: neither shall I be at pains to disprove it; it is done learnedly and fully by Dr. Stillingfleet, Iren: p. 232. & seq. by eight Arguments, that this Author will not easily answer: and particularly he sheweth, that Acts 1. 25. [...], cannot be understood of a District appointed at first for Judas, and he falling from it was alloted to Matthias: which our Author taketh for an uncontested Truth, p. 103. Another thing I observe is, p. 104. that he [Page] saith, neither the Apostles, nor their immediat Successors, were so confined to particular Sees, but that proportionably to the Exigencies of the Catholick Church their Episcopal care and Superintendency did reach the whole, as far as was possible; and as Christian charity did require or allow, notwithstanding of their more fixed and nearer Relation they might have to particular Churches: which he proveth by their Epistles to other Churches, and by their Travels: and he concludeth, that the confinement to a particular See, doth not proceed from the nature of the Priesthood, but from the Rules of Prudence, Ecclesiastical Oeconomy, and canonical Constitutions. I first take notice, that this is still beside the Purpose, for it can never evince that the Bishops are Apostles, unless he make it out that no other Mark can be assigned in respect of which they differ. We say, that though Bishops and Apostles were Universal Officers in the Church, there are other things wherein they differ, as hath been shewed. 2 That the Apostles had a fixed and nearer Relation to one particular Church more than another, is denyed, and he can never prove it. The contrary is proved abundantly by the Author last cited. It is true, some of the Fathers do sometimes call James Bishop of Jerusalem: but that is with respect to his Residence, not to the confinement of his Authority: he was determined to stay there, as the place which Christians did resort to from all parts of the World (not in Pilgrimage, but on many other Occasions) that he might there superintend the Affairs of the Universal Church. Euseb. lib: 2. c: 23. and Jerome de viris illustribus, say, he was by the Apostles ordained the first Bishop of Jerusalem; but this they take out of Egesippus (as themselves confess) a most Fabulous Writer, and both of them relate out of him, several things concerning the same James, that all do look on as idle Dreams. 3. It is also without warrant, that he asserteth, that the first Bishops were not confined to their Sees, more than the Apostles were. If he understand of the Evangelists, we shall debate the case afterward. If of ordinary Pastors of the Church, I deny not but that they had a regard to neighbouring Churches, which were not furnished with Pastors, or otherways had need of their help (so do Ministers at this day, and ought to do) and this is all that can be inferred from their Epistles, or their Travels, which he mentioneth: but that they had universal Jurisdiction, as every one of the Apostles had, we deny, and he hath brought no Proof of it. 4. Who ever thought that the Confinement of a Pastor to a particular Charge, doth proceed from the nature of the Priesthood? if one Pastor could feed Christs [Page] Flock, more were superfluous: neither doth it proceed from mens Prudence, and Church Canons; but from Christs Institution, built on natural necessity. He directed his Apostles to ordain Elders in every City, and in every Church.

§ 9. He cometh now p. 105. to discourse of Succession to these Apostles, whose Office he had taken so much pains (to what purpose let the Reader Judge) to describe: and fixeth the Debate in this Question, Whether the Apostles committed their Episcopal Jurisdiction and Apostolick Authority, which they exercised in particular Churches, to single Successors, duely and regularly chosen, or to a Colledge of Presbyters, acting in the Administration of Ecclesrastical Affairs, in perfect Parity and Equality? And this he taketh to be the genuine State of the Controversie, and so do I; if some of his Prejudices, and unwarrantable Suppositions be cut off from it. For correcting this State of the Question, let it be observed first; that we will never own that the Apostles had any Successors in the whole of what was essential to the Apostolick Office: particularly, that rectoral Power that every one of them had over all other Ecclesiasticks: we deny that this was transmitted to Church Rulers who came after them. This our Author supposeth; whereas he should have proved it. That all that Power that was necessary for the Church, was transmitted from the Apostles to their Successors, we acknowledge: such as Power of Preaching, Administring of Sacraments, Ordaining Ministers, Ruling the Church: this they left in the Church; whether they left this Power to one in every Church to Rule the rest in these Administrations, or to many equally, is the Question. I join all these Powers together; because our Brethren with whom we now debate, our Jure Divino Prelatists, put them all in the Bishops hands alone, to be parcelled out to his Curats as he pleaseth. So that Presbyters may not preach, baptize, nor do any thing else in the Churches, without his allowance; they make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess. Wherefore our Author to this Question should have premised another, viz. whether the Apostles have any Successors at all, in the plenitude of that Power that they had over the Churches? He taketh it for granted, we deny it: and prove what we say. 1. The Apostles had their Power both as to its being, and extent, and that toward persons and things or actions, by an immediat Call: The Lord by himself, without any act of the Church interveening, pitched on the persons, made them Church Officers, and told them their work, and set the bounds of their Power. Now if any [Page] pretend to succeed to them in the plenitude of this Power, they must instruct the same immediat Call, or shew that the Lord hath left Directions in his Word, for clothing some persons with all that Authority: but this neither the Bishops, nor none else can pretend to. Not to an immediat Call; for then they must shew their Credentials. Nor to Scripture Warrant for all the Power of the Apostles; where is their Warrant for going through the World, in their own personal and intrinsick Authority, to order Affairs in all Churches where they come, or for instituting Gospel Ordinances; and appointing new Officers in the Church, that were not in it before: or even for ruling over their Brethren? This last I know they claim: and we shall debate it with them; but these others also belonged to the plenitude of an Apostolick Power. We have indeed sufficient warrant in the Word, for Men to Teach and Rule the Church; and these things are necessary to be, and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World; but for other Powers that the Apostles had, they were only needful for planting the Gospel; not for Churches planted: neither have we Directions about propogating such a Power in the Church.

§ 10. Another Argument. The Apostles in their own time, divided their Power and Work among several sorts of Church Officers: they appointed Elders, some for Teaching and Ruling, as hath been proved; some for Ruling only, 1 Tim. 5. 17. They appointed also Deacons, to have a care of the Poor; which was also a part of their Power but they appointed none to succeed in the whole of their Power. This Conduct they could not have used, if they had been to have such Successors. If they made diverse sorts of Church Officers to succeed them, every one in his share of that work that is alloted to him. All which was done by the Apostles: and if they have not told the Church, that every one of these Officers must act in dependency on one, who is over them, as the Apostles were over all: how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church (by divine or Apostolick appointment) who hath all the Power that they had, and to whom all must be subject as to them. 3. The Fathers do not only make Bishops to be Successors to the Apostles, but they say the same of all Church Officers, Ergo, they did not think that any person succeded to them in the plenitude of their Power. The consequence is evident, for parcelling out their Succession, and one enjoying it in solidum, are inconsistent; the Ant. I prove by several Testimonies. Ignatius Ep: ad Trall: Presbyteros vocat [Page]conjunctionem Apostolorum Christi: & jubet, ut eos sequamur tanquam Christi Apostolos. Ep: ad Smyrnen: and Ep: ad Magnes. he saith expresly p: 33. edit: Vossi, that the Presbyters succeeded [...], in the place of the Council of the Apostles. Irenaeus advers Haereseslib: 3: c: 2. saith, traditionem quae est ab Apostolis per successionem Presbyterorum custodiri: and lib: 4: c: 43. enjoineth, ut Presbyteris qui in Ecclesia sunt, & ab Apostolis successionem habent, auscultemus. And c: 45. Uhi (saith he) charismata Domini posita sunt, ibi discere oportet veritatem, apud quos est ea quae est ab Apostolis Ecclesiae successio. Cyprian lib: 4. Ep 4: affirmeth, omnes praepositos (and it is known that he giveth that Title also to Presbyters) vicaria ordinatione Apostolis succedere. Jerome (who was no Bishop) owneth himself for one of the Successors of the Apostles, dist: 35: cap. Ecclesiae in Apostolorum loco sumus, non solum sermonem eorum imitemur, sed & seorsum abstinentiam. And ad Heliodorum: absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt; & per quos nos Christiani simus. August ad fratres in eremo, calleth them expresly, among many glorious Epithets, Apostolorum successores. And Ser: 33. He hath these words, non Laicis spiritualia dona tradita sunt; sed vicariis Domini, vicarii domini sunt qui vicem Apostolorum tenent: which ye see he saith of all the Clergy.

§ 11. Another thing I dislike in this state of the Question is, that he supposeth the Apostles exercised their Jurisdiction in particular Churches. I have above shewed, that this they did not ordinarily, in Churches already planted, and furnished with Officers. A third thing is, that he supposeth us to maintain a perfect Parity among Presbyters in the administration of Ecclesiastick Affairs. This I also cleared, S. 2. § 5. that we own a temporary Disparity, though not a Jurisdiction, in our ambulatory Moderator. These things being cleared, the Question is to be understood of that ruling Power that was in the persons of the Apostles, and is now necessary to continue in the Church. The Question is, whether, when the Apostles setled Churches, and committed the Government of them to Officers who were to continue in Succession in all the Ages of the Church, they committed that ruling Power to a single person, or to a Colledge of Presbyters? He saith it was committed to a single Bishop, I maintain it was committed to a Colledge of Presbyters, without any Disparity of Power, or Jurisdiction among them. And I further add, that neither did the Apostles give more of this Power to one of the Presbyters above the rest, neither did they allow them to [Page] transfer that equal Power into the Hands of another, and suffer him to rule over them. Some light Velitations he hath (before he came to his main arguments) for proving his Point. And 1. From Christs promise, that the Apostolick office shall indure perpetually; and this promise was made to them, not in their Personal, but in their Spiritual capacity I suppose he aimeth at Mat: 28: 20. where there is not one word of the Apostolick office in the Plenitude of that power they had. It respecteth their power of Teaching, Baptizing and Ruling; and the promise implieth that there shall be some to the end of the World who shall be imployed in that work; and it ensureth Gods presence to them who are so employed; but it saith nothing, directly nor indirectly, how much of the Apostolick Power these Successors shall have. His second Hint of an Argument is, that Christ loved the Church as much after the decease of the Apostles as before. A. It thence followeth that he did not let them want whatever spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction was needful for them: but it no way followeth, that the Apostolick Power, in all its Latitude, must continue; because though that was needful for planting the Church, it is not needful for her watering, and her continuance. That the Testimonies he is to bring were universally received, and the Church knew no other Government for 1400 years; as he saith, p. 106. is one of his bold affirmations, which must stand for Argument, to his easie Believers.

§ 12. He undertaketh to prove that the Apostles transmitted their Rectoral Power immediatly to single Successors, both by Scripture, and by the Ecclesiastical Records. The first Scripture Proof is, from Timothy being Bishop at Ephesus, and Titus at Crete. This his Argument he prosecuteth somewhat confusedly: but we must follow whether he leadeth. He bringeth nothing for proof of their being Bishops there, but that the Apostle besought Timothy to abide at Ephesus, when himself was going into Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1. 3. with Acts 20: 3, 4, 5. And then, after taking off (as he fancieth) one of our Exceptions against his Argument, he proveth, that the work that they did was competent to a Bishop. The Exception that our Writers commonly bring, is from Timothies non residency at Ephesus, and travelling with Paul. His refutation of this, p. 107, is, that Timothy after he was established Bishop at Ephesus, did often wait on the Apostle Paul, his spiritual Father, to assist him in the Offices of Religion but such occasional Journeyings cannot infer his being disengaged from his Episcopal Authority at Ephesus: Philip was as much a Deacon when he went and preached at Samaria, as when he served Tables at Jerusalem. The Presbyterians[Page]have not lost their Title to their particular Flocks, when they are imployed to visit the Court, or Forreign Churches. The Ancients laid no weight on this Objection, for Concil: Chalcedon: Act: 11: reckoned 27 Bishops from Timothy to their own days. The Reply to all this is easie. 1. He doth not propose our Argument fairly, nor in its full Strength: for then; this his Answer would appear trifling. We plead, that it cannot be made appear that ever Timothy was fixed at Ephesus, as Pastor of that Church; but that he was only sent to it, as Pauls Deputy, for a small time, to do some Work there. I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, 1 Tim: 1: 3. cannot import a fixed Charge: but on the contrary; that his being first sent to that Place was lookt on as a Temporary Imployment; and the Apostle finding need of his being longer there than he at first thought, doth now lengthen out his Commission for some longer time. If he had been fixed at Ephesus as his particular Charge, and in a Pastoral Relation to that People, that was to end only with his Life, such a Desire for his staying longer in that Place had been very impertinent. Again, the Strength of our Argument lieth in this; that we find Timothy not only now and then in other Places, Labouring in the Work of the Gospel (that I confess is consistent with a fixed Charge) but the Course of his Ministerial Labours was, to be imployed else where, and we have little, or no more of him at Ephesus than what is mentioned in this place. We find that as soon as Paul returned to Ephesus from Macedonia, that he sent Timothy thence to Achaia, himself staying at Ephesus, Acts 19: 22: After Paul came from Ephesus to Macedonia again, and returned thence unto Asia, we find Timothy with him; not at Ephesus, Acts 20: 1, 4: After which we never read that Timothy wrote, came, or returned to Ephesus. We find that Paul sent him to Corinth, 1 Cor: 4: 7: and 16: 10: 2 Cor: 1: 19. And to Philippie, Philip: 2. 19. And to Thessalonica, 1 Thess: 3: 2, 6. Also he joyneth with Paul in Writing his second Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written at Philippie, and was sent, as also the first, from the same Place: and in that to Philippie written from Rome; and in the first to Thessalonica from Athens: and in the second. He is also mentioned in these Epistles, as being elsewhere: but we read no more of his being at Ephesus. He joyneth with Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, from Rome. He was at Corinth when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, Rom: 16: 21: with the Postscript of the Epistle. He was in Italy when the Epistle to the Hebrews was written, Heb: 13: 23: But in the Epistle to the Ephesians, which was written from Rome, long after the [Page] time that Timothy was supposed to be made Bishop, no word of him, neither as being at Rome, saluting them; nor as being at Ephesus, saluted by Paul. And it is strange, if when Paul speaks so much to the Elders of Ephesus at Miletum, Acts 20: 17,—that he taketh no special notice of him their Bishop. Beside, he telleth Timothy that he had sent Tychicus to Ephesus, 2 Tim: 2: 12. and that about the same Work that he had enjoyned Timothy to do there; and mentioneth him as sent to them, Ephes: 6: 21, 22. So that there is full as much ground to say that Tychicus was Bishop of Ephesus, as to assign that See to Timothy: and more ground to make Timothy Bishop of several other Churches above-mentioned, than of Ephesus.

§ 13. I hope, 2. These Reasons against Timothies being Bishop at Ephesus, are not taken off by telling us of Philip the Deacon Preaching at Samaria: for it is probable, that Philip was now Called to an higher Office; and so might leave his Deaconship to another: or, he might return to his Work at Jerusalem, seing we read not of such a constant Course of his being elsewhere, as we find in Timothy. Neither is it paralell to a Presbyterian Ministers visiting the Court, or Forreign Churches. If they be constantly Abroad, and especially, if they were never more setled in a particular Place, save that such a Man was sent to Preach, and do other Ministerial Work there for a time, we think it a good Argument against their Pastoral Relation to that Place. If the Council of Chalcedon, Act 11. mention twenty seven Bishops in Ephesus (which I find not in Caranza, nor is it said by the Council, Bibthoth. Concil. but by one Man, Obiter. Leontius Bishop of Magnesia, Tom. 4. p. 700.) it signifieth no more than that Timothy setled that Church (which he might do in the short time he stayed there) and from that time there had been so many Bishops, that is, Ministers, or Chief Ministers who were Presidents in their Presbyteries, during that time. This can neither prove Timothy's fixed Pastoral Relation to that People; nor the sole, or superior Jurisdiction of them who came after him. He next laboureth to prove that Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus, from the Power he was to Exercise, and the Work he was to do there; which he asserteth to be, all the Power and Work they claim for a Bishop. And he insisteth at length, from the Epistles written to Timothy, to shew what was his Power and Work. We do not contest with him about this; as himself confesseth, p. 104. surely Timothy could do as much as any Bishop can lay Claim to: only we deny his being fixed there; and we deny that he Acted as an ordinary [Page] fixed Officer; but as the Apostles Deputy, set there for a time, to do what the Apostle might have done, if he had been personally there. He was an Evangelist, and as such Acted in Ephesus, and wherever else he was imployed. That these Epistles were Directed to Timothy; only with Respect to his Work at Ephesus, is by some imagined, without all ground. He was imployed here and there by the Apostle, and whereever he had Work, he was to manage it according to these Directions. It is an inconsequential Argument that our Author bringeth, p. 108. to prove Timothy's particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus, that 1 Tim: 3: 14, 15: It is told him, that the Apostle gave him these Directions, that if he should tarry longer from coming to him, he might know how to behave himself in the House of God. For all this may agree to any Church, as well as to that of Ephesus: and it cannot be said (which followeth) of Ephesus alone, that that Church was the Pillar and Ground of the Truth: Wherefore, the Apostle intended these Injunctions not for Timothy alone; but for all Pastors of the Church: far less for Timothy only while at Ephesus; but for him in whatever part of the Lords Vineyard he should have Occasion to Labour. Neither do we now Debate, whether Timothy had a particular Relation to the Church of Ephesus (which may be granted while he abode there) but whether he had a fixed Relation to it, so as he had not afterward to other Churches whereto the Apostle sent him: or whether he was Related to it as an Itinerant Evangelist, or as as an ordinary and fixed Bishop.

§ 14. He argueth also p. 109. that his Power was not temporary or transient, but successive and perpetual, and derived to others in solidum, as he received it himself: and this he proveth, because he is injoyned to commit it to faithful Men who should be able to Teach others also. Here is still a Mistake of the Question; which is not about the Perpetuity of Timothy's Power; which I believe he had wherever the Apostle sent him about the Work of the Gospel: but the Question is about the Perpetuity of his Abode at, and Pastoral Relation to Ephesus: which is not proved by his Power of Ordaining Ministers. He demandeth p. 109, 110. somethings to be granted to him: some of which I freely yield. 1. That this Power of Timothies was lawful. 2. That he exercised it at Ephesus; viz. for a time. 3. That it was committed to him alone, and not to a Colledge of Presbyters. This I yield so far, that Timothy had a Vicarious Apostolick Power, that was superior to that of the Presbytery: but it is no Consequence, Timothy had such a Power at Ephesus for a time, Ergo, the Presbytery was [Page] not ordinary Rulers of that Church. I proved §. 7. That the Apostle setled a Colledge of Presbyters for the ordinary Government of that Church, and that from Acts 20. 28. 4. That there is no mention of a Colledge to which Timothy was accountable for his Administrations. The first part of this I deny: the grounds are mentioned in the place cited. Beside, it is like there was no such Colledge at Ephesus then; for Timothy is Directed about Chusing and Ordaining them: 1 Tim 3. 1 &c. The second part I freely yield, that Timothy could not be accountable to any Colledge of Presbyters, nor to any Man, except the Apostle who sent him: but this maketh nothing for such Exemptions to a Bishop; unless he could prove, each of them that they have a Personal Mission from an Apostle, or immediatly from Christ. 5. That the great Branches of Episcopal Power was lodged in Timothy's Person: this I yield, understanding it of that Power that Bishops pretend to. 6. That this Authority was [...] in it self temporary, transient, or extraordinary; but such as the necessities of the Church do make necessary in all Ages. This also, sano sensu, I yield: it must always be lodged somewhere: but that there must be a single Person endowed with such Power, I know no lasting necessity for that. I Answer to his Question p. 110. Why do they say, that in the discharging of an ordinary Trust, there is need of an extraordinary Officer. A. We say an extraordinary Officer was needful at first, till ordinary Men were by him Authorized, and Impowered to propagate this Trust; but that being done, we plead for no such need; but Debate against it. Against Timothy's Episcopal Relation to Ephesus further Arguments may be brought; from the Apostles putting the Government of that Church in the hands of Elders, acts 20. 28. 28. which must be after they were setled by Timothy, and that in his presence, he being then with the Apostle. Also, from the Apostles declaring to these Elders all the Council of God, Acts 20. 27. and yet he told them nothing of so important a point, as of the chief Pastor whom they must obey: a point that our Brethren lay so much stress on, as that they make the Beeing of Ministers and Churches to hang on the Succession of Bishops. From the Apostles not mentioning Timothy when he writeth to Ephesus. From his telling them that they should see his Face no more, Acts 20. 25. and yet not a word of leaving Timothy to take care of them, but laying it on the Elders, but I shall not enlarge on these.

§ 15. He alledgeth, with the same Confidence, and as little Strength of Argument, that the same power was committed by Paul to Titus, in Crete. [Page] And here p. 111. he maketh a very faint Attempt against our Plea, that Titus (we say the same of Timothy) was an Evangelist: which he very discretly, more suo, calleth a ridiculous Subterfuge. I shall examine what here he bringeth to back this Confidence; and then shew that Timothy and Titu were Evangelists. [...]. Saith he, It is no where said in Scripture, that he was one of them who were called Evangelists. A. He should have described to us them who in Scripture are called Evangelists: The word is divers ways used in Holy Write: neither do we argue from the Name, that either he, or Timothy (to whom this Name is expresly applyed, 2 Tim. 4. 5.) were Evangelists: but we argue from their Work and Circumstances, together with the mention that is made of such an Office being in the Church, in the beginning of Christianity. There are others beside them, whom we can prove to have been Evangelists, who, may be, get not that Name expresly given them in the Scripture. Next he argueth, the Work of an Evangelist hath nothing in its nature opposit to, or inconsistent with the Dignity and Character of either Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon. What if all this were yielded? what gaineth he by it? Titus being an Evangelist might do all the Work that our Adversaries ascribe to him; tho he were no Bishop, and tho his being a Bishop were not inconsistent with being an Evangelist; what we design is, that doing such Work doth not prove him to have been a Bishop; seing he was an Evangelist; who hath all that power that Titus is said to have. Beside, Saravia (who hath said more for Episcopacy than this Author hath) de Ministr. Evang. grad. C. p. Saith nam quemadmodum major Apostoli authoritas fuit quam Evangelistae, & Prophetae & Evangelistae major quam Episcopi vel Presbyteri, ita Titi & Timothei, qui Presbyteri & Episcopi erant, major fuit authoritas quam Presbyterorum quos oppidatim Apostolica authoritate crearant. He maketh Evangelists to be a higher degree than the Bishops; if then Titus was an Evangelist, is it imaginable that he was afterward degraded to be a Bishop? Do we ever read that an Apostle was turned to an Evangelist; or a Bishop to a Presbyter; or he to a Deacon: unless some of these were degraded for some fault. Wherefore if Titus had the Character of an Evangelist, it is not like he was setled at Crete as an ordinary Bishop. Further he describeth an Evangelist; out of Euseb. lib. 3. C. 37. hist. Eccles. That he is a person that preached the Gospel to such as had not before heard of it; at least were not converted by it. Eusebius is not by him fairly cited, C. 33. (not 37.) he is giving account of such as builded the Churches planted by the Apostles (as his own words bear; therefore they did [Page] not only preach to them who had not heard the Gospel) he saith they fulfilled the Work of Evangelists, that is (saith he) they preach Christ to them who as yet heard not of the Doctrine of Faith; and published earnestly the Doctrine of the Holy Gospel. Which sheweth that Eusebius calleth them Evangelists, whom the Apostles imployed to Water their Plantations (as Apollo did after Paul, 1 Cor. 3. 6.) also whom they sent to preach to the Unconverted; or any way to preach the Gospel. His at last is his own addition to Eusebius, not the words of that Historian. It is evident then, that Eusebius hath said nothing that can exclude Titus from being an Evangelist. I do not deny that any ordained Minister may preach the Gospel to Infidels, and on that account be called an Evangelist, in a large sense; as may also every on that preaches the Gospel: but we now speak of an Evangelist in the more restricted sense, as it signifieth a Church Officer whom Christ had set in his Church, distinguished from Apostles, Prophets, Pastors, Teachers, &c. Eph. 4. 11. That it is no where insinuated that Titus was such an Evangelist, he alledged p. 111. but we prove from the Work he was imployed about, that it is more than insinuated. He proveth that one may do the Work of an Evangelist who is much higher than an Evangelist (which is a Truth, but very impertinent to his purpose) because Daniel did the Work of the King; who was no King but much lower than a King: a very wise Consequence indeed; That Philip the Evangelist had no power to confirm, or ordain, he affirmeth, p. 112. which is both false; he had power to ordain when any of the Apostles sent him about that Work: and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwise. (For the power of Confirmation, we know none had it: there being no such Ordinance, in our Authors sense, in the Apostolick Church) It is also wide from this purpose, for the Apostles might send the Evangelists clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them. Paul might send Titus to Crete to ordain Elders, and Philip might be sent elsewhere, on another Errand; and yet both be Evangelists. That most of the Primitive Bishops were Evangelists, is true, in the large sense, as before: but not in the strick sense: neither is this to our present purpose: for he saith nothing unless he can also make it appear that all the Evangelists, in the Primitive Times, were Bishops. But what followeth is wholly false: that any Bishop or Presbyter, who now adays converteth any Jew or Pagan, are as properly Evangelists as any of them who were so called in the Primitive Times. If it were so, every such Minister should be a Church Officer of a distinct [...]m all other Church Officers: for there were whom the Scripture [Page] doth particularly call Evangelists, Eph. 4. 11. as so distinguished.

§ 16. That we may more fully and distinctly take off what our Adversaries pretend to bring for Timothy and Titus being Bishops; and not Evangelists; I shal shew what is the true Notion of an Evangelist; whence it will appear plainly, that Timothy and Titus were such: and that there is no ground from what is said of them in Scripture to think, that they were ordinary Officers in the Church, or Diocesan Bishops. I deny not that the word Evangelist is sometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gospel, who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears. Yet it is often taken [...], for, 1. One who wrote the History of the Life and Death of Christ; and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit; and so Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called Evangelists. 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apostles for planting Churches, and propagating the Gospel. That there was such an Officer distinct from all others, both extraordinary, or temporary, and ordinary, or permanent, is evident from that place already cited, Eph. 4. 11. Our work is then to enquire what is the distinguishing Character of this Church Officer, from all others. Also that some are called Evangelists peculiarly, and by way of Distinction from other Officers of the Church, as Philip, Acts 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum, saith, qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuisset, factus est Presbyter [...], nulli certae Ecclesiae affixus; quales Evangelistae vocabantur, Eph: 4. 11. 2 Tim. 4. 5. i. e. [...] Esai. 40. 9. and 51. 7. Ita solent promotiones fieri [...], 1 Tim: 3: 17. Let us then see what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture, or from Antiquity, or by the help of later Writers. The Scripture not only giveth us account (as hath been said) that there was such an Officer in the Church; but that some were sent hither and thither by the Apostles, and that about such a Work as could not be done but by Apostolick Authority; as is evident in Timothy (as is shewed §. 12.) and Titus; whom Paul made his Companion in his Travels, Gal: 2. Whose Journeys and Imployments the Reader may satisfie himself about, from Smectym: §: 3: p: 38. (That I may shun the pains of Transcribing) Tichycus, Softhenes, Luke, &c. several of them are mentioned by Euseb: hist: lib: 3: C: 33. It is evident that these Men can be Ranked into no other Class of Church Officers, neither ordinary nor extraordinary. Wherefore they must be Evangelists: and from the account that we have of them, we must gather what was the Power, the Work, and the Characteristick Note, of an Evangelist, [Page] that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church, needful for the first planting and setling of the Churches, who was imployed by the Apostles, and by them authorized to do what ever work, or exerce what Acts of Power, the Apostles themselves, who imployed them, might have done.

§ 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients, it is to the same purpose: they make them no fixed Officer, but itinerant. They ascribe to them Apostolick Power; and make them subordinat to, and delegated by the Apostles; for this see Euseb: hist: lib: 3: C: 33: (or as some editions have it 37:) who telleth us of some who [...]: being sent Abroad, performed the Work of an Evangelist: and this Work of Evangelists he sheweth to have been, preaehing the Gospel, planting the Faith in strange Places, and ordaining other Pastors, committing to them the Labouring ( [...]) of them who were newly brought in: and he addeth, that they themselves went to other Countreys and People, [...]. Can there be a more lively Description of Evangelists, in the Notion that Presbyterians have of them: Euseb: also hist: lib: 5: C: 9: speaking of Pantaeus, that he was sent as far as Judea, he hath these words [...], &c. There were many of the Evangelists, who had a great Zeal after the manner of the Apostles ( [...]) to promote the Heavenly Word, and to plant it, and these Evangelists, he saith, they were prepared of purpose, which relateth to the Divine Institution of this Office. Augustine de tempore, Serm. 14 [...] calleth the Evangelists, suppares Apostolorum: which setteth them in very nigh degree to the Apostles, and far above the ordinary Bishops: with which if we compare council: Chalcedon: which saith, that it is Sacriledge to set a Bishop in the degree of a Presbyter; they should more count it Sacriledge so to degrade an Evangelist, as to set him in the degree of a Bishop, or an ordinary Pastor in the Church, Chrysost: in Eph. 4. [...] —3ly, Evangelists who went about every where preaching the Gospel, as Priscilla and Aquila. Later Divines, both of the Episcopal and Presbyterian side, tread in the same steps. Grotius not only is clearly for this Notion of Evangelist, on Acts 2: 8: above cited; but on 2 Tim: 4: 5: he calleth them, adjutores Apostolorum; quae (saith he) magna sane dignitas, Scultet: & Piscat: in 2 Tim. 4. Evangelistae proprie dicti erant, tempore Apostolorum, qui itinerum eorundam & laborum socii erant, qui ad diversas missi sunt Ecclesias, ut fundamenta jacerent, quales Philippus, Sylvanus, & alii. Estius in Eph. 4. 11. saith, they were praediti singulari dono Evangelium predicandi. Grotius, and Hamond on the [Page] same Text, they were adjutores, vel comites Apostolorum. From all this it may be concluded, that Timothy and Titus were Evangelists in the strict sense of that word: and considering the nature of their Office, and their Travels mentioned in the Scripture, they were not fixed to any particular Charge: and consequently were not Bishops, in the sense that we use that word. If my Adversary will prove them to be Bishops, he must bring Arguments to prove their Office to have been ordinary and permanent in the Church; and that they were fixed in a particular Pastoral Relation, each to some Flock: which is no ways done by what he hath yet said.

§ 18. I now proceed with my Antagonist, who p. 112. bringeth a new Argument, viz. That James the Just was Bishop of Jerusalem, and he saith, it is not material to his design, whether he was one of the twelve Apostles, or not: One would think that this is more to his purpose than he is aware of: for he is proving the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles, and if James was an Apostle, this instance can never prove such Succession. But I pass this. I think he was one of the twelve, because he is so called, Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul speaketh there of the Apostles in the strickest sense; for he cannot mean he had seen no Preacher of the Gospel at Jerusalem, save Peter, and that he speaketh of that James, who abode at Jerusalem, when the rest of the Apostles left it, is not to be doubted. That James stayed at Jerusalem, and did not travel as the rest of the Apostles, I have acknowledged, §. 4. and there have given account how it came to pass. That he had all the Power that our Brethren give to their Diocesan, we deny not: The Apostolate included that, and more. That he might be called a Bishop, and was sometimes so stiled, we may easily grant: for that word is sometimes used generally: for all Church Rulers, and not only Apostles, but their, and our great Master is so called, 1 Pet. 2. 25. But none of these Concessions, nor all of them in Conjunction, will prove that James was Bishop of Jerusalem, in the sense of the word that is now current; that is, that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church, inferior to an Apostle, and an Evangelist, whose Jurisdiction was limited to one District, and not extended to all the World. Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Episcopacy at Jerusalem. 1. It is uniformly attested by the most ancient Witnesses, particularly, Clem. Alexandr. and Hegesippus. I can easily yield him a great many more Witnesses; and persons of more Credit than Hegesippus, and of more Antiquity than Clem. Alexandr. tho I will not yield, [Page] that all his Adversaries grant it, in his sense. Salmasius (whom he citeth) saith nothing, but that he abode at Jerusalem. The Answer to this Argument is easie, the Ancients called James Bishop of Jerusalem (as they also called some other Apostles who abode not so long in one place) because of his Apostolical Authority which he there exercised; which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients (or Moderns either) ascribe to a Bishop: and usually they began their Catalogues of Succession with some Apostle, or Apostolick Man: as Peter at Rome; tho it is certain he did not reside there: and it is a Question whether ever he was there. And indeed it was usual with the Ancients to speak of things long before their time, in the Dialect that was current among themselves. His Argument from this Denomination is naught, unless he can make it appear, that James had his Authority, not from his Apostolate; but by his being ordained a Bishop. I wonder to find that such a Learned Man as Downam asserteth that James, before his Ordination as Bishop, had Authority as an Apostle; but had no Jurisdiction over that particular place; but was a Pastor sine titulo: for this strange fancie will infer, that Paul and the rest of the Apostles never had Jurisdiction any where; seing they were no where ordained Bishops: nor doth the Scripture give account of any such Ordination of James.

§. 19. We have further Argument from p. 113. Peter when he was delivered out of Prison commands that these things be made known to James, Acts 12. 17. Where (saith he very wisely) the deference paid to Saint James is visible: and taken notice of elsewhere frequently, as Gal: 1: 19: and 2. 1, 9. Truly the Papists have many Arguments that have a fairer shew than this hath for its Conclusion, for Peters Supremacy. I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning, is not ashamed of such an Argument. Was not all this respect due to James as an Apostle; how then doth it prove him to have been a Bishop: is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction (which yet we deny not to James at Jerusalem) cannot Men be civil to a Person so eminent for Grace, Gifts, and his Character, but they must make him a Diocesan Bishop? but the strongest Argument is yet behind: Act. 15. He pronounceth the Sentence by his Episcopal Authority. A. He might far rather do it by his Apostolick Authority: but there was no need of either of them; he did it as being chosen Moderator of that Meeting: and that he exercised no Episcopal Authority in this Case, is evident; for the rest of the Apostles were present, Act. 15. 2, 4, 6, 22. And it was never heard of (but among Papists) that one Apostle had Authority [Page] over another, or over all the rest: much less that a Bishop should have Authority over Apostles. I am afraid this Author unawares doth so stretch the Episcopal Authority, that he will make it break, and be contemptible. He telleth us, Calvin holdeth all that he saith, on Gal: 2: 9: in saying that James was preferred to Peter, because he was Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae praefectus. He disingenuously leaveth out Calvins, fortassis; which sheweth that he was not positive in that matter. But I shall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly, and let him make his best of it. Let it be granted that James was chosen Praeses of that Meeting, because of his Residence at Jerusalem, and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held, (not as Bishop but as Apostle) this can prove no Preference to any of the Apostles; Presidency in such a case doth not infer a Superiority of Power. It rather sheweth that the Apostles did not there act in their Apostolick Capacity, but in a Parity with the other Elders; with whom they are always joyned in that Chapter, when spoken of. Our Author now making a Transition to another Head of Arguments, cannot go out of his Road, in concluding with insolent Contempt of his Adversaries. I do not (saith he) now insist on these imaginary and superficial Exceptions that are made by our Adversaries. If they were such, they were well suted to some of the Arguments he hath last used.

§ 20. Another Argument he beginneth, p. 114. and prosecuteth it in some Pages following, is taken from the seven Angels of the seven Asiatick Churches; by whom he understandeth the Bishops of these Churches: if they were so, the Consequence is, that Bishops were setled in the Churches by the Apostles: and that these Churches were not by Divine Right ruled by a Colledge of Presbyters. This Argument hath been much tossed; and in my Opinion, urged with more Strength, by others of his Party, than he giveth to it. For clearing the Truth in this Matter, I shall give my Opinion, and lay down the Grounds of it; and then Examine what he saith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument. I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about these Angels. The first is, that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church; for this our Author citeth Salmasius, Walo. Messal. p. 184. Ambrosius Ausbertus, is also cited by Smectym: and Aretas Caesariensis by Turret. his Words are, [...], &c. Also Ticonius was of this Opinion, as is said by August. de Doct. Christian. lib. 3. c. 30. And it is certain, that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in [Page] these Epistles; but John was commanded to write them to the Churches, Rev. 1. 11. And in the Conclusion of every Epistle, all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches, and not to the Ministers only, which yet doth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church: their Concernments in these times were entrusted to the Angel; not that they were the Angel. Another Opinion is that of Beza, Reynolds, and others; who take Angel [...]; for a single person; but maintain, that not a Diocesan Bishop is to be understood, 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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, [...], and the rest in Thyatira: is not there a plain Intimation of a Plurality, under the Name of the Angel? by the rest in Thyatira must needs be understood them who are distinct from the Angel, and the Angel must be who ever is distinct from these who are called the rest? and yet beside the rest, there is a Plurality, you. My Antagonist hath an Answer to this Passage, such as it is; which I shall consider, when I come to Examine his Vindication of his Argument. Smectym. Sect. 13. out of Fox, Meditation on the Revelation (which I have not seen) citeth August. Ep. 132. Sic enim (saith he) in Apocalypsi legimus, Angelus, &c. Quod si de Angelo superiorum Coelorum, & non de praepositis Ecclesiae velit intelligi, non consequenter dicat habeo adversum te, &c. And [Page] Homil. 1. in Apocaly [...]. Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatirae, habeo adversum te pauca, dicit praepositis Ecclesiarum. And Greg. moral. lib. 34. in Job 4. Saepè sacra Scriptura praedicatores Ecclesiae, pro eo quod Patris gloriam annunciant, Angelorum nomine solere designare: & hinc est quod Joannes in Apocalypsi septem Ecclesiis scribens, Angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur, id est, praedicatoribus populorum. Also Primasius, Haymo, Beda, Richardus, Thomas, and others are cited by Mr. Fox, to this purpose.

§ 23. I shall now examine what my Adversary bringeth, offensively, or defensively, for his Opinion about these Angels, 1. He falleth on Walo Messalinus, who p. 184. interpreteth Angel, by Church: calling V. G. the Angel of Ephesus, the Church of Ephesus; and he giveth the reason, because the Christians in each of these Towns were purior & sanctior pars urbis, atque adeo magis spiritualis; therefore that part was compared to an Angel. Tho I do not owne this Notion of the Learned Salmasius, yet I judge our Authors calling it a silly Subterfuge, and his ridiculing of it, to be pretty ridiculous: he maketh the meaning be, the seven Stars are the Angels of the seven Churches, that is, the Churches of the seven Churches. By his favour, it hath no such sense (Salmasius can hardly be Taxed with Nonsense, even by Men of more Critical Skill than this Author is) it should be thus Paraphrased, the seven Angels are the Churches of the seven Towns: and it is evident, that according to the Opinion of that Learned Writer, the Angels are not distinguished from the Churches, but from the Towns wherein they were. Also, when the Epistle is addressed to the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, the meaning is not, to the Church of the Church of Ephesus; but to the Church which is at Ephesus: even as the Virgin Daughter of Israel, is not the Nation of the Nation of Israel; but that Nation which is called Israel. Mystical Expressions must not be strained by Critical Wits: some Atheists, by this method, have endeavoured to draw Nonsense out of the most Profound, and Instructive Parts of Scripture. Our Author hath not dealt very fairly with Salmasius, in this matter; for he understandeth by Angel, the Church Guides signanter, and also the whole Church; his words are, per Ecclesiam (having said that Angelus was Ecclesia) non tantum Ecclesiasticum ordinem intellexit Joannes, sed universum in quaque civitate fidelem populum, ut mo [...] est Apostolis loqui. And if he will ridicule Salmasius, the same Censure must fall on Aretas Bishop of Cesarea Cappadociae, whom Salmasius citeth, p. 183. Discoursing at large to the same purpose. I cannot understand what he designeth by telling us, p. 115. That the Church [Page] cannot be called a Company, a Multitude, or a Colledge of Angels; but one single Angel praesiding in their Ecclesiastical Meetings. For no Man doth so sense the word; but by Angel some understand a Multitude of People, others a Plurality of Elders; but none of them make Angel to be a Multitude of Angels.

§ 24. He next telleth us, that tho there be Instructions in these Epistles, in which others are concerned, yet the Epistles are no less to single Angels, tha [...] the Epistle to the Philippians is to the whole Church there, tho particular Compellations he used, as, I intreat thee true Yoke Fellow, Ch. 4. Here is an odd Consequence, there is an Apostrophe used to a single person, in an Epistle expresly Directed to a Community, and that in plain and proper Language, Ergo, when in a Mystical Speech an Epistle is Directed in the singular Number, in a borrowed Term, we may not understand a Plurality, tho when the Writer of the Epistle speaketh more properly, he speak expresly to a Plurality. What tho the Conclusion of the second Epistle to Timothy had been to a Plurality; doth it thence follow, that a Mystical Word in the singular Number, may not be Plurally taken? the contrary would seem to follow more natively. But he is guilty of a double Mistake here, one is, that the Conclusion of that Epistle is to all the Faithful; the last words are, The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit; grace be with you Where he is mentioned expresly as the Person to whom the Epistle is Directed: and the People of God with him are remembred also expresly: it is not alike, when the Word is used in the Direction of an Epistle, which, tho singular, is capable of a plural Sense; and in the Epistle a Plurality is expresly spoken to. His next Fancy is most groundless, that the Bishops of the Asiatick Churches are called Angels in Imitation of the High Priest, who was Dignified with that Name: and for this he citeth Mal. 2. at the 7. v. For tho we should grant that [...] may be Translated Angel, as well as Messenger; yet this is a Description of the Priests Work and Authority, telling us what he is; it is not a Name by which he used to be Designed. Again, what Warrant is there to say, that this is meant of the High Priest peculiarly? it is evidently to be understood of Priests in common: the Priest, that is, every Priest. For Deut. 27. 9, 10, 11. (whence that Axiom seemeth to be taken) Ascribeth this Priviledge to a Plurality of Priests; and not to the High Priest alone. Further, it is a bad Consequence, the High Priest was called an Angel, and the Church Rulers are called Angels, Ergo, every one of them had the same Jurisdiction that hehad: this is a loose way [Page] of Reasoning; and either will fix the Pope in his Chair, or is Insignicant. He hinteth (very superficially, and obscurely) an Answer to one of our Exceptions, p. 116. That the Faults of the Churches are imputed to the Angels, because they had Spiritual Power to reform them. Reply, it cannot be so understood; for some of the Faults are such as no Church Discipline can reach, nor any Ministerial Care prevent, or amend: as having a name to live when they are dead; Hypocrisie is not properly the Object of Church Censures: but such Scandal as are the Symptoms of it: nor are Ministers always to blame when the Word doth not make People sincere. That this Hypocrisie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel, may be gathered from v. 4. where a few, and only a few, in that Church, are excepted from that blame. I add, that not only the Angel is blamed for the Faults of the Church; but the Church is threatned for the Fault of the Angel: if the Epistle be Directed to him in his single Capacity.

§ 25. He hath a peculiar Answer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you, and to the rest in Thyatira. 1. He borroweth an Answer from Doctor Hamond against Blondel, who not only blameth our Translation, but the Greek; which he alledgeth to be corrupted, by adding [...]: he would have it read to you, the rest of Thyatira. His ground is, the most ancient Manuscripts; particularly, that of Alexandria, preserved in the Royal Library, hath not this [...]. Ans. It is Confidence enough, if it be also Candor, to pretend to the Countenance of the most of the ancient Manuscripts, when but one can be instanced. Grotius, Ribera, and Beza, mention but three, which is far from the most part; and Beza proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas. I oppose to this bold Pretence, the Collections of various Readings made by Curcellaeus (who hath, with no good Design toward the Scripture, gathered together what he could meet with; and may be more than ever were extant) where this is not to be found. Also the Laborious Work of the Learned and Industrious Walton, who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta, hath gathered the various Readings out of most ancient Manuscripts: (which he there nameth) and not a word of these in any of them. Likewise the Operose Notes of Lucas Brugensis, (in the fore-mentioned Appendix) where nothing of this appeareth. If his one Manuscript, be enough to Overballance all the Manuscripts, and Printed Copies extant, let the Reader judge. Because he could not but jealous this Shift as insufficient to his purpose, he hath a second Answer, which supposeth our Reading of the [Page] Text to be right: that [...], you, relateth to all the Churches of Asia, which had been spoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention, and let him have the praise of it, (Doctor Ham. in loc. maketh the rest to be the other Cities under Thyatira the Metropolis, which is better sense: but without all ground, unless what is in Question be yielded to him:) his Party may applaud his Zeal, which will rather Distort the Scripture, and turn it to Nonsense, than not defend the Dignity of Bishops. For what sense could it make, I will make all the Churches of Asia to know that I search the Reins and Hearts; but to you, the Churches of Asia, and to the rest in Thyatira, I say: these of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Asia; how then can they be called the rest, as distinguished from them. Beside, he had been speaking of the Churches of Asia in the third person: It were then strange, if with the same breath he should speak to them in the second person. I insist not on his calling Beza's sense of the Angel, that a Praeses is meant, ridiculous, and contrary to the sense of all Antiquity; such Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick. Neither doth Beza speak of a Weekly, or Monethly Moderator, but pleadeth against his being perpetual: which this Author should have opposed with Reason, or Scripture, not with Taunts. We make no Argument of the seven Angels not being called Bishops: his refuting of it is idle work. That Polycarp was then Bishop of Smyrna (as he saith p. 118.) is no more certain than that Timothy was then Bishop of Ephesus: and if the Good that is said of Smyrna, sute to the one History, the Ill that is said of Ephesus, will as ill agree to the other. He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries (the Presbyterians) being spoiled by comparing the Epistle to the Angel of Smyrna with the most ancient Acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arise from this Comparison; wherefore he cannot expect that we should Answer them: which might easily be done, if they be no stronger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity.

§ 26. He hath now fallen on an easie way to determine the whole Question, p. 118. It is pity it came not sooner, that all this Labour might have been saved. But it may be this Birth also may miscarry. Parturiunt montes,—the Question seemeth to me to be in the same State, and his Opinion to labour under the same Difficulties, as before this Invention was hatched. His easie way lieth in three Enquiries. Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors. 2. Whether they insist frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in Particular Sees, when they[Page]reason against Hereticks. 3. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority, and Tradition, in an Affair of this Consequence? If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Dictat magisterially the Answers to these three Questions, our whole Debate will soon, but not soundly, be at an end: but if we contest every one of them (in his sense) with him, we cannot so soon conclude this Dispute as he imagineth: For his first Enquiry, it must not be made, nor the matter determined so indistinctly as he doth. It is not denyed that Bishops succeeded to the Apostles; but the Question is, whether these Bishops had the same Jurisdiction over Presbyters and People, that the Apostles had? The Ancients sometimes, with the Scripture, called all Presbyters Bishops; sometimes, by a Custom that early crept into the Church, they restricted that Name to the Praeses in the Meeting of Presbyters: and the Question is, whether this Praeses had the Apostolick Power in his single person, or it was diffused equally among the Members of that Colledge in which he did praeside? This being premised as the state of this Question about Succession to the Apostles; I hold, that all that Apostolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted, and must be continued to the end, was communicated, not to the Praeses alone, but also to the rest of the Presbyters: and that all of them were the Apostles Successors, in that respect: he is for the contrary Opinion.

§ 27. Let us now hear his Reasons, Two things he brings for Arguments, or what else I do not well know. One is, It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the Apostolical Power was derived to the Bishops as their Successors, from the Catalogue of Bishops in the Apostolick Sees, by the most ancient Records of the Church. This is no dreadful Argument: for, 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth (I need not transcribe them) there is not one in which an Apostle was said to sit, but that of Jerusalem: the rest indeed were excellent Men who first praesided in these Churches: but not Apostles; and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apostolick, than that of Canterbury or York, &c. whose Bishops this Author reckoneth to be the Apostles Successors, tho not so immediatly as those mentioned. 2. These Catalogues that he mentioneth, were not so early made as he would insinuat: they do indeed begin with early things, and guess at what past in, or near, the Apostles Times: but we do not find that such Co [...]ion of the Succession of Bishops was made for near three hundred years [...]er Christ; except some little account by Irenaeus: and these that are [...]nt, are so perplext, and do so disagree with one another, [Page] that nothing can be concluded from them, with any certainty: particularly in the Succession at Rome, there is no certainty that Peter was there, nor who were after him; the same might be shewed of others of them. 3. No more can be proved from these Catalogues, but that in the first Ages of the Church, there were such men who Ruled and Taught these Churches, whom after Ages called Bishops: but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had; nor whether they ruled these Churches alone, or in Parity with the rest of the Presbyters. As Gers-Bucer expresseth it, p. 423. Non queritur an Episcopi continua successione usque ad Nicenum Concilium Ecclesias gubernaverint, sed quales Episcopi suerunt; & quid imperii aut potestatis in Ecclesiam aut Presbyterium habuerunt. That one only is mentioned is no proof of sole power: for, 1. That is not always done, Irenaeus lib. 3. C. 3. beginneth the Succession at Rome with Peter and Paul. 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldest, or the Praeses of their Meeting, or the Man of most Fame for Grace or Gifts. For their Design was not to number all the Pastors of the Churches; but to shew a Succession of Pastors, and of sound Doctrine. Neither do we find such Records of Succession in all Churches, but in some that were of most Note.

§ 28. His second Enquiry and Observation, p. 119. is, In what Language the Ancients spake of Bishops, who are said to have succeeded to the Apostles: where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpose in hand. His first is Irenaeus: Et habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis, & successores eorum usque ad nos, qui nihil tale docuerunt, neque cognoverunt, quale ab his deliratur. What can be hence inferred, further than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men, whom Irenaeus calleth Bishops, from the Apostles time: which is not to our Question. That Irenaeus Reasons from this against the Valentinians, is not probative of our Authors point: what he addeth out of Irenaeus, Quos (Episcopi) & successoru relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum Magisterii tradentes; is not concludent: for, 1. This is not spoken of a single Bishop in one place; but of all the Pastors of the Churches: whom we maintain to have been a Plurality. 2. Or this Magisterium may well be understood of their Teaching Authority; for that was to his purpose; that they whom the Apostles Authorized to Teach the Church, Taught not the Doctrine of the Valentinians. For what he saith that Irenaeus carefully distinguishes between Bishops and Presbyters, he hath cited no place for it: and if he had, it importeth no more, but that special notice was taken of the [Page] Praeses, beyond the rest of the Presbyters: it can never prove sole, nor superior Jurisdiction. Another Citation out of Irenaeus (that I may not transcribe all the words) is no more, but that Apostoli illis tradiderunt Ecclesias: which we deny not: seing it may be understood of all Presbyters: and indeed Irenaeus saith the same of Presbyters, lib. 4. C. 43. Only our Author will have it understood of Bishops, because of their Age: on the contrary, I plead, that it should be understaod of Presbyters by Office? because Preaching Power was committed to them, and not to Bishops only: and it is of that he is speaking; as that by which the Valentinian, and other Heresies were condemned. Another Testimony out of Irenaeus, we must obey them qui successionem habent ab Apostolis—qui cum Episcopatus successione Charisma veritatis certum, secundum placitum Dei acceperunt. I see nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to every Presbyter, or Pastor of the Church; nor is there any Shadow of Ground for his Inference, viz. Ye see here, that the Episcopal and Apostolical Dignity are one and the same, in the Language of Irenaeus. None can see this, unless the Eyes of his mind be Tinctured with prejudice. For 1. Episcopatus successio is competent to all Presbyters, in our Opinion: which he should refute, not suppose it to be false. 2. Here is not the Apostolical Dignity mentioned by Irenaeus, but a part of it, to wit Charisma veritatis certum; which I think he will not say is peculiar to Diocesans: the Church would be ill served, if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth: seing they cannot preach to all their People: and in our days seldom preach to any of them. He bringeth another wonderful Argument, which he speaks of as what may supersede his insisting on what he is discoursing: the Prophesy (saith he) which threatned that the Bishoprick possessed by a notorious Malefactor should be given to another, was literally fulfilled when Matthias was advanced to the Apostolate, in the Room of Judas. I am so slow as that I cannot perceive what he aimeth at by this, unless he would infer, Matthias succeeded to Judas, Ergo, the Bishops, and they alone, succeed to the Apostles: which is much more ridiculous, than what he a litle before he charged Beza with. If he lay stress on the word Bishoprick, it is captio ab homonymia.

§ 29. Cyprian is the next Father whom he adduceth, as a Witness that the Bishops succeed to the Apostles. All that he bringeth from the Writings of that Learned Father, and Holy Martyr, I have lately Answered, in a Debate on this Subject, with I. S. I am not willing to repeat: yet I shall point at Answers to what he citeth. Cyprian saith, [Page] Apostolos, id est, Episcopos & Praepositos, Dominus elegit. His Objection hath its own Answer; Cyprian distinguisheth between Episcopos & Praepositos: the President Bishop and the Presbyter; and he calleth them both Apostles; because they succeeded to the Apostles. I hope he will not make Praepositos to be Exegetick of Apostolos, least he make Cyprians sense to be, Apostolos, i. e. Episcopos, i. e. Praepositos. Another Citation, quod enim non periculum metuere debemus de offensa Domini, quando aliqui de Presbyterie, nec Evangelii, nec loci sui memores, neque futurum Dei judicium, neque nunc sibi Praepositum Episcopum cogitantes, quod nunquam omnino sub Antecessoribus nostris factum est, totum sibi vendicant. This may seem plausible to such as know not the occasion of these words; which was: while Cyprian was retired from Carthage, because of the Persecution, some of the Presbyters, without the rest, took on them to absolve some of the Lapsed: this Cyprian complaineth of, as justly he might; yea, he had cause to complain, that their Bishop (that is, constant Moderator of their Presbytery) was neglected in this matter; for that cause should have been determined in consessu Presbyterorum; which should have been called together by him; as Praepositus illis, that is, by their Choice, made the constant Praeses of their Meeting: There is no proof here of a solitude of Power: nor of Cyprians Succession to the Apostles (which is the thing that our Author citeth it for) more than the rest of the Presbyters did. The special notice that is here taken of his being neglected, proceeded from the Genius of that Age, wherein perpetual Presidency had set the Bishop a little higher in Dignity above the Presbyters, than they had been from the beginning. Another Citation (which also misseth the mark, viz. Succession to the Apostles) is, that Cyprian saith, Ecclesia super Episcopos constituitur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernatur; and saith, this is Divina lege fundatum. All this may be understood of Scripture Bishops, that is, all the Presbyters: and if ye will take it of the Cyprianick Bishop, that is, the Praeses, we assent to it as truth; provided we understand not these Bishops in their single Capacity, but in Conjunction with their Presbyters: the Church is set on all Pastors who teach sound Doctrine, with respect to her Soundness in the Faith, and Edification in Holiness: on the Presbytery, or ruling part, (among whom, in Cyprians time, the Praeses, or Bishop, was specially taken notice of, tho he did not rule by himself) with respect to her good Order: and that all this is Juris Divini, I no way doubt. If our Author can make out sole Jurisdiction from these words, he must bring better [Page] Arguments than I have yet seen. Again, Cyprian saith, the Bishops succeeded to the Apostles vicaria ordinatione. This is also granted, and may be understood of all Pastors of the Church; and we deny it not of the praesides Presbyteriorum, who were peculiarly called Bishops: they succeeded to the Apostles as Ministers of the Gospel; but that they either had the Plenitude of Apostolick Power, or that their Presidency, as a distinct Office, or superior Degree, was by Succession from the Apostles, we deny; and it is not proved from Cyprians words. Their ruling power they have, with the rest, by Divine, or Apostolick Institution: that there be a Presidency, is of the Law of Nature; and hath Scripture example; the person who should preside, is to be chosen by common consent; nor do we find any warrant from Scripture, either that he should have power superior to the rest, or that this Presidency should always be in one person. He bringeth also Tertullian, saying, percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Episcoporum suis locis praesident: habes Corinthum, habes Ephesum, habes Romam. This Testimony importeth no more than that there continueth in the Churches, planted by the Apostles, a Government to this day. Gathedrae cannot be strained to signifie a Bishop with sole Jurisdiction: the Notion of that word is sufficiently Answered by a Judicature in the Church, where one presideth: which we say should be in every Church. He is so consident of his Conclusion, that he desireth us to read Cyprian himself (we do it, Sir, and think not fit to take all on Trust that is cited out of him by your Party) and he thinketh the Disingenuity of Blondel, and his Associats will appear to the highest Degree. I desire, on the other hand, that he would read him with an Unbyassed Mind, and then all this Airy Confidence will evanish. That he asserteth, p. 123. that the Authority of Bishops over Presbyters, Deacons, and Laity, will appear to them who read Cyprian, is denyed, except in the sense that I yielded in the Book above pointed at: they have joynt power with the rest of the Consistory over one another, and over the whole Church.

§ 30. I proceed with him p. 123. to his second Enquiry: Whether the Ancients insisted frequently on this Succession of single Persons to the Apostles in particular Sees, in their Reasoning against Hereticks. I acknowledge that they frequently Reasoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by persons succeeding to the Apostles in particular Churches: and that they named particular Men, or single Persons in that Succession: but that they laid any weight on their being single Persons whom they so [Page] named; or that they lookt on these as the only Successors of the Apostles in these Churches, we deny; and have not yet seen it proved. It is the same thing, as to the Strength of their Reasoning, whether one Minister, or more, had the Power of Governing these Churches. Wherefore, if we should yield him all that he is here enquiring for, it doth not advantage his Cause, nor hurt ours; unless it be made appear that the single persons so named, were the sole, or supreme Rulers in these Churches: which I am well assured is not proved by any of the Testimonies that he bringeth. His first Citation is out of Tertull. whose Argument is plainly this, that the Hereticks could not shew the beginning of their Churches, as the Orthodox could do, from persons placed then by the Apostles; as Polycarp was by John at Smyrna, and others in other places: and he addeth, perinde utique & caeterae exhibent, quos ab Apostoli in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habeant. Here is no one word of Singularity of Power: and it is certain, that the Apostolici Seed of sound Doctrine might be transmitted to Posterity by a Plurality of Presbyters, as well as by single Bishops: yea, and better too; for if one erred, the rest might correct him; but if the Bishop erred, there w [...] none in that Church that might oppose him. That Polycarp in Smyrna and none else, is named, doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine, and far less that he Governed that Church by himself And indeed the Zeal and Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125. was [...] good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure: but as this Unanimity could not be in one Church, but among a Plurality of Tea chers, so the Unanimity of a few Bishops in several Diocesses, could not be so convincing in this matter, as that, with the Unanimity of Presbyters among themselves in these several Churches that they were to instruct. Another Testimony of Tertull. he bringeth, Ordo tamen Episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit authorem. There is nothing here but what hath been already Answered: there was an Order, or Succession of Bishops, whereof John the Apostle 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 [Page] 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. [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page]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 [Page] 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. [Page] 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 ess [...] 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; [Page] 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 [Page] these Fa [...]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 [...] [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 a [...]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, [Page] 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. [Page]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [...], or Moderator; soon after, there was a difference made in their Dignity: but we deny that there was, in the first Antiquity, any difference in the matter of Jurisdiction: and so our Principle standeth firm, for all this Concession. What he next citeth, out of the same Author, p. 17. is so far from his purpose, that it sheweth litle Skill, or Consideration at least, that he mentioneth it: Salmasius saith the Apostles sometimes called themselves Bishops and Presbyters, that they might put the Honour on them to whom they committed the care of the Churches, to seem to be equal to them. May not this be meant of Presbyters, as well as Bishops, that the Apostles so honoured them. For our Argument from the Confusion of Names of Bishop, and Presbyter, which he thinks is here overturned: the Reader, before he come this length, will see this Cavill to be groundless; if he consider how we manage that Argument. He citeth him also saying, that the Ancients called Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, and Apostle. I have above shewed in what sense both these are spoken, without any Inconveniency to our Cause, see Sect. 2. § 3. It is as litle to his purpose, that he further citeth from Salmasius, that he saith James, whom the Ancients say was ordained Bishop of Jerusalem, was over the lesser Bishops, as now one Bishop is over many Presbyters. He was over the Bishops that is Presbyters, in the Quality of an Apostle: that the Ancients called him a Bishop, I have shewed how that is to be understood, in the place last cited. He is at him again, in his p. 181. of Wal. Messal. that he confesseth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter, and Paul, tho not soon after; yet in the end of the first Century, and beginning of the second. If Salmasius mean (as I am confident he doth) that a Change unto perpetual a Praesidency, and Majority of Dignity and Notice, did then begin to creep in, I confess the same: let our Author make his best advantage of it: if he think that Bishops were then set up with sole or superior Jurisdiction, I dissent from him: tho even this would not overturn our Cause, which is built on Scripture, not on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after the Apostles.

[Page] § 41. He next, p. 138. brings some concessions of Blondel, apol. p. 3. that Episcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year, 140, This is a foul misrepresentation: Blondel is there speaking of the Divisions, in which one said, I am of Paul, &c. after the manner of the Corinthians; that this could not be proved to be before the year 140. Now it is probable that Episcopacy, as the supposed remedy, was not presently applied on the first appearance of the Malady: but that other means were used. Blondel saith, Pref. p. 76. that in great Cities, where were many Thousands of Christians, they had but one Church; this saith our Author, could not be without a Bishop over them. Which I deny: the contrarie is ordinary at this day: all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie, and their Moderator; which in that place he calleth unicum concessum. in some places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church; which I cannot so well understand. Yet neither way overturneth Presbyterie; nor doth necessarily infer Episcopacy. He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg. which is a Mistake; the Words are in his Epistle to Dr. Morley P. mihi 34. nor are his Words fully Cited: he expresly assenteth to Jerome, Apostolorum aetate inter Episcopos & Presbyteros nihil fuisse discriminis; & communi Presbyterorum Concilio Ecclesias fuisse administratas: then follow the Words Cited by the Enquirer, asserting the antiquity of Episcopacie. And a little after, proinde tam qui Presbyterialem, quam qui Episcopalem ordinem juris Divini esse asserunt, videntur [...]. So that it is plain that Bochart saith as little for his Cause as for ours; Seing both are for a jus Divinum. So that if all whom he hath mentioned were sitting in Council (it is his own conceit) we should have two for his one, and allow Bocharts suffrage to be, non liquet. And let him raise what Batteries he will on this ground, which he saith the Adversary yieldeth (supposing fondly four men who lived in Presbyterian Churches, to be the whole Partie; and that some of them said what they never thought.) His first Batterie is, a Question P. 140 & seq (que) Seing that Episcopy was the Government all over the Christian Church toward the beginning of the Second Centurie, quo molimine, quibus machinis, was the Ecclesiastical paritie of Presbyters (which the Apostles left the Church in Possession of) changed from that aequality into Prelacie, and here he hath a long harangue, and many tragical words, setting forth the impossibility of this Change, and the absurditie of asserting it. To all this the Answer is plain and easie, and I hope will be convincing to such as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman seemeth to be under the power of.

[Page] §. 42. I Answer then 1. This his Supposition we will never yield, unless we see more reason for it than yet hath been proposed: we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made such concessions as he supposeth: and if any of them have, let him answer the Absurditie that followeth on it, we are not concerned, we cau yeild no further than, the Apostles, having settled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyter, and Nature having made a reses necessarie in their Meetings; soon after (the remains of the History of these Ages causeth that we cannot t [...] how soon) this Presidencie being constant in the same person, began [...] be taken more notice of than was fit, and more deference to be payed [...] the Praeses than was meet: and that after some Ages, some, in some places did Usurp, or grasp at more Power than was due: but that either the Solitude of Church Power, or the Superiority of it, was owned, [...] practised avowedly, for the first three Centuries, we deny: yea, we [...] not find that it became Universal for some time after. Wherfore, [...] ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth; and so, his roaring Canon will prove but bruta fulmina; and we are not obliged to account for neither so sudden, nor so great a Change, as he mentioneth. 2. We can easily give a rational dilineation of such a Change, as was indeed made from the Apostolick constitution, and practice of the first times. We do not ascribe it to a general Council, nor to a Conspiracie of all the Presbyters in their scattered and Persecuted State, to make that Change. Nor do we derogate from the Holyness and faithfulness of the first Pastors of the Church who were settled by the Apostles: let him please himself with all he saith to prove the Absurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way. But 1. We are persuaded that a great Change there was, by compareing the Practice, and some Canons of Cent. 5, 6, 7. &c. with the Apostolick Writings. 2. We think there is no impossibilitie in such a Change as I have acknowledged: considering the corruption of Men, yea the sinful infirmities of good Men; some of whom may be apt to Usurp; and others to overlook evils that are not easily observable in their Progress. And considering how suddenly Changes to the worse have fallen out in the Church, see Moses Prae [...]icti [...] Deut. 31. 27, 28, 29. see also Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent Apostacies of Israel after the death of their good Kings made this so evident, that it can never be denied, nor ought to be wondered at. 3. This Change did not come suddenly, nor all at once, and therefore was not so obvious to everie ones Observation: that it was not complained of by any [Page] we cannot say; not having the compleat and distinct Records of the first Ages: farre less can it be affirmed that it was not observed by some who might Lament it in Secret; but for Peace sake, and because the things they had to Complain of were dark and doubtful, and but small, and almost insensible Declensions from what had been before, they would make little noise with their dissatisfactions. It is well known that thus Degeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of the Church: and I wish it be not at this Day. Verie often a well Reformed Church doth thus degenerate, whose Maladie is like latent Diseases which are little observed till they be past Remedy.

§. 43. I adde 4. The true Account of this Change of the Church is given by way of Praediction, by our Lord himself on the Parable of the Tares of the field, Matth. 13. 24. &c. this with other Corruptions, grew while the Guids of the Church slept, which case, in some degree or other, is incident to the best of Men; and as, in process of time, the Ministers of the Church grew more remisse, this evil had the more advantage to grow. Of this I have Discoursed else-where; Rational Def. of non conformitie. I shall now attend my Antagonist, endeavouring to Run down this apprehension of things with many hard Words: which amount to no more but this, that it was impossible to be brought about, because of the observablenss and suddeness of the Change, and the Faithfulness of the Guids of the Church that then were set over her. All which is already Answered. His ingeminating his Question about the possibility of this Change, P. 142. his saying, that this cannot be imagined, if we believe the other parts of Evangelical History; are but words that evanish into nothing, on supposition of the Account that I have given of it: for we deny that the Evangelical History, whether Sacred, or Humane, giveth us Account of such a constitution of Episcopacy as he imagineth, in the first Ages. That no Historian took Notice of it, though it was most memorable, p. 143. is still his rotten Hypothesis, that this Change should have been made suddenly, and all at once: and I adde the History of the time of the Rise and Progress of this is defective, and uncertain, as I have shewed, Sect. 32. We do not say that it was Agreed upon by some ambitious Ecclesiasticks, as he P. 144. such Men might carrie it on in their several places, without Consultation; Nature, and a corrupt Heart, prompting them to it, and the World and Satan tempting them: yea, it might in some degree, be promoted by better Men than these, unawares; taking that for their Due which was not so: for its being submitted[Page]to tamely (which he mentioneth ibid.) that was not to be wondered at, because of the Humility of some, and minding other work for the Peoples Edification, leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it; and their not observing this Change, which by in insensible Degrees, made its Progress so in the dark.

§. 44. He p. 145, &c. draweth some absurd Consequences, by which he laboureth to load our Assertion, that the Apostolick Government of Paritie, was in after Ages, changed into Prelacie. The 1. is, that they who were marked for the Sacred Function by the Lord Christ, after some Experience, Judged it necessary to Change Parity for Prelacy. 2. That this Change was brought about, not in any of the ordinary Methods by which things of that nature are transacted among Mankind, but instantly, and in a miraculous manner. 3. That the immediate Successors of the Apostles were all Presbyterians (this we hold) but that these Presbyterians (most of them Martyrs for Christianitie) preferred Prelacy to Paritie. 4. That in their Opinion, there was no other Remedie againstSchism and Confusion. He saith, these Conclusions are evident, and necessarie, if their (the Presbyterians) Hypothesis be allowed. Such Consequences from our Opinion we utterly deny; and Challenge him to Prove their Dependance on it. The judicious Reader will easily see, that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit, that we hold that this Change was made suddenly, openly, and all at once: if he find us Maintaing that, let him load our Opinion with as many absurd Consequences, as he can devise. And we neglect his triumphant Repetition of his continual Cant, p. 145, 146. about the Universal Consent of the Christian Church, and its being received without Contradiction. But to establish this last Notion, he telleth us, that none before Aerius, opposed Episcopacy; of whom, and his Actings, he taketh the liberty to give such Account as he thought sit for his design: that his Motive was Ambition, and missing of a Bishoprick: was dull, had no Parts: This (in this learned Authors opinion) must needs be the native Consequent of his being a Presbyterian: for he reckoneth them all such. I have given a more true account of Aerius, §. 16. of §. 6. Established on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendeth to, which is none but his own. He needed not to spend a whole page to tell us what he meaneth by the Impossibility that he ascribeth to the Change we speak of, let him understand it as he will, we are not concerned, who have given account of that Change which maketh it both possible and easie to be understood. p. 148. He hath another Argument (if it be different from what [Page] he hath said before) we must not say that the primitive Church immediately Succeeding the Apostles so soon Apostatized from their Original Establishment, else we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine, and what is Suppositions in the whole frame of our Religion: This he enforceth by telling us, they might Change other things; and if the first and best Christians were not to be trusted in matter of Fact, they are less to be trusted in matter of Opinion. Here we have yet more plainly expressed, the Popish Principle, that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith: we do not so Trust the first and best Churches (except the Apostles) as to make them the rule of our Religion, either in their Historical, or other Writings: We give that Deference to the Scripture alone. Again, we impute no such Apostacie to the first and best Saints; but to them who, at some distance, Succeeded them; as hath been declared: and we know, that in after Ages, even among them who go under the name of the Fathers, other things were Changed, as well as Church Government.

§ 44. That our Reformers from Popery (whom he calleth the first Presbyterians, p. 149.) did not plead a Jus Divinum, is no Argument against us: for few of his Party, to this day, plead for a Divine Right to be on their side, as he and some few others do. And himself and his Complices, made no noise with it, when the Oath of Supremacy, and the Test were in Fashion: our Reformers did not disowne it, and they had not the Occasion, and may be, not the Light, to assert it, that aftertimes had. Whereas it is palpable, that Interest maketh some of his Side to change their Note. If Beza wrote smoothly to the English Episcopal Clergy, and some more freely to Mr. Knox, and Mr. Melvil; I know no blame in that piece of Civility (unless he can say, that Beza ceded in many of his Principles, to please the English Church; which cannot be alledged. His imputing Force and Violence to us, and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us, we pass, as angry and empty Words, but no Arguments: we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be such; whether they be for us, or against us: but build not our Faith on any of them, except such as are contained in the Scriptures of Truth. And here he bringeth in, p. 150. the Controversie about Ignatius's Epistles; and imputeth to Dally and others, that they reject them on no other ground, but because they owne Episcopacy. It is not fair dealing to impute such Prevarication to a Person of Monsieur Daillies Worth, after he is laid in the Grave. He will not pretend, p. 156. to debate the matter about the Authority of these Epistles; but p. [Page] 150. and what follow, runneth out in a high Commendation of Doctor Pearson, on that Subject, and many confident Assertions, that what he hath said cannot be Answered. I shall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author. But am not convinced by his Arguments. I am sure there is not that Evidence, nor Certainty in them, that is sufficient for us to build on, in a Matter that Religion is so nearly concerned in, as is the Government appointed by Christ in his Church. He telleth us Monsieur L'Arroque attempted to Answer the Bishop of Chester, but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party: and his Collections are Answered by Nourry. The truth is, L'Arroque was prevailed upon by some of the Episcopal Party, (as witnesseth the Translator of L' Arroques Historie on the Eucharist, in his Life, p. 5.) by some specious Arguments, from the Unseasonableness of Debates among Protestants, to desist from that Work, and it never was perfected: therefore it might be the more easily answered: and we cannot judge what Esteem it would have obtained: it seems they dreaded the Strength of it. Whether we ever were able to bring one plausible Argument for that Cause; the Reader must judge; we will not in this, stand to his Decision, which he confidently maketh p. 141. he declineth (ibid.) renewing the Debate about these Epistles: wherefore I hope I may be excused if I do so too. And he asserteth that their Cause loseth nothing by their being laid aside: as I also affirm, that our Cause may be maintained, if they be allowed to be really what he would have them to be. Some Citations out of them I have answered Cyprianick Bishop Examined. And if he had thought fit to produce moe, it is like they might be found to do no hurt to our Cause. Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius, he might have received what should satisfie about it. A Distinction between Bishop (that is Moderator) and Presbyter, and Deacon, we owne, as well as these Acts do, which is all he mentioneth as making for him, in these Acts. He citeth Wal. Messal. p. 153. asserting, that these Epistles were written in the beginning or middle of the second Century (this is but the Guess of the Learned Salmasius) but our Author doth not tell us that Salmasius, in the same place, setteth forth, that they could not be written by Ignatius; from some Absurdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them. This Gentleman mistaketh, when he saith, he that wrote thom could not represent Ecclesiastical Policy different from what it was in the days of Ignatius, that is to say, he could not mistake. He should have proved this, by [Page] demonstrating that that Person, tho he knoweth not who he was, had the Gift of Inerrability: and if he ascribe that to a Person whose other Characters he knoweth not; he might as well say, that no Writer of that Age could misapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former. Is it not possible, that this Person might be another Diotrephes; who, while there was some Tendency to a Declension from Parity, did zealously forward it; and run a little before the soberer and better Men of that time; and that his Zeal for the Opinion he had taken up might make him misapprehend, or misrepresent, what was the Opinion of the true Ignatius? it is a Dream, that it followeth from the Concession, or Guess, of Salmasias, that that Author gave [...] a true Idea of the Ecclesiastical Policy of the beginning of the second Century: and another, that he must represent Church Policy as those in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius: there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writings so visionaire (to use his own word) as this is. For could not this unknown Person differ in the Apprehension of this Matter, from most, yea, from all his Contemporaries? and it is strange that our Author should suppose that this personate Ignatius was a Martyr, or a Bishop; as he doth p. 154. He pleadeth next for the Epistles of Ignatius, from the Diligence and Authority of Eusebius; and saith, that he hardly could be imposed upon in an Affair of this Consequence. A. This is to beg the Question, to say that the Church was in this imposed upon: he should prove that the Churches then thought these Epistles to be written by Ignatius. for Eusebius, I think few, who are vers'd in Antiquity, will lay so much weight on his Historical Authority as this Author doth. Himself giveth ground to suspect some things that he wrote; as I shewed before: and others have observed yet more ground for it. It is a pleasant Argument, the Church was careful to gather up some hard Bones of Ignatius, that the Lyons had left, Ergo, they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind, viz. his Epistles. If we have no more Certainty about the Epistles, than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Martyr, and other Popish Relicks; few wise Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them. That Polycarp made a Collection of these Epistles, and Irenaeus cited them, proveth no more but that good Men may be imposed on by Forged Writings. Eusebius rejected some suppositions Books, after accurate Enamination; were a good Argument, if it could be made out that he rejected all such: the contrary whereof is well known. For his Belief that the Orations of Cicero are genuine, let him enjoy it; but if he build his [Page] Faith on any Article of Religion, or his Practice of Piety towards God, on that Certainty, I cannot do so too. Whether Cicero wrote these Orations or not, is neither a Matter of such Moment, nor so contested by plausible Arguments, as what we now Debate is.

§ 45. What remains of my Antagonists Discourse on this Controversie about Episcopacy, is a Recapitulation of what he hath already said; in nine Questions: which he seemeth to set down as so many Trophies of Victory over all his Adversaries; and a few other Hints for strengthning his Cause. His Questions need litle Animadversion: all that is contained in them being already Answered, and his Opinion in these things disproved: whether concludently and solidly or not, the Reader will judge. His first three Questions do all suppose that we are against Prelacy, merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy used in Scripture, which is a false Supposition: I have proposed our Argument with more strength, Sect. 4. §. 5. so as it is no way touched by what he here saith: wherefore it is no loss to our Cause if we give a negative, or affirmative Answer, to these Questions, whether he shall chuse. To his fourth Question I Answer, that Apostolick Power, as to its permanent Branches, was perpetual and successive (my Answer must be Tautological, because his Question is such) but not so, as to all its Essential Branches. As to its necessary Branches; if he mean what is necessary to the Beeing, or Idea of an Apostle, I deny these to be Perpetual and Successive. To the second part of this Question, I Answer negatively; that this Power was not transmitted, in solidum, to single Successors in particular Sees; but to a Colledge of Presbyters. Question fifth, Where Superiority is forbidden; is most impertinent to our Debate: seing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it; he should bring either a Command for it; or what is equivalent. The Popes Monarchy over the Church is not more forbidden, than the Superiority of one Priest (as he speaketh) over another; both of them must be Juris Divini, in his Opinion. I retort his own Argument, if Parity be not plainly forbidden (which I am sure he cannot shew) then the Fancy of a Jus Divinum in favours of Episcopacy (such as is exclusive of all other Forms of Ecclesiastical Government) is Groundless and Chymerical. It is enough to us, that Christ hath instituted Parity, and he hath not allowed Men to change it: we think this a sufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pleadeth for. His sixth is a heap of Questions, to which I Answer, we deny the universal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth, and say, a more universal Tradition might be demanded. We deny also that the Argument [Page] from universal Tradition (exclusive of Apostolick Tradition; if he can bring that he hath done his Work) is in this Case, either the most proper, or most necessary. Scripture Command, or Example, is both more proper, and more necessary. For the seventh, we do not pretend there was such a great Change so suddenly, as he fancieth we do; and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Possibility of it. I have said enough on this head, § 41. To his eighth, we affirm, that Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly represented by Presbyterians: and have answered what he saith to the contrary, Sect. 6. §. 7. & seq. His last Question about Ignatius's Epistles may be retorted on himself, whether there be any solid Argument brought for them: sub judice lis est. Himself declineth that Debate, as I also do. It is enough to us, that even the Testimonies out of these Epistles are not concludent: and if the Epistles were Authentick, their Authority is but Humane and Fallible: and cannot be a Prejudice against Divine Institution: and indeed cannot make Faith where the Question is de Jure Divino, as here it is.

§ 46. I now proceed to consider some immethodical and incoherent Notions, with which he concludeth this Chapter. He telleth us, p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Praesidency since the days of the Apostles (he might have added, and in their days too) so that the Quarrel is not so much against Episcopacy, as against the Extent of their Diocess, and Increase of their Power; over what it was in the Primitive times. Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more absolute, than now it is pretended to be: for nothing was to be done without the Bishop; a Presbyter might not Baptize without his express Indulgence: as Tertull witnesseth. This Testimony of Tertull. I have answered, Cyprianick Bishop Examed, §. 49. By Bishop may either be understood the Moderator, not in his single Capacity, but with the Presbytery: none might act within their District, but by their Allowance: or a Parish Minister, none might Baptize, &c. in his Parish, but by his Consent. He next citeth Dyonisius Bishop of Corinth, writing to the Gnossians, exhorting Pinytus, their Bishop, not to lay the heavy burden of Caelibacy (I suppose that he meaneth by [...]) on the Brethren, that is the Clergy: whence he wisely inferreth the Power of Pinytus to have done this. And citeth on his Margin, Euseb. hist. Eccles. but neither Book nor Chapter, nor the place of Dionysius where the words may be found. A. Euseb. hist. lib. 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epistle of Dionysius to Pinytus, and his Answer to him, where he checketh Dionysius for that Advice to him. But nothing of all this importeth the Power [Page] of Pinytus to forbid Marriage: he might say on this burden by preaching the necessity of Caelibacy, without Authoritative imposing it. Yea, he might impose it as Praeses, by the concurrent Authority of the Presbytery, without sole Jurisdiction. He mentioneth likeways the Canon. Apostol. and Ignatius's Epistles, but citeth nothing out of them: so that he cannot expect an Answer. As to the Extent of Diocesses, we no further make an Argument from it, than we maintain that a Pastor of a Church should have no larger Charge, than he can dispense the Word and Sacraments to; and that he should not do this by Deputies under him. We lay no Stress on the word Diocess, nor on the unequal Extent of a Pastors District, provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren; nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without such Superiority over others. What he saith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing, unless he can evince that the Presbyters, who were necessary for the growing Charge, were his Underlings, not his Collegues.

§ 47. A strong Argument for Diocesan Episcopacy (as he thinketh) he manageth, p: 164: & seq: from James Bishop of Jerusalem; who was over many Congregations; for the Increase of Christians was such, as that they could not meet in one place. The Answer hath been before given; James was no ordinary Bishop, but an Apostle: and had Jurisdiction, not only over the Christians in Jerusalem and in Judea; but in all the World. He telleth us, that we use many Evasions; but he thinketh it then only seasonable to Answer them, when he knoweth which of them we most trust to. If I had dealt so by his Book, no Answer had been given to it. I know neither which of his Arguments he most trusteth to; nor which of them doth best deserve that regard. If he had answered all that we say, he could not have missed what we most trust to: he should deal with our Arguments and Exceptions, not according to our Esteem of them; but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand. As for the Debate between Clarkson and Maurice, we are not much concerned in it; it is not material whether there be more or fewer Congregations in a City, provided their Pastors be not subject to one, but Co-ordinate among themselves. His Information to him whom he calleth the Vindicator of the Kir [...], was needless: he knoweth Attempts have been made to Answer Blondel, Dally, and Salmasius, yet that Author might modestly put him in mind, how unfit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occasionally spoken; and when he had (in his own Apprehension) baffled that, triumph over Presbytery, as if never [Page] more had been said for it; while he hath neither out of his own Store, nor from the Answers of thess Books, brought any thing against our main Arguments.

SECTION VIII.

Animadversions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery.

I Had resolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, further than I have done in answering his malicious Preface; Appendix to Cyprianick Bishop Examined; judging it more proper for some States Man, or one who is versed in the Law: his Book being a direct Refutation of an Act of Parliament, which he treateth very saucily: but finding, that they neglected his Book, and think it below them, unless they could also find his Person; and considering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another (if not the same) Author, here speaking more dareingly, from behind the Curtain, on second thoughts, I judg'd it not amiss to take notice of what he sayeth, in some short animadversions (such as I have already made upon his Preface) in so far as he opposeth Presbyterian Government. I intend not to explain an Act of Parliament (I know the hazard of that from the experience of others) but I designe to shew how far the Presbyterians own what he opposeth: insisting only on what seemeth to be argumentative in his Book, and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen; which touch not this matter. He divideth his discourse into eighth Enquiries: I shall consider what he saith on each of them.

§ 2. His first Enquiry is, Whether the Church of Scotland was Reformed solely by Persons Cloathed with the Character of Presbyters. I observe two Mistakes (to give them no worse Names) in thus stating the Question. First, it is enough to us, if our Reformers were mostly, though not solely Presbyters: if a Bishop or two joyned in the Reformation, it doth not hinder that Persons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was, were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work. Secondly, it is not so much material what Character our Reformers bare when they were yet Papists, as what Station they had in the Reformed Protestant Church in this Nation: or what Order they endeavoured to set up in this Church, when they had withdrawn from Subjection [Page] to the Roman Hierarchy: for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers, being now Reformed, (for before their Conversion they were all Episcopal) and how they setled this Church with respect to her Government. But to gratifie my Adversary a little, I so far yield to the State of his Question, as to maintain, that few, if any, had an Active Hand in the Reformation, who had been Popish Bishops: but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Popish Church, who were helped of God to be Instrumental in that blessed Work. If he would have cleared the Question, he should have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popish Notion of that Word: For that Antichristian Society had left scarce either Name or Thing of the Order and Offices that Christ had appointed in his House, but confounded all, and builded a Babel of their own devising. To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters, he telleth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament 1560, who all turned Protestants: this is little to the purpose; for 1. The Reformation from Popery had made some Progress before that time, Preachers, and some private Men, did more for the turning Persons to the Truth, than Parliament Men did. 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a small Number: if there had been no more Hands at the Work, it had gone slowly on. 3. Among all these eight, there were but two Bishops, the rest were Prelates indeed, in the Popish Sense; Abbots, and such like; but I hope this Author will not say they were such as Protestants count Prelates; or that they have superior Power in the Church, to Presbyters. 2. He telleth us, that they who laboured most in the Reformation, were not in Holy Orders, and nameth some of them. Ans. Then I hope they were no Bishops. It is true, many of these worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popish way, nor were they Presbyters in that Church; but when they turned Protestants, they were made Presbyters, and not Bishops. Yea, Claud. historic. def. of the Reformation, part 4. page 15. saith, that in many Nations (among whom he nameth Scotland) the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greatest part of their Pastors: to wit Monks, Preachers, Priests, Curats, Canons, &c. And it is as certain as History can make it, that not a few of the inferior Clergy turned Protestants; whereas himself confesseth there were but two Bishops, Argyle and Galloway. Some of them, and these of good Note, and who were eminently blessed with Success, were but Lay-Men, (as he frazeth it) who by their private Labours converted many, and were at last Authorized to Labour in the Gospel more publickly, [Page] by such Ordination as then could be had; but they were never exalted to be Bishops. Let me digress a little, to observe that the Laird of Dun (by this Authors account) was after made a Superintendent; but never received into Holy Orders, by any thing that appeareth: whence I infer, that in the Opinion of that time, a Superintendent was not the same with a Bishop: which our Brethren use to plead for. I shall not insist on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Answer to the first Enquiry: they amount to no more, but that there were but few Ministers: and many Reformers were Lay Men: to all which I Answer; this sheweth that Presbyters, and Persons of an inferior Rank to Bishops, had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bishops had. It was far otherwise in England; where the State carried on the Reformation; whereas in Scotland, the greatest, both in State and Church, opposed it as long, and as much as they could: and even the two Bishops whom he mentioneth, did rather comply with the Reformation, than actively promote it: notwithstanding of all which, it is unbecoming a Protestant, to call our Reformation violent, and disorderly: as he doth, p. 7. out of Spotswood.

§ 3. The second Enquiry is, Whether the Scots Reformers, what ever were their Characters, were of the present Presbyterian Principles? whither they were for the Divine Institution of Parity; and the Unlawfulness of Prelacy among the Pastors of the Church? here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment, and try his Critical Skill, on the Article of the Act of Parliament which he had undertaken to baffle. In which it is not my Province to interpose: I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry: if it be granted that Parity, and not Prelacy; was the Church Government that they chused. If this Debate have any Influence on the Controversie between us and our Brethren, it will make more against themselves than against us: for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity; but they chused this, and rejected that: notwithstanding that they had been bred in the owning of it, under Popery. We think it was a great Testimony given by them to Parity, that they shewed so much Zeal for it, as they did, though they had not that Light about it, that after times afforded. It is certain, that that Dispute which had so long, by the Tyranny of the Bishops, been buried and forgotten, (except among the Church in the Wilderness, which few knew of, the Waldenses) could not at first be so fully understood, as by further Enquiries it came to be. Notwithstanding, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 Knox in this matter, which, meerly to save time, I shall not concern my self in. Ans. It being evident, that in our first Setlement of Discipline, our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie, negative Arguments from the Writing, or sayings, of private Men are insignificant: and it is less to the purpose, to tell us of their other Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter. He cannot so much as alledge that any of them have said, or Written any thing to the contrarie, directly or indirectly. For his Debate about John Knox, I judge he hath said nothing that can satisfie any imbyassed Reader, that these Historians had not ground to think that Master Knox lookt on Prelacy as a sinful thing, and against Christs Institution; That imparitie was Established by the first Book of Discipline, is falsly supposed, p. 22. Superintendencie is no sufficient Proof of it; of which after.

§. 5. His next Proof beginneth p. 38. and is managed in a large Historical acount, of what influence England had on our Reformation [Page] from Popery: whence he inferreth, that our Reformers proceeded on the same Principle with the Reformers of England. Here he undertaketh two things; 1. To shew what influence England had on our Reformation. 2. That our Reformers were generally of the same mind with the Church of England, in several momentous instances relating to Constitution and Communion, the Government and Policy of the Church. For Ans. to this Argument; it is wholly inconsequential, if he never so fully Prove all that he hath mentioned; except the last, about the Government and Policy of the Church: and even that signifieth nothing, unless he Prove that by the influence of England our Reformers were for prelacy; and not for Paritie; and that as Instituted by Christ. Wherefore I pass over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things, and shall consider his last Article; and what he saith for what he hath asserted about it. The Reader, without my Animadversion, will take notice of his unmanly depressing of his Native Countrey, and fawning on another Nation. This assertion that we oppose is not proved by our Reformers Communicating with the Church of England (which he insisteth on from p. 7.) it only proveth that they thought Episcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwise sound in the Faith. And if some three or four of them did serve in the Church of England under Bishops (for which we have no more but Arch-Bishop Spotswoods word) this might either be by the Indulgence of the Reforming Bishops, not requiring of them these Terms of Communion that the late Bishops did of these who got Places under them: or it signifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more Latitude in their Principles than the rest were. For what is said of some of them approving the English Lyturgy, is less to his Question, which is only about Government. We never thought that our Reformers, at first, were all of the same Principle with us in all things: I am sure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the present Episcopal Church. Yea themselves had afterward, other thoughts of some things, than they had at first: as Luther held many Popish Opinions at first, which afterward he rejected. I observe further, that in many of his Historical passages about some of these Reformers, his best ground for what he affirmeth is, it is not to be imagined, that they did so and so: or it is to be presumed. We must then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy, that so it must be. If I thought it worth the while, I would Examine these Histories more narrowly. But I could easily yield him all, without prejudice to our Cause: seing the Principles of our Reformers are better [Page] known by their publick Deeds, than by the private Sayings, or Practices of two or three of them; and these not sufficiently attested. These good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Doctrine of the Church of England, as also in her casting off the load of humane Ceremonies, by which she had been burdened; but that all, or most of them, were satisfied with their Government and Discipline, is the Question; and is not Proved by what he hath said. It is least of all Concludent, that these of the Church of England had good Opinion of the Church of Scotland: which he laboureth to Prove, p. 80. and it is unaccountable, that p. 81. he layeth on so much stress on our Reformers saying of England, that they were of the same Religon with us: which he puteth in majusculis: we say the same of them at this day: and I hope they think not otherwise of us: and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini. If he can find a Contradiction here, let him try his Skill to discover it. It is an odd method that he useth, p. 85. he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Episcopacy, because it was natural for the English, who had assisted in the Reformation to demand it. And I Prove they were not for it, because, de facto, they did not setle it, but a way inconsistent with it. Let the Reader judge whether of these two Arguments is most concludent. We do not find that the English made such a Demand, and if they did not, they acted like discreet Neighbours, not to impose on their Brethren, who had other sentiments of the Matter, and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion. And if they made such a Demand, the Event shewed that it was not listned to. For his Citation of Buchannan, p. 88. that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auxiliis è servitute Gallica liberati, Religionis cultui & ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt: himself confesseth that no other Historian hath mentioned it; and he hath taken care that we shall not be able to Examine Buchannans words, by mentioning Buch. 7. 14. in a Book of so many diverse Editions: who can hope to find the place? I know not what Buchannan could mean by it; but it is evident, if the Scots did so subscribe, they did not act accordinglie; which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way: It is nauseous to repeat, with him, so often, the Godly Conjunction, the Unity, Peace, and Christian Concord, that was then made between England and Scotland; and to set forth this as a Demonstration: Yea, a Set of Demonstrations, that the Scots Reformers were Episcopal: nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate, in the Face of Matter of Fact, that they settled Parity as soon as they could settle any Order in the Church.

[Page] § 6. He undertaketh, p. 96. and forward, to prove, that at the Reformation, the English Lyturgy was used in this Church. If this should be granted, it cannot prove that the English Church Government was used also: they wanted qualified Ministers, so that there was need of some help to them, in Praying and Instructing the People publikly; and it may be, there was no other that they could, at that time, use, and they had not so fully discovered what might be, and afterward was, excepted against in it; and therefore used it for a time: but I think he will not deny, that as soon as they could, they laid it aside; and made use of that more Unexceptionable Form of Geneve; till at last, that was difused also, as a Man layeth by his Crutches, when he getteth Strength to go by himself. He sheweth wonderful Skill in Logick. p. 98. Calderwood had said that the English Lyturgy, which was read in the new Colledge in Saint Andrews, was not of any continued Practice in time by past, since the Reformation; Ergo, it was practised at the Reformation. Whatever may be said of the Consequent, the Consequence is no better than this, I never used to smoak Tobacco in any continued Practice since I was born, Ergo, I did it when I was born, p. 101, &c. he telleth us of another Principle, wherein our Reformers agreed with them of England: that the Church had a great Dependence on the State: that it belonged to the Civil State to reform the Church: that the People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magistrat, &c. this is still, extra oleas vagari. I shall not so far digress from the purpose in hand, as to consider what the present Presbyterians hold as to these Assertions: nor need I compare the Opinion of our Reformers with ours in this matter: if he can charge us with Hetrodoxy on this head, we shall Answer him when he will. This whole Discourse is impertinent: it doth not prove that our Reformers were for Episcopacie: and if it did, it is no good Consequent; that we should be for it too. I have alreadie said, that we never thought our Reformers were, in all things, of the same Opinion with the present Presbyterians: and I am sure, that he hath far less cause to think that they were for all that the present Prelatists hold. Another thing more he sheweth; that the Scots and English Reformers agreed in this, p. 105. that they took for the Rule of Reformation, the Word of God, interpreted by the Monuments and Writings of the Primitive Church. And here he enlargeth in the Commendation of this Rule, and obliquely chargeth the Presbyterians with all the Horrid Rebellions, and Unchristian Divisions, unaccountable Revolutions, both in Church and State, which[Page]have Unbinged all the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty, and Disabled, nay eaten out, the Principles of Christianity among us; that now we are not so much disposed for any thing, as for Atheism. Which Strain I find is common with Men of his Stamp: but it is most disingenuous Dealing: for the World knoweth where the Fault of our Divisions dothly: and whether Atheism, Immoralitie, and Injustice have thriven more under the Influence of Prelacie, or of Presbyterie. For the Revolution that he seemeth to be so angry with, the Presbyterians think it their Glorie to have Countenanced it: and the Bodie of the Prelatists (in England I mean, not in Scotland) will not disowne their Accession to it; nor will they look on it (as this Author and some others do) to have Unbinged the Principles of Natural Justice and Honesty. The Rule of Reformation that he had mentioned, he saith he will bring in again by and by, where we shall attend him.

§ 7. He telleth us, p. 106, &c. of his Performances, which he recapitulateth; and concludeth, in the highest Measure of Confidence that Words can express, that our Reformers were not for the Divine Right of Parity. I am so dull that I cannot see this Point proved, for all that he hath said: and if it were proved, it is nothing to our main Cause; we never said that they were in all things, either as Presbyterians, or as Prelatists are now, in their Opinions; all that we assert is, that they were for Paritie, and practised it as the Government of the reformed Church of Scotland, and it is more than probable, that they were for its Divine Right. In what followeth, his Confidence ariseth yet higher, and that in the Entrance of what now he is attempting, and about which he maketh very large Promises, p. 108. where he pretendeth to give plain, positive, direct, and formal proofs of his Assertion, to as high a degree, as the nature of the thing is capable of, or can reasonably bear. For performance of this; his first Attempt is, in a Petition of the Reformers to the Government; this is one Article, as it is set down by Lesly, de rebus gestis, Scotor. lib. 10. p. 504. Ut Episcopi deinceps & Pastores, illi Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque Diocesis, hi parochorum assentione, ac voluntate ad beneficia cooptentur. There is nothing Answerable to the Evidence so confidently promised by him: it is no positive, plain, &c. Proof: the matter could bear more, viz. if Lesly had said, that however, the Schismaticks, (as he calleth them) were for abolishing the old Doctrine, that they were for keeping up the ancient Hierarchie. But that this is no sufficient Proof of his Conclusion; I shew, 1. Supposing Lesly's Veracitie, and [Page] fair Representation of the Address that the Reformers made, no more can be concluded from it, but that it is supposed, that the Revenues of Bishops could not quickly be alienated, and that some must be chosen to enjoy them, that they might be so and so chosen: here is not a Word of chusing Bishops to Exercise that Office over, or among the Protestants: and it is well known, that the Rents of Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Dignitaries of the Church of Rome, did continue; and Men were chosen to the Name, and Rent, of these Places, who did not Exercise the Power that Men under these Names had in Popery. 2. Himself confesseth, that this Article of the Petition is otherwise rendred in Buchannan, and Spotswood; viz. Ut Ministrorum electio juxta antiquam Ecclesiae consuetudinem penes populum esset. Here is no Word of Bishops: and one may think, that we have more Cause to Credit these two Protestant Historians than Lesly, a Papist; who, on all Occasions, sheweth his Spite against Protestants: especially Spotswood, an Arch-Bishop, would not have neglected to make use of this seeming Countenance to his Cause. This Author hath no other Shift to take off the Edge of this Exception, but to tell us, that Buchannan minded Matters of State most in History: and Spotswood is very defective in many parts of his History: which is indeed to say, that neither of them is to be much regarded: but Lesly is the Man: if it be so, we must look on the whole of our Reformation, with a very unfavourable Eye. Whither this will seem absurd to this Author, or not, I know not. He is at a great deal of Pains to prove, that Lesly did not Forge this Article; and bringeth no fewer than six Arguments to prove it: which I judge not worth my Labour of Examining them: only this Reply I return to them all: what if he Misworded the Article, though he did not Forge it? the other Historians have the same Article, only they have not the Word Bishops, in which lyeth the whole force of our Authors Argument.

§ 8. His next Argument, which beareth positive, plain, &c. Evidence, is from another Petition of our Reformers, set down in the History commonly ascribed to John Knox, p. 131. a large Portion of which he Transcribeth; I shall Compendize it, without taking any thing from its Strength on his Side: they require that the ill Lives of Prelates, and the State Ecclesiastical, may be Reformed; and Declare that they envy not their Honours, nor covet their Possessions; but desire their Reformation: and they add, that we are content, that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testament, but also the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, and the Godly and Approved[Page]Laws of Justinian the Emperor, decide the Controversie betwixt us and them: and they earnestly desire, that notwithstanding the long Custom they had to live at their Lust, they may be compelled either to desist from Ecclesiastical Administration, or discharge their Duties as becometh true Ministers. Let us now hear what Improvement he maketh of this Passage to his purpose: he telleth us, that here our Reformers lay down a Complex Rule for Reforming of the Church: and we refuse not to try it with our Opposites, in the Controversie about Prelacy, by this Complex Rule: but with these two Limitations, which cannot be made appear to be inconsistent with what is there expressed by our Reformers: one is, that all the Parts of this Complex Rule, be not lookt on as of Co-ordinat Authority; but that the rest be subordinate to the Holy Scripture: we are not afraid of the Verdict of the Fathers of the first Ages; but if they should be found in any thing to recede from Scripture, we reject them. The other is, that the Laws of Justinian, which our Reformers mention, be rather lookt on as a Rule concerning the Temporalities of Church Men, than their Spiritual Jurisdiction. He next saith, that our Reformers were content that the Clergy should live and rule, and discharge their Trust, as they did in the days of Justinian: and now, saith he, if they who so Petitioned, were for Parity, and not for the Continuance of Prelacy, I must confess my Ignorance to be very gross. Ans. I shall not determine whither Ignorance, or somewhat else hath led him into a gross Mistake of the Meaning and Design of these Petitioners: but a Mistake seemeth to be evident. They were not so absurd, as to make the Roman Civil Law the Rule of Religion: we know how that hath been altered, and reformed oftner than once; whereas the Rule of Religion is unalterable by the Authority of Men; wherefore they can mean no more, but that they are willing that Prelates should enjoy their Benefices, (this for Peace sake they yielded too) as they were setled by the good Laws of Justinian: (where a Limitation even in that is insinuated) and that the Lives and Authority of the Pastors of the Church, should be regulated by Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers in Subordination to that, Justinian lived in the sixth Century, when Prelacie was far advanced in the Church: wherefore they had Acted very absurdly, if they had been for that way, and yet so quickly settled among themselves (contrarie to the Inclinations of their Friends in England, to whose Assistance they owed very much) a way so opposit to that. Our Reformers, the Nobilitie, Gentrie and Ministers, were neither so unfaithful, nor so changeable, as to [Page] be influenced by one or two Men to such an absurd Course. I add to all this, that it is most absurd to say, that the Church of England took the Writings of the ancient Fathers for the Rule of the Reformation, or for any part of it: for indeed, by that Rule, there will be found a Canonical Nullitie in the Power of all their Bishops; on account of their being chosen by the Magistrat, and sitting in Parliament: for Canon. Apost. (confirmed by Concil. Constantinop. 6. Canon 29. revived by Con. [...]il Nicen. 2. Canon. 3.) condemneth the one, and Can. 6. and 80. the other.

§ 9. After mentioning another Petition of the Reformers, which containeth no new matter, he cometh from p. 119. to prove, that the first Church Government that our Reformers settled, was not Paritie, but Superintendency: All that he saith on this head, hath been often answered; and it hath been made plain, to the Conviction of them who will see, that Superintendency, as set up in Scotland, was nothing like Episcopacy, that it was never intended to be continued; but used for the present Necessitie: and that it was never lookt on as inconsistent with their being for Paritie in Opinion: but we must submit to the Drudgerie of Repetitions; seing he will have it so. I take notice of his forgetting what he had said a little before (as I observed §. 2.) viz. that the Laird of Dun was made a Superintendent, though it doth appear that he was never in Holie Orders: whence it evidently followeth, that on this Authors Supposition, the Reformers lookt not on Superintendency as a Government any otherwise warrantable, but by the Force of Necessitie. Two things he undertaketh about Superintendency. 1. To shew their Power and Disparity from other Ministers. 2. To dissipate the Mists cast on this matter by Presbyterians. For the former, he telleth us of a considerable Stock of Prerogatives, or Preheminencies above other Church Men. As 1. They had larger Districts. 2. They were to be Nominated by the Council, and Elected by the Nobility and Gentry, &c. within their District. 3. They were not to be Censured, but by the Ministers and Elders of the whole Province, over which they were Appointed. 4. They were to be Admitted (which our Author calleth Ordination) by other Superintendents. 5. They were to be Translated by the whole Church. 6. They must be two years, at least, in the Ministry, before they be Superintendents. 7. He had a greater Benefice than other Ministers. 8. Every one of them was a constant Member of the General Assembly. 9. He was to try Candidats for the Ministry, and [...]eaders. 10. He had the Power of Collation, on Presentations. 11. He had Power to plant Ministers in the Churches where the People were negligent. 12. He had the[Page]Power of Ordination. 13. Ministers were subject to him, in all lawful Admonitions; he was to be obeyed. 14. He had Power of Visitation of Churches. 15. He might depose Ministers. 16. He might translate Ministers. 17. He might nominat Ministers to be Members of the General Assembly. 18. He had Power to hold Diocesan Synods. 19. To appoint Fasts within his own Bounds. 20. To modifie Stipends. 21. To receive Appeals. 22. He had Power of Fineing, in case of undue Appeals. 23. To determine intricate Cases of Conscience, or Government. 24. To judge of Divorces. 25. To enjoyn Pennance to greater Criminals. 26. To restore Criminals. 27. He had the Power of Excommunication. 28. To delate attrocious Criminals to the Civil Magistrat 29. They had great Power over Schools and Colledges. 30. They were the Licensers of Books.

§ 10. Quae non prosunt singula, juncta juvant; here is a large Muster Roll, to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train, that might have been, to as much advantage, drawn into a narrower Compass. I shall first, Make some general Observes on all this Heap of Prerogatives. Next, Examine them particularlie, but very succinctlie. For the former, I observe, 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at first more absolute, and independent on the rest of the Ministers, than afterward; because at first there were hardlie any qualified Ministers; but only Readers, or such as could Catechise the People, newly come out of Popery; but when there was a better Stock of qualified Ministers, and yet the Church but meanlie provided, the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence; and was little other than a constant Moderator: and his Power was by every General Assembly, abridged, till that Office was at last abolished, as no longer needful in the Church. 2. It is not denyed, but that there was an Imparitie between a Superintendent and another Minister: but this was lookt on by our Reformers, not as a standing Office, nor as having any Foundation, but that of present Necessitie: so that it did no way derogate from that Paritie, that they lookt on as the Way that the Church should be Governed; and as what they intended, when their Case should allow it. But of this more afterward. 3. All this cannot make the Superintendent and the Bishop, to be the same Officer in the Church; because the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Christ, and his Soveraign power over the Presbyters, is by Divine Appointment▪ the other is set up by Men, and more or less Power is given to him, as they think fit. The one is accountable to none but Christ, the other is accountable to the Presbyterie, and may be Censured, yea Deprived by them. The [Page] one is lookt on as what should always continue in the Church; the other was designed but for that Exigency of the Church, to be laid aside when that was over. 4. Not a few of these Prerogatives are either asserted, without Ground; or Misrepresented. To make out which, I proceed to the second thing I proposed; viz. To Examine them particularlie: for the first, The Extent of their District is no Argument for such Disparitie as he pleadeth for: they had each of them, their proper Charge, as other Ministers; where they were ordinarilie to Labour; but had larger Districts for Visitation. 2. Their Nomination by the Council, and Election by the Nobility and Gentry, is asserted without Ground. Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it, nor do I find any thing to that purpose in any of our Historians. 3. A Superintendent could not be deposed, but by the Ministers of the whole Province: This necessarilie followed upon his Charge, or Power of Visiting, being of that Extent. In that he was deposeable by the Ministers, it is evident he was no Bishop, in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bishop. 4. The same reason was for his being Elected by the Ministers of the Province. What our Author saith of the Ordination of the Superintendent, is a foull Misrepresentation; as any one may see in the place he citeth, Spots. hist. lib. 3. p. 159, 160. Nothing is there mentioned, but Election and Trial; but on the contrarie, it is expreslie said, other Ceremonies than this Examination, the Approbation of Ministers and Superintendents, with the publick Consent of Elders and People, we do not admit. Whence it is evident, that he had no new Office, nor Ordination, above a Presbyter.

§ 11. His fifth Prerogative is, He was not to be Translated from one place to another, but by a Council of the whole Church. This is no Episcopal Jurisdiction. The Extent of his District, to a Province made this necessarie: there being no Judicature above his Province, but a General Assembly. 6. It is least of all Argumentative, that he was to give good proof of his Qualifications, by being some time in the Ministry: because the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Ministry, was the Rise of his Office: therefore he must be the best qualified that can be had. 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument: he had more Work, and Occasion for Expense, by Travelling to Visit Churches, than the rest had. It is falslie alledged, that Spots. p. 210. saith, it was agreed, 1567. that the Superintendent should succeed to the Beneflces of the Popish Bishops deprived: there is not such a word in that place: only there, and in the former page, it is agreed, that the Church should be restored to her Patrimonie. [Page] 8. There being constant Members of the General Assembly, saith no more, but that there being so few qualified Ministers, these few choice Men were needed in the Assemblies of the Church. 9. His trying Ministers and Readers, was from the present necessities of the Church, when Presbyteries could not be had to do it: 10. His giving Collation did follow on the former Power. 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Minister fell to him, and his Council. He could not place a Minister by himself, as our Bishops pretended to do: but by the assistance of such Ministers as were fittest to judge, these were his Council; this also was for the present necessity, and want of Ministers to make a Presbytery. 12. His power of Ordination, our Author passeth very slightly, and with a general alleging of several Acts of Assemblies. It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himself, when no other Minister could be had to joyn with him: but as soon as Presbyters could be had, it was not so. Our Reformers used no other Ceremonie in Ordination, but Nomination, and Tryal, and Approbation; and it is evident that these were to be performed by the Superintendent, with the rest of the Ministers; for Spotsw. p. 155. sheweth out of the Book of Discipline, that this Tryal and Approbation was to be performed by the learned Ministers appointed for their Examination, then not by one Man alone. 13. Subjection to him (which our Author is pleased to call Canonical Obedience, was a necessarie consequent of his Office; but it is to be observed, that in the Assemblie 1562, out of which he allegeth this Passage, Superintendents were Tryed and Censured by the Assemblie: and it was appointed that at every Assemblie, they, and Ministers, and Elders should be Tryed, as to their Conversation; which looketh not like Episcopacy. 14. His power of Visitation was indeed his main Characteristick; but doth not prove Episcopal jurisdiction; it being delegated to him by the Church, and he being Accountable to her for it. 15. His power of Deposing is expresly said to be given him by the Assemblie, and he is ordered to report his Diligence to the next Assemblie; which last, our Author overlooketh. 16. His Translating of Ministers is no more, but that his Consent, or that of the whole Church must be had to a Transportation: it was then necessarie when there was no Presbyteries to Judge of such Matters. 17. He greatly mistaketh when he saith that the Assemblie Enacteth that Ministers for the General Assemblie should be brought with the Superintendents, &c. which he will have to be Nominating them, and he alloweth the rest of the Synod but a Consent: whereas Spotsw. p. 219. words it, such as the Superintendents[Page]shall choose in their Diocesan Synods. If he could choose them by himself, there needed no Synod for this end: that Expression can signifie no less than the Synods suffrage in the Election. My Lord Gla [...] Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick. 18. He held Diocesan Synods, because he was their Moderator. 19. They might appoint Fasts is their bounds, but with Advice of the Ministers. 20. Modifying of Stipend [...] is no Spiritual Power, and therefore, impertinently here brought in 21. Appeals was made to him, and his Synodal Convention: here is no sole Jurisdiction. 22. His power of Fineing is no Spiritual Power. 23. Determining Cases of Conscience, and otheir Questions, was never committed to him alone; but in the Synod, and to them. Yea, Questions so determined were to be reported to the General Assemblie next ensewing; so that Manuscript that he so often Citeth, p. 14. 24. To judge of Divorces is a civil Power: and not to our purpose; 25. It is clear, by his own Relation, that the Injunction of Pennance (as he calleth it) is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod. 26. Restoring of Criminals, or Absolution, did the same way belong to him. 27. Notifying Criminals to the Magistrat is no part of Jurisdiction. 28. Excommunication was not to be done by his sole Authority; but by his Advice. 29. His Power over Colleges. And 30. His Licensing of Booke; both of them Depend on the Civil Power: and are not to our present purpose. These short Notes may shew how little cause there is for his Triumph, with which he concludeth this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives. They prove a Disparity between him and other Ministers, I confess; which the Church in that her State thought necessarie for a time: but on the other hand, it is evident that some of them Prove as much Disparitie from, and inconsistencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocesan Bishop, which our Brethren plead for, as belonging to him, Jure Divino.

§. 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dissipat the Mist wherewith the Paritie Men are so very earnest to darken the Prelatical Power of the Superintendents: he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions. The 1. Is, it was not intended to be a perpetual standing Office; but was Temporary, and for the then Necessities of the Church. For this he Citeth Calderwuod, and Petrie asserting this; with whom I do cordially joyn. Against this, he thus reasoneth. p. 142. whether it was Temporary or not, it was Prelacy, and this is all that I am concerned for; And to Forti [...]e this, he taketh in by force, a Similitude from the Presbyterians making Address to King James; a rare, but useless piece of Wit. Ans. If he be concerned for no more than this, [Page] we are agreed: And he yieldeth that our Reformers were not Episcopal, but Presbyterian: who in a case of extream Necessity, gave, for a time, more Power to one Minister, than another, but made them all equal assoon as that Necessity was over: It is such an Argument as if there were but one Congregation, with their Minister, and Elders, in an Island; they manage Church Discipline by themselves; but assoon as they encrease, and there are moe People and church Officers, and more Congregations, they set up a Presbyterie, to which all the Congregations and their Pastors are Subordinate; will any say that they are Independents, because they were forced to Act Independentlie at first? there is as little reason to conclude that our Reformers were Episcopal, though they were forced to use a kind of Prelacie for a time. Beside that I have above shewed some considerable Differences between the Prelacie of Superintendents, and that of Bishops, which our Brethren plead for.

§. 13. His second Undertaking is, to shew that we have no sufficient Ground in the Records of these times, for pretending that the Office of Superintendents was designed to be Temporal. To prove his Assertion, he saith, he hath seen no more insisted on to make out this, but a Phrase in the first Head of the Book of Discipline, at this time. He transcribeth the whole Passage out of Petrie, Cent. 16. p. 218. and so must I, what was their (the Superintendents) Office, saith he, appears by the first Book of Discipline, wherein it is written thus, we consider, that if the Ministers whom God hath endued with his singular Graces among us, should be appointed to several places, there to make continual Residence, that then the greatest part of the Realm should be destitute of all Doctrine; which should be not only the occasion of great Murmure, but also dangerous to the Salvation of many: and therefore we have thought it a thing expedient, at this time; that from the whole Number of Godly and learned Men, now presently in this Realm, be selected ten or twelve. (for in so many Provinces we have divided the whole) to whom Charge and Commandment should be given to Plant and Erect Kirks, to set, Order, and appoint Ministers (as the former Prescribed, to wit, the former Head) to the Countries that shall be appointed to their Care, where none are now. Afterward it is added, these must not be suffered to live as their idle Bishops have done, neither must they remain where they gladly would; but they must be Preachers themselves, and such as may not make long Residence in one place, till the Kirks be Planted and provided of Ministers, &c. To this our Author replyeth, by giving us a Sense of his own of these Words in the first Book of Discipline, viz. that because there were then so few Qualified for the Office of [Page]Superintendencie, the Ten or Twelve were, by far too few for the whole Kingdom, yet at that time they thought it expedient to Establish no more: and though, when the Church should be sufficiently Provided with Ministers, it will be highly reasonable that the Superintendents should have Places appointed them for their continual Residence, yet in that Juncture it was necessary that they should be constantly travelling into their Districts, to Preach and Plant Churches. Before I Examine what he saith to Prove this to be the true Gloss of that Passage, I shall Prove it to be contrarie to, and inconsistent with the Passage it self. And 1. There is nothing in that Discourse that doth so much as insinuate the scarcitie of Men fit to be Superintendents, but of Ministers fit to Preach to the People; they no way hint that this Setlement was fallen upon, because they could not get Men to Oversee other Ministers, but because they could not get Men to Preach to the People in every Congregation, Therefore, they resolve that the few well Qualified Men that they had should not only each of them, have a fixed Charge of his own, but should be obliged to Preach in other Parishes, and be Impowered to Place Ministers in them, assoon as they could be had. 2. It is a groundless Fancy that they thought Ten or Twelve Superintendents too few for the whole Kingdom; for when Ministers increased they made no moe: yea, when afterward, in the times of Defection from our first Establishment of Church Order, they set up Bishops, the Church did not think Twelve too few for the whole Kingdom. 3. He doth exceedingly Mistake the Change that our Reformers did intend, as insinuated in that Passage: It was not that Superintendents should be continually Resident in one Place, wheras they were at present to travel within their District: for in this present Setlement they had their proper Charge, where they were to Preach, and might Reside there three or four Months, and enter upon their itinerat Visitation again: which Course, if they should Break off, they could not do the Work of a Superintendent; which was chiefly to Visite and Plant Churches. When this was done, and Places generally provided with fit Pastors, their Work and Office was at an end. 4. At this time, doth evidently relate to the Peoples want of Preaching, as the Motive to this Appointment; and to the Planting of Churches, as the End and Design of it. Wherefore, when this End is attained, and that time no more Existent (I mean of that Exigence of the Church) there was no more use for them: and the Event Proved, that as that End was by Degrees attained, their Power was gradually Lessened, till they were wholly laid [Page] aside. 5. The Words cited make it evident that this was not intended for a lasting Prelacy in the Church; far less for an Episcopacy standing on a Jus Divinum; For the Assembly where this Book of Discipline was Established, do give them Charge and Commandment: they do appoint their Work, set Limits and Bounds to their Power: they Command them in the very Circumstances of their Work; this would be thought strange Presumption in a Meeting of Ministers thus to treat their Bishop. 6. To say that their Authority was designed to be perpetual, but these Injunctions about some part of their Work was to be Temporary; is to speak at Random; and to put what Sense we please on other Mens words; it is to tell us what this Author would have the Reformers to mean, not what is the plain Import of their Words: For the Commandment and Charge (these are the Words of the Book of Discipline) by which they were made Superintendents, did include one part of what is Injoyned as well as another part of it: and when ever this Work that was Injoyned them ceased, their Commission behoved to be renewed: as is obvious to any who readeth the History of our Reformation: their Injunctions were often Changed, till they had no more Work to do, and then they were Abolished.

§ 14. Let us now hear how this Author will Prove that the Passage under Debate must have the Meaning that he hath put upon it. His first Argument: the Composers of the first Book of Discipline (in which that Passage is) were generally to their Dying day, of Prelatical Principles. Ans. 1. The Consequence is naught: for however the first Draught of it might be framed by the Six Persons whom he Nameth, out of Knox, p. 287. yet let the Reader turn over to the next page, where a Formula is set down according to which it was Subscribed, and he shall find that they Approved it conform to the Notes and Additions thereto: and it was well known, that some Papers being Amended and Licked over and over again, by many Persons, (as this was) have at last Differed much from what the first Compilers intended. Another thing also may be Observed in that Form of assenting to the Book o [...] Discipline: that they were careful to Reserve to Bishops, Abbots, and Priors, and other Prelats, and benefic'd Men, which else have Adjoyned themselves to us (say they) to brook the Revenues of their Benefices during their Lifetimes; they sustaining and upholding the Ministry and Ministers, as is therein specified, for Preaching of the Word, and Ministering of the Sacraments. Here the Bishops (even such of them as were Protestants) are put in the same Categorie with Abbots [Page] and Priors; and there is no Provision made for their Spiritual Power, but for their Temporal Goods; and no Successors are intended for them: only they are provided for while they live: yea the Administrators of Word and Sacraments are here contra-distinguished from the Bishops, as well as from Abbots and Priors. Doth any thing here look like Prelatical Principles? yea is not the whole Strain of this Passage contrarie to them? therefore, whatever the first Compilers of the Book of Discipline might be, it is evident, the Approvers of it were not of the Episcopal Principles. Ans. 2. He sheltereth his Assertion under the Ambiguitie of Prelatical Principles: if he mean these Men were for Superintendents, who had a Temporarie Limited Prelacie, we shall not Debate that with him: if he mean that they were for a Jus Divinum of the Prelacie, that he and his Partie owne; or for a Perpetuitie of any other sort of Prelacie, we shall consider his Proofs for that; which are, Winram and Willock were Superintendents, and so was Spotswood; of whom his Son saith, he was a constant Enemy to Paritie: this proveth nothing against what I have said; except he can assure us that Arch-Bishop Spotswood could not, through Prejudice, and Respect to the Cause he had Espoused; mistake and misrepresent his Fathers Opinion in that. Dowglas (another of them) was Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews. That proveth him an Apostate from the Way he had owned; and we know how he, and his Way was disliked by the rest of his former Associats: John Row, another of them, defended the Lawfulness of Episcopacy, at a Conference appointed by the General Assembly, 1575. Here is a pitiful Shift, and foull Misrepresentation. The Truth of the Storie is (even according to Spotswood, as well as Petrie; not to name Calderwood, lest he alledge that I have read no other Historian) a Question arising in the Assemblie about the Lawfulness of Episcopacie: six Brethren were appointed to Debate the Question in a Conference, three were appointed to be on the one side, and three on the other; it was Master Rows Lot to be on the side of the Lawfulness of Episcopacie: can any Rational Man thence infer, that he was of that Opinion. And if he were of that Opinion, there is enough said to take off any Inference that could thence be made against us. John Knox was the other of these Compilers, whom he will make Prelatical; now when he hath been dead a long time; though he was known to be far from such Sentiments while he lived.

§ 15. For a second Proof of his Sense of the Passage cited out of the Book of Discipline, p. 145. Knox assignes a quite other Reason than the then Necessities of the Church, for the Establishment of Superintendency. Superintendents[Page]and Overseers (saith he) were nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried on with order and well: this reason is perpetual. Ans. How weak is this Consequence: for this reason is perpetual, that there should be Governours in the Church; because all things might be carried with order and well: but it is no reason for that sort of Governours; except in so far as the present case made them necessarie; so that, compare this Passage with that of the Book of Discipline above cited, the Sense must be, Superintendents were, at this time, nominated, that all things in the Church might be carried with good order and well; there being then no possibilitie to constitute Presbyteries, by which things could be so managed. He citeth another Passage out of the same Book, p. 289. that John Knox, in a Sermon, asserted the Necessitie (and not the bare Expediencie) of Superintendents. Ans. Doth this prove a perpetual Necessitie of that Office? it was then not only expedient but necessarie? and this was all that was asserted. Again John Knox's words are, there was a Necessitie of Superintendents or Overseers: that is, there must be a Government in the Church, and another they could not then attain that they could be satisfied with; and therefore they must set up Superintendents. If we duly consider this Passage, it maketh much against him: for supposing the Necessitie of Governours, they might have thus reasoned, if they had been for Bishops, we must have Governours, nothing hindreth to set up Bishops; therefore they are necessarie at this time; but this they did not do: therefore they were not for Bishops. But they well reasoned; there must be Governours; but at this time we cannot have Ministers to set up Presbyteries, therefore at this time Superintendents are necessarie. He bringeth another Testimonie out of Knox, p. 110. (it must be miscited, nothing to that purpose is in that place) exhorting England that every one of their Bishopricks might be made ten: which he saith is a Comment on the Passage in Debate: and saith, hence it is clear, that he was for many Bishopricks. Ans. Nothing but Prejudice could suggest such a Sense of his Words: he is Writing to a People which had settled Bishops among themselves; he did not attempt to alter their Settlement (he knew it was in vain) but he advised them to what might make that way most useful, and what might have brought it as near as possible to the way he was for. I could tell him of just such another Passage in Doctor Wild's loyal Nonconformist, though he was for no bishop at all, in our Modern Sense.

§ 16. He bringeth a third reason, that this Sense of the Period accordeth exactly with the whole Tenor of the first Book of Discipline: where, he [Page] saith, there is nothing more for the Temporaryness of Superintendency, but much to the contrary. Let us see then what we can further find (beside the words at this time) in the Book of Discipline, for Superintendents being set up early, for the present Necessitie of the Church. And first, the reason for setting them up, which the Book it self giveth, is temporarie: to wit, the Paucitie of Ministers, and the Necessitie of having the Gospel preached in all the parts of the Nation. If the Foundation be temporarie, so must the Superstructure: but this is made the Foundation of that Erection: as is expressed in these words, and therefore we have thought it expedient, &c. 2. The second Book of Discipline is a Proof of this beyond Contradiction: for it owneth no Officers in the Church but Pastors, Bishops or Ministers, every one of which was to be fixed in a particular Congregation: and Doctors, and Elders, and Deacons: and these are said to be such as ought to continue in the Kirk, as necessary, for the Policy and Government of it; and no more Offices ought to be received or suffered in the Kirk of God, established according to his Word; therefore all the ambitious Titles invented in the Kingdom of Antichrist, and [...] his Usurped Hierarchy, which are not of these four sorts, together with [...] [...]ffices depending thereon, in one word, ought to be rejected. This second Boo [...] Discipline was but an Amendment of the first, and a Suteing of it to the riper Age that the Reformed Church of Scotland had then attained: but, it is manifest, that settling Superindents by the first Book, was not designed for Perpetuitie. I shall now Examine what he bringeth against the designed Temporariness of Superintendents: the first thing alledged is, the necessity is brought for being not so strict in examining Superintendents as afterward must be: I see not wherein this is contrarie to the Presbyterian Gloss (which he affirmeth p. 145.) seing the necessitie of setting them up had been before asserted, viz. the Pau [...]itie of qualified Ministers for the Parishes: and now another necessitie is alledged for taking such Superintendents as they could get: where is the Inconsistencie of these two. Next, they appoint, that if su [...]cient Men cannot be had, Provinces wait till they can be provided, rather than set up insufficient Men [...] 3. Rules are laid down for supplying the Vacancy, if a Superintendent die. [...]ns. To both these; no more followeth but that Superintendency was to endure for some time: foreseeing that the present necessitie was like, in some degree, to continue for some years: but this is no Argument for its Perpetuitie, or necessitie in all Cases of the Church. 4. After the Church is settled, and three years past; Directions are given for chusing Superintendents. Ans. This Passage is related [Page] only by Spotswood; whom I might reject as an insufficient Witness, as well as he casteth Petrie, or Calderwood, when Spotswood doth not concur with them: But I need not such Defence: by the establishing of the Church the Reformers cannot mean the compleat Establishment, and being furnished with a sufficient number of well Gifted Ministers: for what needed three years delay after that, before they would require such Choise of Superintendents: wherefore, by the settling of the Church must be understood the peaceable Exercise of Church Government, as well as other Ordinances, allowed them by the Magistrat, which then they were contending for: or the peaceable Settlement of the Superintendency; that now they were Erecting: that though at present, they must put into that Office such as they could find, they would after that three years, be more exact in their Choise, hoping that, by that time, more qualified Men might be found: this proveth a Design of Continuance for some time; but not of Perpetuitie of Superintendency. 5. The Book of Discipline supposeth Colledges and Superintendents to be of equal Continuance: for the Superintendent was to have a hand in Election of Principles and Rectors, and in Auditing Colledge Accompts. Ans. If this Argument had any Force, it would prove that Apostles, immediatlie sent by Christ, must continue as long as Churches and Ministers; because they were imployed to Erect the one, and Ordain the other: Yea, he needed no other Argument to prove their Continuance, but that they were to Visit Churches, and plant Ministers; and therefore must continue as long as that were to be done: and so they should for ever shut out, (in the Design of our Reformers) not only Presbyteries, but the Diocesan Bishops: they were to do that Work in the present Exigence: it doth not thence follow that they must continue as long as that Work was to be done.

§ 17. He hath yet a fourth Argument, to prove that Superintendents were designed by our Reformers to be perpetual in the Church. It is taken from some Passages in Knox, and the old Scots Liturgy, about the Form and Order of the Election of Superintendents. 1. The Necessity of them is asserted: which I have answered before: Next, The People are asked if they will obey and honour him as Christs Minister so long as he is faithful: not (saith our Author) so long as the present Exigence requireth. The admitting of a Superintendent and of a Minister was one: the whole Form maketh the one to be of Divine Institution, as well as the other: he is said to be called of God, and owned as a Minister of Christ, they who will not submit to him, are[Page]said to rebel against God, and his Holy Ordinance. In the Prayer after his [...] stallment is this Petition, send unto this our Brother, whom in thy Name we have charged with the chief Care of thy Church within the Bounds of Lothian, &c. Thus (saith our Author) our Reformers lookt on Superintendency wh [...] they composed this Form. Ans. 1. This is not a Form composed by the Reformers to be used on all such occasions: as appeareth by the History it self that he citeth: to which he (Knox p. 289.) prefixeth this Inscription; The Form and Order of the Election of the Superintendent and all other Ministers; at Edinburgh, March the 9. 1560. John Knox being the Preacher: also because, in the Prayer, Lothidn is mentioned, which could not be in a general Form: This Method John Knox at that time used. It i [...] like it was usual to proceed in this Method: to use these, or the like Questions, to Pray to that Purpose: and if there was then a prescribed Form in that Infancie of the Church, it neither helpeth his Cause much, nor hurteth ours. 2. He acknowledgeth that the Form of Electing and Admitting Ministers and Superintendents was the same: and it is evident from the Inscription but now mentioned: which is an Evidence that Superintendency was not then lookt on as a distinct Office from the Ministery: but it was an Application, or Modification, of the Ministerial Wor [...] which at that time was necessary. He will not say, that a Bishop needeth no other Ordination or Consecration, beside that which maked him a Minister: which is a good Argument to prove that our Reformer did not look on the Distinction of Minister and Superintendent as perpetual and of Divine Right, as the Prelatists do that of Bishop and Presbyter. 3. My main Answer is, the account that we have in the place cited is of the Election and Admission of a Person to the Sacred Office of the Ministry, whither he be to be a Superintendent or not: and th [...] it is not by this Admission that he is distinguished from other Ministers further than that his Ministerial Charge is made larger and more extensive as to its Bounds: wherefore all the Expressions that my Adversa [...] layeth hold on in this Form of Election, may fairly be understood wit [...] respect to the Persons Ministery: to this Ministery he is called of Go [...] with respect to it he is a Minister of Christ, it is that which is called G [...] Holy Ordinance: it is that Charge which is laid on him in Gods Name: an [...] indeed it was the Bounds of Lothian that the Person then admitted go [...] the Chief Charge of, to be their Pastor. Now the Question is not whither this Pastoral Charge, whither in one or more Congregations be Gods perpetual Ordinance; but whither it be such an Ordinance, [Page] that the Pastoral Charge of one Person should extend to so many Congregations, and whither this Pastor by himself should have Power to Plant Ministers: we say this last was a prudent Constitution of the Church, which that present Exigence did force them upon: by this Admission then he was made a Minister according to Christs Institution, and a Superintendent too, so far as that Office includeth the Ministry: but wherein it differed from the Ministerial Office, it was of Man and not of God.

§ 18. He hath yet a fifth Agrument, p. 150. which according to his wont, of using the highest Confidence, and biggest Words, when the Strength of his Reasons are lowest, he calleth Irrefragable. It is drawn from several Acts of General Assemblies: some of which address to the Council for Maintainance to them: others for Increasing their Number, and Placing them where none were before: and that when the Church was of four years standing; and when the Number of Qualified Men were somewhat Increased. One Petitioned, that all the Popish Clergy should be dispossessed, and that Superintendents, Ministers, and other needful Members, should be Planted in their Places. Whence he very wisely inferreth, that Superintendents were needful Members of the Church, and that they were to succeed to the Popish Bishops. This is mentioned by Spotswood; but by none else, as himself observeth. Some Superintendents in the year 1574. would have Dimitted, but the General Assembly ordered them to continue in their Function. I am so dull as not to see the Strength of this Irrefragable Argument; I can see no Consequence that can be drawn from any thing, or all that he hath said, but that the Churches found the necessity, which occasioned the setting up of Superintendents, not to be over in four years; nor wholly in fourteen years: though Qualified Men Increased, yet their Number was very unproportionate to the Necessities of the Church. I look on the Increasing of their Number (which must be a Lessening of their Districts) not as tending to perpetuate them; but on the contrary, it was a reducing them by Degrees, to the State of other Ministers; by restricting them to a fewer Number of Parishes, and so at last to one. That they were needful Members of the Church, at that time, I doubt not; but this doth not prove their designed Perpetuity: that they were to succeed the Popish Bishops, is a wild Fancy; that is no more said of them than of other Church Officers, who were to be Planted in the Places where these Bishops had been, and were to be Maintained by their Revenues. He concludeth this head, as is usual with him; with Confident Rehearsing [Page] what he hath made evident. The Judicious will judge of his Performance; and mine too. I agree with him in what followeth, p. 153, 154. That the Superintendents, when Churches were provided, were no more to travel among them; but I affirm, when they were sufficiently provided, their Work was Confined to one Parish; and that Office ceased in the Church: of which before.

§ 19. He advanceth now, p. 154. to another piece of his Work; to consider our Reasons for the Temporariness of Superintendency. The first of them, that he nameth is, the Force of Necessity, there being so few Men qualified for the Ministry, scarcely one in a Province: against this he bringeth several Replies, intermixed with an unbecoming Confidence, and bitter Reflections. The first is, this Reason is inconsequential, because that necessity might have been answered by dividing the Nation in as many Parishes as there were qualified Men, and Lessening them as moe qualified Men could be had. Ans. The course that was taken, was materially the same that he proposeth: only it was necessary, that within these great Parishes, the Minister, or Superintendent of it, (call him as you will) should have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Ministers who were set in the several little Parishes, and who could neither dispense the Word sufficiently, nor govern the Church; and should have Power to plant qualified Men, as soon as they could be found in these lesser Parishes: and this was the Office of a Superintendent. I hope the Reader will see, that this Reply to our Reason is insignificant, and that our Reason is not shewed to be inconsequential. His second is, this Reason destroyeth Parity: for that could not be the Model that our Lord instituted, which cannot answer the ends of its Institution; as in this case Parity could not do: for here the Church is reduced to that State that the Governours thereof forced by necessity, must lay it aside for a time, and establish a Prelacy. Ans. This is stranger Divinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reason. It supposeth, if it have any Sense in it, that all Gods Institutions and Injunctions, do so serve for all the cases that can fall out, that no necessity can excuse a temporal receding from the Observance of them. Which to be evidently false, shall be made appear in Answer to his third Reply (which upon the matter is the same with this) the Model of Government that himself, and other Prelatists, is for, is lyable to the same Inconvenience; and according to his Logick, is none of Christs Institution. He, and the rest of them, maintain, that by the Laws of the new Testament, there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bishop, [Page] and yet they think themselves warranted by Necessity to allow Ordination without a Bishop: Downam, in his Sermon about Episcopacy, hath this Passage, posita enim Ecclesia, aut in universum Episcopo destituta, aut conferta Hereticis aut Idolatricis Praelatis, quales Papistici sunt, a quibus nulli Orthodoxi Ministri ordinationem sperare debent, dubitandum non est quin prisci Patres, in tali necessitatis casu ordinationem sine Episcopo fact a permiserint, licet non ut regularem, ordinarii Ecclesiae regiminis regulis respondentem, efficacem tamen, & quae justificari possit, ubi deest Episcopus. (I have not his Sermon by me in English, and therefore use the Latine Translation) And he citeth Concil. Antioch. C. 10. for it, and pleadeth for it by several Reasons. Here that Learned Person, had in great Esteem in the Episcopal Church, maketh two Cases of Necessity, in which the Model he pleadeth for as Christs Institution, must be receded from. And if Prelatists may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Case of Necessity, why may not Presbyterians allow a single Person to Ordain under the same Force and Cogency? Also Forbes. Iren. p. 158. & seq. not only asserteth, but proveth the Force of Necessity to warrant such things: withal asserting the Jus Divinum of Episcopacy: and he insisteth at length to prove this Proposition, from Scripture and Antiquity; that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Bishop.

§. 20. His Third Rply is, it is strange Divinity, that Paritie is of Christs Institution, and yet may be laid aside in case of necessity: and here he falleth heavily on, G R. for asserting what this may be inferred from: and taketh occasion to reproach him. I find no more shew of reason in this part of his Discourse (though there be many bitter and harsh words in it) but this, that if we may do so in one thing, we may do so in all things. Ans. I shall shew that this is no strange Divinity, and then Answer his Reason against it. It is not rare Divinity; for I have already shewed that Dounham and Forbes (Men of the first Rank among his own Partie) teach the same. That it is is not against Scripture nor Reason (and therefore not strange) I Prove, 1. It is taught by Christ himself: it was Gods Command that the Sabbath should be strictly observed, the Law containeth no express exeption from this Rule: yet our Saviour maketh the case of Necessity to be a just Exception; in that he Defended his Disciples plucking the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath day: and that by other Examples, where Necessity had the same influence: Luke 6. 1, &c. David appoved by Christ, in the place cited, thought it no strange Doctrine: it was the Institution of God that none should eat the Shew Bread but the [Page] Priests: David and his Men were no Priests, and yet their Necessity did warrant their eating of it. The Apostles thought it no strange Doctrine: who (though they knew that the Jewish Ceremonies were abolished, and become unlawful to be used after the Resurrection of Christ; and though Paul told the Galatians when the case of Necessity was now over, that Christ should profit them nothing if they were Circumcised; yet they enjoyned the Observation of some of these Ceremonies, and pleaded Necessity for it, Acts 15. 28. and 29, verses. Paul Circumcised Timothy, Acts 16. 3. used the Ceremonies proper for the Jewish votaries, Acts 21. 23, 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who observed the Jewish Ceremonies, Rom. 14. 1. though out of that case of Necessity, he severely condemneth that Observation. Gal. 4. 9, 10, 11. 2. Reason, as well as Scripture, doth plead for this influence of Necessity, on humane Actions. For 1. Necessity (I mean such as the Providence of GOD without our sin, bringeth us into) is a Declaration of GOD'S will; now this cannot be contrarie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Word; when the Word and Necessity seem to clash (for they can never be truely inconsistent, being both from GOD) and if in that case we should sin by yielding to Necessity, we should be under a Necessity of sinning; which no Divine will say a man can be under, without his own fault: To take the present case for an Example: let us suppose Church Government by Paritie is Christs Institution; suppose also that there are so few Ministers that there cannot be Men got to supplie Places, but such as are palpably insufficient for the Work: here is a Dilemma, either Gospel Ordinances must be neglected, or unduely managed, by these Men; or on the other hand, they who are Qualified must be set over these for a time, to Preach now and then in their Places; to Direct and injoyn them what is right, to Plant the Places with Qualified Men when they can be got: all which is supposed to be cross to the letter (I do not say to the Meaning and Design) of the Institution; in the first Case, the Church should sin in neglecting that which is the main Design of all Gospel Institutions, viz. Edification, and Saving of Souls; therefore, she doth not sin on the other hand, by crossing the Letter of the Institution: otherwise she should be under a Necessity of sining, without her own fault bringing her under that Necessity. 2. Although our LORD did forsee all the Cases and Circumstances, in which his Church was to be unto the end of the World, and could have fully Provided for them all, by giving distinct Laws suted to every one of them; yet infinite [Page] Wisdom thought fit to give Laws for regulating the ordinary cases of the Church, leaving these that are rare, and Extraordinary to be Managed according to the general Rules of Scripture, and sound reason, because distinct Laws for all possible Cases, would have swelled the BIBLE to a bigness which would have made it less useful to us; and of this it may be said, as of a Case not unlike to it, John 20. 30, 31. The World could not have contained, at least Men could not have Read, and Retained, the Contents of all the Books that should have been Written; no doubt, when GOD made the Law forbidding that the Shew Bread should be eaten by any but by the Priests, he forsaw what case David and his Men would be in: but he thought it not fit to provide for that Case by an Express Exception from the Law; but left it to be Ordered by his more general Laws: Even so it is in the Case that we Dispute about.

§. 21. I shall now Answer his Reason brought against this yielding to Necessitie, in cases of Divine Institution which is, that if Necessitie can oblige Christians to forsake, or to cross Institution in one Case; why not in all Cases. The Consequence that this his Question implyeth, we simply Deny. And I may Confidently say, that himself, in his cooler thoughts, will be ashamed of it at least he will have few Men of Sense, whether Learned or unlearned, that will allow such a Consequence. Farless, that will Joyn wit him in what followeth, viz. that crossing Institution when forced to it by the Law of Necessity; what is it else than to open a door to Gnosticism, to Infidelity, to Apostasie; and to all imaginable kinds of Antichristian Perfidie, and Villanie? To clear this Matter, and to still this Noise, and that the Reader may understand this Debate about the Force of Necessitie better than this learned Author seemeth to do: I shall shew when Necessitie may warrant an Action, which without such Necessitie were unwarrantable, and when not. 1. It is not feigned or pretended Necessitie that can have this Force: we are far from thinking that it is a sufficient Excuse when on hath done an evil thing, to say there was Necessitie for it, I could not shun it; if our Reformers did but pretend Necessitie for setting up Superintendents, or if we do but pretend it for them; if my Antagonist can prove (as he hath alleged) that there was no Necessitie for it, but that if they had been for Paritie; they might have Promoted the Gospel without thus diverting from it, for a time; we shall quit this Argument; GOD is Judge in that case, whether the Necessitie be real, or only pretended; And in many cases, Man may Judge, and Punish them who break the Law, and pretend Necessitie [Page] for their Action. 2. It must be a Necessitie of GOD'S making, not of our own bringing on; as I hinted before; If either a Church, or a Person, do sinfully bring themselves under a Necessitie of Transgressing the Law; the sinful Cause maketh the Action sinful which is consequential to it. 3. The Necessitie that we shelter our Actions under must not only be of the Means, nor only of the End, but of both. I suppose a Man cannot save his Life, his Libertie, or Estate, but by doing what is sinful, or omitting what is a Moral and perpetual duty, or is such hic et nunc Here is the Necessitie of Means, but it cannot excuse him because there is no Necessitie of the End, it is not necessarie that we should Live, be at Libertie, nor that we have Estates; there is neither an absolute Necessitie of these nor comparative Necessitie: none of them is so necessarie as it is to keep a good Conscience, and to please GOD; and shun sin. Again suppose the End be necessarie V. Gr. to advance the Interest of Religion; but this End may be attained to by means that do no way cross any of GOD'S Institutions; to do what is cross to Institution, in that case is no way Excusable: For there is no necessitie of the Mean. If my Antagonist can shew that either the End of setting up Superintendents, was needless; or that that could be attained without encroaching a little on Paritie, for a time; then shall we no more plead Necessitie for what they did; but judge that they were not for Paritie in their Principles. 4. We distinguish, with respect to the Force of Necessitie, between these Actions which are Moral from their Nature, and these that are Moral only by Institution. How far Necessitie may Warrant, or not Warrant an Action against the Moral-Law, I shall not now Dispute; our present Debate, not being concerned in that Question: it is evident that there are some cases in which Necessitie, even in such Actions, hath place, as Adam's Sons Marrieing their Sisters; of which Lyra and Menochius in Gen. 4. 17. say, Initio mundi necessè fuit Sorores Fratribus nubere. And it is also certain that no Necessitie can dispense with some other Actions that are naturally Moral; such as Blasphemy, Lying, &c. but in Matters of Institution, the LORD hath not so strictly bound his People, nor made his Institutions to clash with the natural and indispensible Commands that he hath laid on them: as is evident, in David's case above-mentioned: If Institution, in some Circumstances that the LORD hath cast his People in, do clash with the Moral Dutie of saving Life: this Moral Dutie superceedeth the Obligation of Institution, in that time, and in that case, much more when present Circumstances make [Page] Institution to clash with the great End of Institution; as in the case in hand: without dispensing with Paritie in this case, the End of Church Government had been lost; viz. the Edification of the Church, and Promoting the Reformation. If any should object, that this is a dispensing with the Law of GOD: I Answer, it is not Mans dispensing with GOD'S Law; but his Judging that GOD, in that Case, dispenseth with his own Law; or as Aquinas 2. 2. Q. 88. Art. 10. Fit ut hoc quod erat lex non sit lex, in hoc casu, and 1. 2. Q. 96. Art. 6. Qui in casu Necessitatis agit praeter verba Legis, non judicat de ipsa Lege, sed judicat de casu singulari in quo videt verba legis observanda non esse. And indeed, to denie all Influence of true, real, and innocent Necessitie, to change the Moralitie of some Actions, especially these that relate to Instituted Worship, were to put Mens Consciences on such a Rack, as there were some times, no possibilitie to attain to well grounded Peace. And on the other hand, I hope what is said will Defend this Opinion from the horrid consequence that he is pleased to draw from it: especially when we consider, that this influence of Necessitie must be but for a time; not perpetual: because it is not to be thought, that any of GODS Appointments are so contrived, as to be always unpracticable: or that the LORD will bring his Church, or any Person, under such a lasting Necessitie, that they never can do what he hath Commanded, they using their utmost endeavours to observe all that he hath Commanded, as is injoyned Matthew 28. 20. I shall not Determine what Necessitie of Omission one may be perpetually under; but I understand not how this can be with respect to possitive Acts contrarie to Institution.

§ 22. He dealeth with a Second Plea that he imputeth to us, p. 157, &c. why our Reformers are not to be thought Episcopal in their Principles, notwithstanding of their setting up Superintendents, which is; that these Superintendents did very much differ from Bishops, in the Notion that our Adversaries have of Bishops: The Author of the Ten Questions calleth that a New Modell of Episcopacy. To take off this Calderwood bringeth some Differences between them and Bishops: and Vindicat: in Answer to the Ten Questions, mentioneth also some of them, and Addeth what after he confesseth to be Material. All which he is pleased to ridicule, with his wonted Insolencie: but I am consident the judicious Reader will easily discern who is most Ridiculous; he that Proveth a Superintendent not to be the same with a Bishop, from his Election, Examination, and Admission: that he had no new Consecration, as Bishops [Page] must have, and so was in no Superior degree to a Presbyter: that there were no Arch-Superintendents as there were Arch-Bishops, &c. or he who compareth these to the ordinary Habit of the one, with the State and Grandeur of the other in their distinguishing Marks: which yet, if not set down in such scurrile terms, as he useth, may make a great Difference between the Temper of the one sort of Men and that of the other; though not of their Office or Power. If our Reformers had intended to continue that sole Jurisdiction of Prelats in the Church, which they found settled in it under Poperie, this Change that they made, even in these things, is unaccountable: nor can a Reason be given why they kept not to the old District that the Bishops had before Governed. It is as evident, as any thing can be made at such a distance of time, that the Superintendents never had that absolute Power in the Church that our Episcopal Brethren now allow to their Prelats. Though we denie not that they had a Frelacie, and more Power than We now give to single Presbyters; and have given the Reason why it was so, and of its Consistence with the design of our Reformers, that the perpetual Government of the Church should be by Paritie. The main Difference between the two sorts of Church Rulers which we insist on, and which himself acknowledgeth to be Material, he falleth upon, p. 159. and sayeth he must be serious in it; is, Superintendents were made obnoxious to the Tryal and Censures of Ministers within their own Dioces. The Truth of which, and that it neither was so with Bishops in the Primitive Church, nor should be so now, he doth freely Profess. But he putteth his Wit to its utmost stretch, to get a fair Answer to it. He bringeth no less than Five Answers, whereas one good one had been Worth them all. His first Answer hath some what of Ingenuitie in it. He condemneth our Reformers in this; and sayeth, it was a great Error in their Constitutions, and declames against it with great Vehemencie, that Governours should be Subject to the Censure of their Subjects; and sheweth a great deal of Zeal for absolute Government, both in Church and State: into Debate about which I shall not now enter: only I take Notice, that here he fairly gives up that part of our Controvesie, that he hath been at a vast deal of pains about; that our Reformers were Episcopal in their Principles. With which I am sure, this is wholly inconsistent. If he had thought of this sooner, and Acted consequentially to it, after this Thought came into his Head, he he might have saved a greas deal of pains to himself, and Me: and near the Half of his long Book might have been spared. His second Answer [Page] is, this was put in their Constitution from a Principle about civil Government owned by them, that the King is Major singulis, but Minor omnibus: which he also Ridiculeth. Neither am I concerned to Debate this Principle, it doth not belong to our our present Controversie. But what he asserteth is a groundless Conjecture; we have better ground to think that they lookt on this as according to the Laws of the Gospel; which forbiddeth Church Domination. His Third is, they made also Ministers Censureable by their Elders; and from thence taketh occasion to Reproach them, as having little Skill in Church Policy: nor will I degress into these Debates; only I take Notice, that what he saith is no Answer to our Exception, but rather a Confirmation of it: if both a Superinintendent was Censureable by the Synod, and the Ministers by the Eldership; it doth evidentlie follow, that the Superintendents and the Bishops power were not the same. A Fourth Answer is, this was never put in Practice. Reply, It will be very hard for him to Prove this Negative: but whether it was or not, it sheweth that our Reformers did not intend Episcopacy when they set up Superintendents. His Fifth is, this Constitution doth not infer Parity. Reply, We do not say that Superintendents were in absolute Parity with other Ministers; we confess a disparity of Power, for that time. All we plead is, that our Reformers were not for Episcopacy, even in that case of Necessity: and the Imparity that they were then forc't to; they did not intend should always continue.

§. 23. The other Plea he mentioneth hath its Rise from his own fancie: it was not used by us: what he citeth 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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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[Page]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 short account of the Convention at Leith 1571. Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Episcopacy. Of the Assembly at Saint Andrews, in March 6. it hath but little. Assembly 1572. at Perth, a Determination against the Names of Arch-Bishops, Deans, &c. as scandalous: Also that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim. Assembly March 1. 1572. Bishops appointed (as well as others) to be at the first Meeting of every Assembly, under the Pain of Tinsel of half a years Stipend: Assembly March 6. 1573. Bishops admonished to joyn with the Kirk, in her Assemblies, which it seems some of these Aspiring Men thought below them. And it is Enacted, that the Power of Bishops should not exceed that of a Superintendent: And that Bishops should be subject to the Discipline of the General Assembly. Assembly 1574. The Bishop of Dunkel rebuked for Ministration of the Lords Supper on Work days. They were then so Shy of a fixed and perpetual Prelation among Ministers; that it was Enacted, Anno 1575. p. 70. at the end, that to shun Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk, Commissioners for Visiting Provinces should be Changed every year. In the beginning of that Assembly, when the Tryal of the Doctrine and Conversation of Bishops, Superintendents, and other Ministers was mentioned, John Dury one of the Ministers of Edinburgh, Protested that the Tryal of Bishops prejudge not the Opinion, and Reasons that he, and other Brethren has to oppone against the Office and Name of a Bishop. This is the highest Pitch that his new Model of Episcopacy (as he calleth it) came to from 1571. to 1575, when (we deny not) there was a Declension from the Purity of Church Government, endeavoured by some Courtiers, and Ambitious Church Men, their Tools. But from this time Presbytry began to Revive, and gather Strength, till at last it was fully setled: For in the Assembly 1575. it was questioned whether the Office of Bishops was Founded on the Word of God, p. 71. and some appointed to Debate on either Side. Bishops are appointed to chuse a particular Flock, where they must ordinarily Labour. Assembly 1576▪ p. 71. Adamson Presented by the Queen to the Bishoprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Assembly to be tryed, p. 77. The Bishop of Glasgow is required to take a particular Charge. [Page]Assembly 1577. p. 79. Adamson Summoned before the General Assembly for Usurping a Bishoprick, without the Kirk: Commissioners are appointed to Examine the Matter, and to Discharge him to Visit any more, till he be Admitted by the Kirk: Assembly 1578. p. 83. Ordained that Beshops he called by their own Names, and called Brethren, p. 84. The Assembly dischargeth Creating any more Bishops till the next Assembly; because of great Corruptions in the State of Bishops. Assembly 1578. held in June, extendeth the foresaid Act to all time coming, till the Corruptions of the State of Bishops be wholly taken away; And Commands all Bishops that now are, to Submit to the Assembly under Pain of Excommunication. Assembly at Dundee, July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reason, The whole Assembly in one Voice, did declare the Office of Bishops as now used in Scotland, to be unwarrantable in the Word of God, and unlawful in it self, and to the great Overthrow of the Kirk of God. All Bishops are Charged to Dimit, and to use no part of the Office of Pastors, without new Admission by the Assembly: Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them, and proceed to Excommunication against the Refusers. Assembly 1581. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean, that the Government of Bishops, as now in Scotland, is wholly Condemned. After which, Presbyteries were Erected through the whole Nation. For his false Citations out of the Manuscript, I shall mention but two (tho the Reader may observe many moe, by Comparing his Book with the Manuscript.) One is p. 127. that the Manuscript saith it was Ordained, Assembly 1562. that no Minister leave his Flock to come to the Assembly, unless he have Complaint to make, or be Complained of, or be Warned to it by the Superintendent; whereas the Manuscript hath not a Word to that Purpose in that Assembly: The other is p. 128. out of the Assembly 1563. That none Vote in Assemblies but Superintendents, Commissioners, and Ministers brought with them, together with Commissioners of Shires, Burghs, and Universities: And that Ministers Commissioners be Chosen at the Synodal Convention, with Consent of the rest of the Ministers, and Gentlemen Conveened at the Synod. Whereas the Manuscript (it is p. 10.) saith, that every Superintendent within his own Jurisdiction, cause warn the Shires, Towns, and Parish Kirks, to send their Commissioners to the Assembly, declaring to them the Day and Place. Here is nothing like what he Citeth: and if it were so as he saith, it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commissioners to the Assembly▪ but it is plain that they were Chosen by the Synod: and that the Synods Consent was no less an Act of Authority, than if it had been said, it must be done by their Vote. These things out of that Manuscript, I [Page] have here cast together, because I had finished this Work before it came to my hand, and therefore could not so conveniently dispose them in their several Places.

§ 25. I shall not any further take notice of this Historical Controversie, than to make some short Remarks on it, hoping that a History of these Affairs may ere long be ready for the Press, from which we expect a full Account, with more Truth and Candor, than what is to be found in his Discourse. 1. I deny not (nor do I know any that ever denyed) but there was so much ground for his telling us of a second Model of the Government of the Church; that the first Endeavours of the Reformers, for shunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery, met with some Interruption and Opposition; the Causes were evident, the Covetousness of some Courtiers, and other States Men; and the Ambition and Unfaithfulness of some Church Men: there were Attempts to set up Episcopacy, and they had some degree of effect; but they were always opposed; and the Designs of the Prelatical Party could never succeed, as they wished; but at last, after much Wrestling, Presbytery was settled in its Vigour, in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did some things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity, in that Interval of her Declension and Confusions, was needless Labour, which I do not envy him the Pleasure of, seing he was pleased so to imploy his Leasure Hours; I have elsewhere Debated some of these Passages, with the same Author (if I mistake not) nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new, save insolent Contempt, and ill Words; which I can easily beat from a Man of his Temper; nor will I make equal Returns to these his Complements. 2. I observe, that when p. 143. he is giving account of the Alteration that was endeavoured, toward the setting up of Episcopacy; he bringeth Reasons for the States Men, and Reasons for the Church men, that might move them; and that with as much Confidence, as if he had been at the Consult; the States Men considered that Episcopacy was still established by Law; the Ecclesiasticks made one of the three Estates; and to take it away was to shake the Civil Constitution; and they might have been called to an account for it, when the King should come to Age; who was then Minor: But this is a pure Fallacy: the Bishops were still by Law possessed of their Temporalities, Revenues, and Parliamentarie Priviledges; but not of their Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction: it was the preserving of these, not of this, that the Courtiers were accountable for, [Page] with respect to the Civil Constitution. That this was the best way to preserve the Right of the Church; is said without Book; unless he can prove that Christ gave her such Rights; her Civil Rights might have been, and afterward were, otherwise preserved. It was very evident, that many of the States Men were Acted by other Motives, (I do not say all of them were for a Jus Divinum, or Acted Conscienciously) even to get the Revenues in their hands. Which he doth plainly enough confess, while page 189. he telleth us of their Playing their Tricks, and Robbing the Church. For the Reason that he maketh the Clergy go upon, viz. The ill Effects of the former Scheme, laid in the first Book of Discipline, that had arisen to the Church: there is no Hint given by him of any such ill Effects, as apprehended by the Men of that Time; except that they who designed a Change for their own Ends, would readily pretend some such thing; neither he, nor any else, can prove that any Detriment to the true Interests of Religion, did arise from it: It is evident, that some Church Men had a design to advance themselves; though they were disappointed, as to the advantagious part of their design, they got the Titles, and the great Men got the Revenues; which he would fain deny or dissemble: but it is so evident, that he must contradict our plainest Histories, if he deny it. 3. That another was Moderator in the General Assembly, than a Bishop, is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height, even by the greatest Efforts the Party could make at that time. All he saith to this is, that George Buchannan was chosen Moderator in the General Assembly 1567. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of Presbytery. The Strength of this Evasion is soon taken off: the Episcopal Church look on Bishops as so far above Presbyters; that it is Essential to them to Rule, and the Presbyters to be Ruled by them; so that for a Bishop to be a single Member of an Assembly, and a Presbyter to be Moderator, is inconsistent with the Bishops Prerogative; but Presbyterians hold no such distinguishing Principle; they think a Minister is in a superior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder: but do not think that the one hath Jurisdiction over the other; but that both have equal Ruling Power: and therefore, though it be now so Customary, that only Ministers preside in our Meetings, that it would be thought odd, if it should be otherwise, yet for a Ruling Elder (such as Master Buchannan was) and a Man of his singular Eminency, to preside in a Meeting, is not against any Principle of Presbyterians, that I know of; (tho the Way we use is most Rational, and Decent, and there is no [Page] Reason for receding from it.) But to make this Observation yet stronger, Calderwood p. 56. (if I may Name him without Firing this Gentlemans Choller; and being Charged with Ignorance, and knowing no other History) telleth us, that never one of them had the Credit to be Moderator of the General Assembly; which is a Token (I shall not speak in his Dialect, an infallible Demonstration) that their Episcopal Jurisdiction was not then owned by the Church.

§ 26. A fourth Observation I make on his Historical Debate is, that he endeavoureth to prove, against Petrie and Calderwood; that the Articles at Leith were approved by the General Assembly; that Episcopacy was s [...] approved; that it cost much Stuggling before it could be Abolished. What he gaineth by all this I know not. The Opposition that was made to that Way did soon appear, and it was soon abolished: that it is said, that it was not allowed by the General Assembly, is only meant of the first General Assembly that sat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith; though afterward the Party grew stronger and got it approved; I know none that asserteth that it was never approved in any General Assembly, though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved, might tempt one to think that it was never approved, viz. That they sat in Assemblies, and voted, and that even as Bishops: Their sitting and voting proveth that they were tollerated: what he meaneth by sitting and voting as Bishops, I do not well understand: that Reduplication must either import the Exercise of the Episcopal Authority, or it is a Word without Sense, or Signification: now that they Exercised Episcopal Authority in any of the Assemblies, I do not find, nor doth he attempt to prove it. The Arch-Bishop of Saint Andrews, being present, and first named in a Committee, (as p. 203.) is such an Argument for Episcopal Preheminence, as the Papists use not a few for Peters Supremacy: that Superintendents are continued (ibid.) is a weak Argument, for the Assemblies approving Bishops of the second Model, as he calleth it. It is another such Argument, that the Assembly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Bishops, Deans, &c. and wish these changed into Names less offensive: that the Articles agreed on at Leith (which contain his second Model) are voted by the Assembly to be received but for an Interim. These and some more of the same, or like Importance, are his Arguments for the Approbation of Episcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time. I do not say they Acted as Men for the Divine Right of Parity: it was a time of Temptation, and many yielded too far: but there was a Party that did [Page] not thus Comply, and who prevailed to get this Yoke cast off at last: many of the Acts of the Assemblies that he citeth, do Direct the Bishops, and Limit their Power, and appoint them to be subject to the General Assembly; and to have no more Power than Superin endents had: this looketh like no good Will to Episcopacy: but a Hedging it in, when they could not, for present, cast it wholly out. But he will prove, p. 212, &c. That all this was out of no Dislike to Episcopacy: and that by a Petition consisting of nine Articles, drawn by the General Assembly, 1574. Wherein Bishops are several times mentioned, and that as Acting as Bishops, in Naming Ministers for Places; (where yet Superintendents and Commissioners are also mentioned, as equally concerned in that Work) yea in 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 [Page] 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 Teac [...]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, [Page] 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 meant none but such as Anabaptists, and Familists: And a contrair Assertion of that same Royal Author, whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland; by saying, and that frequently, that no Error could get footing there (in Scotland)[Page]while Kirk Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General-Assemblies stood in their Force. He concludeth his Second Enquiry, with making a great Improvement against us (as he thinketh) of our saying that the Bishops set up, in that he calleth his second Model, had no more Power than Superintendents; whence he Argueth, Superintendents had the essentials of Episcopal Power; but the Assembly at Dundee, 1580, Condemned Episcopacie; and they Condemned also Superintendencie; whence it followeth, that they (and our present Presbytersans follow their Steps in this) not only forsook, but condemned the Principles of our Reformers. This he seemeth to hug as a triumphant Argument, before which the Presbyterian Cause can never stand. But the Answer is plain and easie, and may be gathered from what hath been abov-discoursed. That Assemblie did, (and the Presbyterians do) condemn Superindendencie, as what ought not to continue in the Church; nor ought to be in the ordinarie cases of the Church; but they did not condemn it as what was never lawful to be used for a time, in an extraordinarie Exigent. And we affirm (which our Author hath not yet disproved) that our Reformers were not for Superintendents perpetual continuance in the Church.

§. 28. Our Authors Third Enquire is, whether Prelacie, and the Superioritie of any Office in the Church, above Presbyters was a great and insupportable Grievance, and Trouble to this Nation, and contrair to the Inclinations of the generalitie of the People, ever since the Reformation. He hath verie just Sentiments of this Matter, when he sayeth that if his Determination of the former Enquirie be true, this Question will soon be dispatched; for indeed it hath a great Dependence on what is already Discoursed. He might, if so it had pleased him, saved the labour of this tedious Debate, in which there is little else but a litigious Jangle, about what can hardly othewise be Determined than by what hath been alreadie said; unless we could (which is impossible) have the Vote by Pole, of all the Individuals of the Nation, and that in all the Times, and Changes since the Reformation. The Parliament hath given us their Sentiments about this Matter, and if any be not willing to rest in the Judgment of so wise an Assemblie of worthy Patriots, come together from all parts of the Nation to consult about its weghtiest Affairs, he may, for me, abound in his own sense. I know this hath been generally the thoughts of Presbyterians, yea, of sober Episcopalians in some other Churches, and I could give the Opinion of some of the greatest [...]minencie for Vertue, Understanding and Rouk, (and yet not Presbyterian) that Presbyterie [Page] was the fittest Church-Government for Scotland. But if our Brethren will maintain he contrarie, I judge they mistake: but shall not think them Hereticks on this accompt. I would have him also consider; that what ever might move the Parliament to make use of this Motive to Abolish Episcopacie, and Establish Presbyterie; the Presbyterian Church of Scotland never thought the Aversion of the People from Episcopacie, nor their Inclinations to Presbytrie, to be the Fundamental Charter by which they have a right to that Government. We rejoyce that the State was pleased to allow, and countenance, by their Authority, this Government of the Church; but we think, it standeth on a surer bottom, than either the Opinion or the Authoritie of Men; and much surer than the Inclinations of the Mob: even the Institution of Christ declared in the Scriptures of truth; which Grounds I have laid down in this Work; if he can Beat us from these, we shall become his willing Proselyts; and quit (though we will not Revile it as he doth) this Act of Parliament, as no sufficient Ground for our Faith and Practice in this Matter. I know not whether it favoured more of Contempt of the State, or of the Church, or was more designed to ridicule, or to refute Presbyterie, that he Choosed such a Title for his Book as he hath done? but we are in utrumque parati; to despise his Mocking, and to Answer his Material Arguments, though we have neither leasure nor Inclination to Blott so much Paper as he hath done, about Matters that be remote from the main Question.

§. 29. His Proofs of the Peoples Inclination towards Bishops are much of a size of strength with what we have already heard, Petrie commends the State of the Church in the year 1576: and Spotswood speaketh of the Respect that the Superintendents had: Beza also, and Knox rejoyced in that State of the Church: Ans. I believe, so should the Presbyterians of our days have done if they had then Lived: There was a Glorious Reformation that was cause of great Joy, and though Superintendencie was no desireable thing in it self, yet in that time of the Churches great Exigence, it was no small Mercie, and Matter of Joy, that there were a few worthy Men to manage the Affairs of the Church, when as many as were needed could not be had; and it was just that these Men should be had in great Esteem: yet it is no good Argument, the People Inclined to have Superintendents when it was simply needful, therefore they inclined to have them, or Bishops, perpetuated in the Church. Another great Argument is, even in after times, and the more advanced State of [Page] Presbyterie, when Ten or Twelve were severely dealt with by the Magistrat and Six or Seven more called to London, for their forwardness in that way, yet all things went peaceably in Scotland: as if People were always well pleased with what passeth when they make no Disturbance to the Government: he must in Justice allow us the use of the same Argument for the Aversion of all Scotland from Episcopacie, and their Inclination to Presbyterie, seing the Nation have these years past, been in Peace, though he, and some of his Partie Complain of the hardest usage that can be. That Episcopacie prevailed, 1610, Proveth no more for the one side, than the prevailing of Paritie, 1592, and again, 1690, Proveth for the other side. Yea, submitting to Episcopacie, so far as to sit in Synods, and Presbyteries with a Bishop, was no Argument of Approving it, in the case of the Church that then was; when the Judicatures of the Church were in their Integritie, and Bishops thrust in on them: It was another Case at the last Erection of Episcopacie, when all Church Meetings were laid aside by Civil Authority, and were called again only by the Bishops Authority. He Chargeth Calderwood. (and G. R. for the great Crime of following him in this piece of Historie) that he had said, that it was Statute in Parliament, 1565, that no other Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that which is, and shall be, within this same Kirk, Established presently, or which floweth therefrom, concerning Preaching the Word, Correction of Manners, or Administration of the Sacrament. If I should Confess that I find not these Words in the Act which Calderwood citeth: yet our Author should not have so much Advantage against him, or G. R. either, as he Boasteth of; unless he will Condemn his Darling Historian Spotswood also: who sayeth, p. 214. that the matter of Policy and Jurifdiction of the Church was refeered to the consideration of certain Lords delegated by the Estates: there is as little of this in the Act that he Citeth, as there is of what Calderwood had mentioned: whence these two Historians had their vouchers for what they say, it seems my Antagonist cannot tell; nor could I, till I met with an old Edition of King James the si [...]ths Acts of Parliament, Printed by John Ross at Edinburgh, 1575. Where Parliament 1569, Act 12, the Words are expresly set down. It seems his Party dreaded the Force of this Citation; and have taken care to stifle it: For in Edition Edinburgh, 1682, called the little Acts of Parliament, that Act (being the 12th Chapter, Parliament, 1567) is wholly left out. That Superintendencie was then in the Church; is no Argument [Page] that Prelacie was settled in the Church; as what was intended should continue; but they were then intending another sort of Jurisdiction, as the event did shew. What he so critically carpeth at, p. 293. about a Citation out of Leslyes Historie; is pure quibling; it was not denied that Popish Bishops sat in Parliament, but rather acknowledged; yet Lesly was cited to shew that it did not long continue so. If there be any material Change in that Citation from the Authors Words, let the Reader judge; after all the frivolous Critticism he hath made. The Reader may observe how exact a Historian this Man is, who hussily Bantereth others with defectiveness that way: for he telleth us, that Meeting of which Lesly sayeth, that the Ecclesiasticks were Excluded, was not a Parliament; but at most a Privy Council: Lesly supposeth it to be a Meeting that had the Legistative Power, which I thought had been in the King and Parliament; and that they made such a Law as was the Fountain of all the Heresies, (i. e. the Protestant Religion) and other evils that followed. That he calleth it Concilium, is nothing contrarie to what I say; seing Parliaments are often so called in Latine,

§ 30. For his fourth Enquirie, he manageth his Answer to it, with such undecent Reflection both on the Church and on the State; that I judge others are meeter to deal with him about these things than I, or any in my capacity; and the Matter (as himself confesseth) not being capable of Argument; nor any publick Deed being extant (except the Act of Parliament which he so petulantly exposeth) by which it might be Determined: I see no ground here for Debate, but our Affirmation and his Denial; and I know he will lay no more weight on the one, than we lay on the other. For what he is at a great deal of pains about, to refute what G. R. and another who writ the farther Vindication, had said very transiently, and without intending a laborious Paper combate about a Matter so remote from the vitals of our Controversie with the Episcopalians, I say, all that Rapsodie that he hath written on this Head, I am content to refer it to the judicious and unbyassed Reader; to consider whether our Cause, or this Authors Reputation as a Wise Man, and one exercised in matters of solid Reason or Learning, do more Suffer by it; it is Truth, and the Ordiances of Christ that I am set for the Defence of, not Men, my self, nor others; unless it were in Matters that may reflect blame on the Cause that I own. Wherefore I shall wholly pass over this Enquirie: if any one who hath more leasure than I have; or is more inclined toward Eristick jangle, will [Page] take him to Task, and deal with him at his own Weapon, he may do it. I say not this, as either being convinced by his Reasons, or seeing them to be Unanswerable. I am still in the Opinion I was in before, concerning the Inclinations of the People of Scotland; especially the Soberer sort of them, and these of the best Lives, with respect to Episcopacie and Presbyterie. Only this I confess, that I believe there was never a time since the Reformation in Scotland arrived at any degree of Consistence, or Stabilitie, wherein the Inclinations of the Generalitie of the People were less cocerned about any thing of Religion, either the more Essential, or the less Substantial part of it; on the one side, or on the other; so Fatal impressions the Flood-gates of all manner of Profanness, and Looseness that had broken out in the late Times, under Prelacie, had made on the Minds of Men; and to such height Irreligiousness arrived. Yet I Affirm, that the real Respect that Men had to Religion, in any of the concernments of it, were rather on the Presbyterian, than on the Episcopal side. I shall say less of his fifth Enquirie, for I freely confess, that neither the Inclinations of the People for Presbyterie, nor Episcopacy being a Grievance to the Nation; nor our being Reformed by Presbyters, if all this were true, evident and certain; none of these, nor all of them in conjunction, could by themselves, infer that Prelacie should be Abolished: nor (I am confident) did the Parliament ever intend to have them so considered Wherefore, if my Antagonist, or any for him, can prove that Prelacie is the Ordinance of Christ for the Gospel Church: we shall part with all these Arguments for its Abolition, and shall cordially own it: but if that cannot be done (as I am sure it cannot) and if these Propositions be true; they afford an Argument for the Abolition of Prelacie, that he will never be able to Answer. And I shall dismiss this Enquirie; and indeed this whole Book, after I have Noted a few things (without insisting on Debates) out on a Discourse that he beginneth afresh, p. 333. about the Principles of our Reformers: he pleadeth for their fallabilitie: he is not for all they held or did: we say the same of both. Only I take Notice, that here he overthroweth the Argument that he had so much insisted upon against us; that our Reformers were not exactly for the whole of our Way. Though I do not pretend to Defend all the Principles that were held by our Reformers: yet many of these which he blameth them for might easily be Defended; if it were not to Digresse from our present Controversie about Church Government. The Reproaches that he casteth on Master Knox deserve Correction; I [Page] wish, some may undertake it. His Challenge to us, p. 344. to shew wherein they have deserted the Reformers, so far as they Agreed with the Primitive Church, or, what is an Approach toward Poperie, I say, Episcopacie is an Instance of both: but this being the Matter of our main Debate, the Decision must depend on that. He undertaketh 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 [Page] 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 [Page]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 Commemoration of some Mystery of our Religion, by Men; and as a part of Gods Worship. And another, whither such Days may be set apart for Worshipping God, merely as a piece of good Order and Policy. The first the Papists are for: the other most of our Prelatists owne: though some of them differ little from the Papists in this Matter. 6. The Question is not, whither a Day may be set apart occasionally for Religious Worship: that is, when any special Providence giveth occasion for Fasting and Humiliation, or for Thanksgiving [Page] and Rejoycing: seing in that Case, there is a special Providential Call to that Solemn Work: but, whither a Day may be set apart to be observed constantly, and as it recurreth every Year. The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year, and other Days; and exempteth it altogether; and constantly, from Civil Use; the other doth not so; the one maketh a Difference among Days; the other maketh the Difference only in the Works, or Dispensations of God, which occasioneth such Work on that Day, and not on another. All that the Church doth in the one Case, is, whereas the present Providence calleth to the Work, as it is expressed, Isa. 22. 12. The Church only determineth the Circumstance of Time; which must be done: in the other, the Church determineth more than a necessary Circumstance, viz. That there shall be such a Solemnity: Which the Lord hath not injoyned, neither do we doubt, but that the Church may appoint recurrent Days for Solemn Worship; to wit, while the present Providence that calleth to such Work continueth. Weekly, or Monthly Fasts may be appointed under a lasting Calamity or Threatning. 7. One Question is, whither any Anniversary Holy Days should be allowed, or may be appointed by Man: another, whither any are to be allowed in Commemoration of the Saints: for some are for the great Days; as they call them; which respect Christ, and our Redemption; such as the Nativity, Resurrection, Ascension, and some others: who are wholly against Holy Days that respect only the Saints. 8. It is a Question, whither Days may be Dedicated to Saints: as the Papists do: and another, whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on set Days: this last our Brethren are for: though it will be hard to separate these two: of which afterward.

§ 3. I shall now set down our Opinion, and wherein we differ from others. And first, we maintain, that God hath instituted the Observation of the Weekly Sabbath, as a part of that Religious Worship we owe to him. I do not expect that our Brethren will directly, and expresly controvert this: though some of them teach Doctrine not very consistent with it: which belongeth to another Head than what we are now upon. Only I take notice, that they who are most for observing other Holy Days, do usually shew least Zeal for the strict observing of the Lords Day, either in their Principle, or their Practice. 2. I assent, that the Lord hath not instituted, under the Gospel, any other recurrent Holy Days, nor enjoyned the Observation of them. If [Page] any think otherwise, they must prove what they affirm. 3. The Church hath no Power to institute, or injoy the Observation of any recurrent, or Anniversary Holy Days, for Religious Use, without a special and present Occasion. 4. Any Days that the Church setteth apart occasionally, for Religious Work, are no further Holy, than that Holy Work is the Design of their Appointment: they have no Sanctity in themselves; nor can Men impart it to them. 5. Though we are far from severe Censuring, either Ancient or Modern Churches, or Persons, who are for some of these Holy Days; yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this: nor look on these Days as indifferent things, as some of them do. 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opinion of the Reformed Churches, which our Author talketh so much of, and blameth us for differing from them: he may know, that our Episcopal Brethren are at greater Distance from them, in this Matter, than we are: for they condemn the Saints Holy Days: so Paraeus in Rom. 14. Dub. 4. so Calvin, in both the Epistles cited, §. 1. The Helvetick Confession of Faith, cap. 24. in Cor. Confess. p. 54. Baldwin citeth Danaeus disowning all the Holy Days, in these Words; Dies Christo dicatos tollendos existimo, judicoque; quotidie nobis in Evangelii praedicatione nascitur, circumciditur, moritur, resurgit Christus. Turretin Theolog. Elentic. loc. 11. cap. 15. Though he allow Liberty enough for observing of the Holy Days that relate to Christ; yet he determineth the Controversie about Holy Days far otherwise than our Episcopal Brethren do: I shall transcribe his Words: after he hath told us that we ought always to remember Christ and his Benefits, and should do it in the Word and Sacraments; he addeth, sed (questio est) an ad singulorum illorum beneficiorum & mysteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies festi, Deo sacri, annuatim recurrentes, a Christianis quotannis celebrandi sint? quod nos negamus. he also denyeth these Days to be more Holy than others, or a part of Gods Worship, or to be Celebrated sub ratione mysterii. Markius also Compend. cap. 12. §. 17. He condemneth the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church, from the first Christians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs. When my Antagonist hath duly considered these things, I hope he will not find cause to represent us as so widely differing from the Reformed; and himself so near to them, as he would now make the World believe. I do not pretend that they are generally, wholly on our Side, in this; for many of them look on the Observation of these Days as indifferent; in which we cannot assent to them. But I [Page] know of none of them who imposeth them with such Rigour, and talk so highly of the necessity of observing them, being recommended by the Church; or of the Religion that is in this Observation, as the Episcopal Party in England and Scotland do. Our Brethren do also stand by themselves, in their keeping of Saints Days: and in the Number of their Holy Days; which in England is greater than the Number of these that God injoyned to the Jews; forthe Primitive Church, at some Distance from the Apostolick Times, may be they may have some Countenance there; yet these Saints Days were not then so so injoyned, and urged, as they urge and impose them, nor made such a Yoke to the People; as may be gathered from Socrates histor. Eccles. lib. 5. cap. 22. whose Words are, [...], &c. I am of Opinion, that as many other things crept in by Custom, in diverse places, so the Feast of Easter prevailed among all People, from a certain private Custom, and Observation; in so much that (as I said before) not one of the Apostles hath any where prescribed to any Man, so much as one Rule of it; it was observed, not by Canon, but of Custom; and afterward he taxeth some, who count Fornication indifferent, and contend about Holy Days, as it were for Life and Death: they despise the Commands of God, and establish Canons of their own. I shall add the Opinion of our Reformers, and the Protestant Church of Scotland, in her first State, and that out of the hist. motuum in regno Scotiae, under the borrowed Name of Iraeneus Philaleth. p. 264, 265. libro primo disciplinae, cap. 1. Censetur; Festa Nativitatis, Circumcisionis, Epiphaniae, &c. Apostolorum, Martyrum, & B. Virginis Mariae penitus abolenda esse, cum eorum observatio nullibi a Deo in Scripturis imperetur; rogandus itaque Magistratus, ut obnitentes civili authoritate coerceat: in Synodo Nationali Edinburgena, anno 1566. Major illa Confessio Helvetica in omnibus comprobatur, excepto Articulo de diebus Festis: porro cum Reformatae Helveticae Ecclesiae, licet Festa illa celebrent, a Superstitione Ponttificia sibi caveant; evidenter colligitur, omnem omni modo dierum illorum observationem rejectam fuisse ab hujus Ecclesiae Reformatoribus; quorum Vestigia presserunt Posteri; nam anno 1575. in Synodo Nationale male acceptum fuit; quod Pastores quidam & Lectores in tractu Abredonensi Populum convocarent ad Conciones & Preces publicas diebus illis Festivis; ac in mandatis datum a Synodo Nationali, anni 1575. Ecclesiarum Visitatoribus, ut interdicerent Pastoribus Administrationem S. Coenae temporibus illis Festivis; quasi majoris efficaciae sint Sacramenta tum celebrata. Denique constans haec fuit Pastorum omnium sententia; solum diem Dominicum Festivum esse & Deo sacrum. Referebant alii Regem Jacobum in Synodo Nationali anni 1590. publice Deo gratias egisse,[Page]quod Rex esset in Ecclesia totius Orbis purissima; imo quae Genevensem ipsam superet, nam (inquit) colunt Genevenses Festa Nativitatis & Paschatis, qua autem authoritate id faciant, ipsi viderint. This might allay our Brethrens fierce Zeal for their Holy Days. We judge not others that use them without Superstitious Opinions (though we cannot well separate the Practice of them from External Superstition) and we desire the like Forbearance from others, if we cannot use them; for which I shall now give some Reasons, before I consider my Antagonists further Discourse on this Subject.

§ 4. Our first Reason is, these Days were not instituted by Christ, or his Apostles, nor did they injoyn them to be instituted, nor give Power, or Allowance to the Church to do it afterward: Ergo, there is no sufficient Warrant for them. And it cannot be rationally accounted for, that either the Church should impose, in the Matter of Religion especially, or People should be obliged to submit to, what hath no sufficient Warrant. That they were not instituted by Christ nor his Apostles, is beyond doubt: our Adversaries do not pretend that they were: for there is no apparent Ground for such a Thought; and if it could be made appear, the Case were changed: for then they were not the Days that we Debate about. That Christ and his Apostles have given no Warrant to the Church to make such an Institution, we must believe, unless our Adversaries can instruct this Warrant by plain Scripture, or sufficient Consequence from Scripture, or strong Reason, (if Reason can have place in such a Matter of Fact) if it be Answered, the Church hath Warrant from Scripture to appoint what is for Edification, and for Decency and Order; and these Holy Days are such. Ergo. I Reply: it is denyed that the Church may appoint whatever is thought fit for Edification; the Lord hath appointed sufficient Means of Grace, and of Edification; and the Church must not devise new Means for that End; but faithfully use the Means that he hath appointed: or if any think that the Church may appoint Means of Edification above what Christ hath appointed, both they accuse Christs Appointments for that End as insufficient, in the Way of outward Means: And they are to shew what Warrant the Church hath for so doing. Beside, that Means of Mens devising are not like to be effectual for Edification, if Means of Gods Appointment be not so effectual, as is hinted, Luke 16. 30, 31. If Moses and the Prophets, Gods Means, cannot perswade one to believe; the Preaching of one risen from the Dead (a Mean that a Man contrived) [Page] could not do it. As for the Decency, Order, and Policy, that they alledge to warrant the Church to institute Holy Days; these are a necessary, or needless Decency, &c. If this last, there can be no warrant for what may effect it; if the first, the former Argument recurreth, that God, by his own Institutions, hath not sufficiently provided for the Necessities of his Church. Again, if we should grant that the Church hath Warrant to provide for all that is necessary to make the Worship of God decent, &c. They must also shew us a Warrant to judge what is so necessary; if it be alledged, that the Holy Days are thus necessary, either they must instruct this, and shew us that Scripture, or Nature hath made them necessary, and that the Ordinances of God are undecent, disorderly, &c. without them; or the Church doth so determine because she will: and in that Case we require a Warrant for such Lordly Domination over the People of God. If it be further Answered, that the Church hath the same Warrant for appointing these Days, as for appointing occasional Fasts, or Thanksgivings. Reply, Not so. For the Lord himself, by his Providence, calleth to these Exercises, to be Solemnly gone about, on such Occasions: but doth not tell us whither the Fast shall be on Tuesday or Thursday, in this Week, or the next: here is a Circumstance of Time, which must be determined by Men; Nature it self maketh it necessary, supposing the Providential Call of God, to the Work on that Occasion: it is not so with the Holy Days: there is no special Providence occurrent, which calleth to these Solemnities at one time, more than at another. Obj. Why hath the Lord left the determining of the time of these occasional Solemnities to the Church, and not of the other also. Ans. Because the former could not be determined in Scripture, for all Times, Places, and Occurrences, without Swelling it to a Huge, and Burdensome, and less Useful Bulk; the latter could easily have been determined in the Bible; it is actually done in the Old Testament; and if the Lord had thought such a Determination needful, it had been easie to do it also in the New Testament.

§ 5. Our second Argument: Either the Apostles had Warrant from God, to institute these Days, or not; if they had not, how is it imaginable that the Rulers of the Church, who came after them, had such Power granted by God: Though some Exalt Episcopal Power to a Monstruous, and Absurd Height, yet I think none of them have the Confidence to say, that the Bishops, in that do, what the Apostles, in the same [Page] 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 [...]ord himself: therefore we must understand [Page] 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 [...]oly days were) that they were after the Commandments of Men, and their Doctrines, [Page] 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 the Order, Decencie and Policie that the LORD requireth in his Church may be obtained without them; as the Patrons of them do, on the Matter, confess; when they tell us that these, and all the rest of the Ceremonies, are in themselves, and antecedently to the Churches imposing them, indifferent. Beside, not the Principle only, or the Opinion that Men have about these Days, is condemned in these Scriptures; but the Practice it self.

§. 7. Our Fourth Reason is, the imposing of the Holy Days doth derogate from that Christian Libertie that the LORD hath given to his People; which the LORD doth not allow, Gal. 5. 1. They are contrarie to this Libertie two ways. 1. It is the Libertie of Christians to be under no Yoke in matters of Religion (we refuse not civil Subjection to our Rulers in all lawful things) but that of Christ; to have him for their [Page] only Law-giver, James 4. 12. He hath not given Power to Men to make new Laws for his Church, but to declare his Laws; and to Execute his Censures that he hath Appointed on the Breakers of them. Wherefore, when Christ hath given us one Holy day to be perpetually Observed, and no more; if Men will enjoyn moe Days, they make Laws of their own, and bring the People under their Yoke; which is not Christs. And the Places last Cited do evidently Import this: The LORD had now delivered his People from the Yoke of Ceremonies which himself had laid on them, and the false Apostles were endeavouring to wreath that Yoke still on their Necks: and it is as much Bondage, if any will wreath another Yoke upon them which is none of Christs: now that Scripture biddeth them beware of such Yokes. 2. The fourth Commandment alloweth the People of GOD six days of the Week for their lawful worldly Imployments: this Instituting of Holy days Abridgeth that Libertie, and that merely by the Authoritie of Men. It is not so when occasional Solemnities are Appointed; because the Religious, Solemn Work (on which abstinencie from Labour doth necessarily follow) is determined by the Lord, and intimated to us by his Providence; the Church doth no more but Chuse this Day, rather than that; If it be said, that Magistrats may Restrain People from their Work for civil Causes; why not then for Religious Reasons. Answer, Men have not the the same Power in Religion as in Civil Things; though restraint from Work is the same in both; so is not the occasion; the one must be chosen by the LORD; the other may by Men. Beside, that Magistrats must have some good Ground, for such Restraint; otherwise they will not be appointed of GOD, though obeyed by the People, I might here add all the Arguments that we commonly use against Humane Ceremonies in Religion; that it is an Addition to the Word or Rule that GOD hath managed the Affairs of His house by. A symbolizing with the Papists, without Necessitie. It is Superstition, being above and beyond what GOD hath Enjoyned, &c. I shall only adde that the Scripture calleth the weekly Sabbath, the LORDS Day, as a Name of distinction from other Days: but it could be no distinguishing Name, if the Nativitie, Circumcision, &c. were all Dedicated to our LORD; for every one of these were the LORDS Day, as well as it; And therefore, when John said he was in the Spirit on the LORDS Day, we could not know whether it was Christmass day, or Easter day; or Good Friday, or the first of January, the Circumcision Day, or some ordinary first day of the Week.

[Page] §. 8. I come now to Examine what my Antagonist bringeth for his Holy Days, and against our Opinion. He sayeth, p. 169. they were Originally appointed to Commemorat the Mysteries of our Redemption, with all possible Zeal, gratitude and Solemnity. If he can shew us that Christ or his Apostles appointed them for these Ends: we shall lay our hand on our Mouth, and not mutter against them; but if they be so Appointed by Men, we ask quo warranto? CHRIST himself hath appointed Ordinances for these Ends: particularly, the LORD'S Supper is Instituted as a Commemoration of the Mysteries of our Redemption: this do in remembrance of Me: if he hath said so of any of the Controverted Holy Days we shall receive them. But I desire to know what Power the ordinarie Pastors of the Church have to Institute special Ordinances for commemorating the Mysteries of our Redemption. I shall further Debate this with him, by and by. Mean while I observe, that he is beyond many of his Brethren, who disown the Mysterie of these Days, and all Religious Worship, in the Observation of them, and set them no higher, than that they are for Decencie, Order, and Policie; And himself, some times when it is for his purpose, seemeth to be of the same mind, as p. 170. he frameth an Objection to himself; from the Abuse of them; which alas, is too notour, and gross, and frequent. His Answer is, so may the most Holy Exercises, and the highest Mysteries; and there is nothing so Sacred in Religion, or so universally useful in Nature, against which some such Objection may not be started. I do much wonder that a Man of his pretensions to Learning and Reading, and who doth so superciliously despise others for defectiveness in both, should so superficially Propose, & so slightly Answer an Argument that hath been so much insisted on, and his Answer so fully refuted. Doth he not know, if he hath Read any thing of the Controversie about Ceremonies; that the Presbyterians never pleaded that Holy Exercises, Mysteries of Religion, or things universally useful in Nature; yea, or what hath the Stamp of Divine Authoritie were it never so small, should be Abandoned because Abused: The Abuse should be Reformed, and the thing retained: But this our Argument speaketh only of indifferent things, which have no intrinsick Necessitie, nor Command of GOD to injoyn them, these we say, (and have often Proved it) should be removed, when grosly, and frequently Abused; and that the Holy Days are so indifferent, I think he will not deny, if he do deny it, he is obliged to prove the Necessitie of them, not only against the Presbyterians, but also against his own Partie, who reckon [Page] them among the Indifferent things, the Regulating of which, is in the Courches Power.

§ 9. I now Consider his Debate with the Vindicator of the Kirk, (as he calleth him) about this verie Matter; and particularly, about observing the anniverssary Feast of CHRISTS Nativity, which we call Christmass. The Reader who is at pains to Compare that Book, from p. 27. with what my Antagonist here sayeth against it, will find, that the most part, and the most material Passages, and what is most Argumentative in that Book, to this purpose, are passed over in silence: and but a few things touched. The first thing he is pleased to Notice is, I had said, the Question is not about the Commemoration of it, (the Nativity of CHRIST) but whether this Commemoration should be by an Ordinance of GOD; or by an Appointment of Men. The occasion of this State of the Question was, he had asked; might not the Church take care that this Glorious Mystery should not be forgotten. I Answered, no doubt it might, and should: and I had mentioned the Word, and Sacraments, as GODS Appointment for this End; on which followeth the Question above set down. His Answer in this Book, to that Question is long, and made up of a great many Sentences, which I cannot well see the Connection of, nor pertinency to the present purpose (may be another may.) He first sayeth, what the Church doth in this is agreeable to the Will of GOD. If it be so, our Controversie is at an End: and I will crave him Pardon for all I have written on this Subject, But it might have been expected that this Assertion, (which is the Determination of our Question; which he fairly beggeth) should have been Proved; but he thinketh not fit to attempt that. But instead of Proof, we have it over again, in other and moe Words, (for he wisely considered, that saying it once, and so barely was not enough to perswade the Stubborn Presbyterians) And if (sayeth he) the manner of Commemoration (viz. by an Anniversarie Solemnity) be the immediate result of Ecclesiastical constitution, the Church medled wi [...]h no more than what was left by our Saviour, to her Power to determine. Still I desiderate Proof for what is so confidently Asserted; and is indeed the [...]. If he can shew, by any good topick, that CHRIST left such a Power to his Church, we shall Debate no more with him: that should in all reason Command our heartie Assent. What followeth I cannot refute, for I cannot understand it (which, may be, is my Dulness.) It is, things indifferent in their Nature do generally carry in them the Advantages, and Encouragements of Necessary things. If this be true, it is Mystical: it may [Page] possiby have a hidden Sense; If I may adventure to guess at this Riddle, he supposeth, the Appointing of Holy Days to be an indifferent thing: I cannot reconcile this with what he sayeth in the former page, that they were originally appointed to Communicate the great My [...]eries of our Redemption, with all possible Zeal, Gratitude and Solemnitie. What is conducive to so great Ends, and is for so necessarie Uses, I see not how it can be in its own nature indifferent; far less can I make it consistent with what he saith in his Apologie for the Clergie p. 41. 42. do not we see that all Nations agree in this, that publick Solemnities, and Anniversarie Festivities are necessarie to the Beeing and beautie of Religion: how he will reconcile necessarie to the beeing of Religion, and indifferent; is beyond my Capacitie. As little can I understand how that can be indifferent in its own nature which hath in it (that is in its Nature) the Advantages and Encouragements of a necessarie Thing. I wish he had Instanced in some of the Things comprehended under his large Word generally, which have some Advantages and Encouragements in them. Many Instances may be brought to the contrarie; as, whether he walk a Mile on foot; or Ride on Horseback, or go in Coach: whether Tuesday or Wednesday be appointed for the Weekly Sermon: whether Sermon shall begin on the LORD'S Day at Nine or Ten of the Clock; whether the Pulpit stand toward the East or West; &c. what Advantage or Incouragement of necessarie Things is in anie of these? If he will shew us anie Encouragement or Advantage of any necessarie Thing (and if that Encouragement or Advantage to that necessarie Thing be it self Necessarie) to be in the Holy Days; we shall look on them, not as the Appointments of the Church; (for it is to be supposed that this Necessitie is Antecedent to that, and doth not flow from it) but either of Divine Institution, or of Natural Necessitie: neither of which, I suppose, he will ascribe to the Holy Days.

§. 10. Another mystical Sentence followeth; GOD will have our Obedience approved in indifferent Things, as well as Necessarie; for Necessarie Things are approved for their intrinsick Excellencie; the other are by way of Consequence and Relation. Here also AEdipus himself might be puzled to find out the Sense. So far as I reach his Meaning, I shall Examine what is asserted I verie well understand that GOD will prove our Obedience to Himself in indifferent as well as in necessarie Things, (if there be anie thing necessarie antecedentlie to His will) but that our Obedience to Man, must be so Proved, or that our Obedience to Church-Rulers is approved of GOD, when they enjoyn indifferent Things, in [Page] the Matters of Religion, to that I cannot assent; and if I could, I should not scruple the implicite Obedience that some require. Is it by Chance or by some inward Byasse that this Author stumbleth so often into Popish Principles? Before I assent to him in this, he must Prove that the LORD hath given the Church Power to injoyn indifferent Things which are parts of Religion, as the Holy Days are: next that we are obliged to Obey in Matters of Religion, what GOD hath left indifferent, but Men have thought fit to impose. What he Meaneth when he saith, the other (indifferent Things) are by Consequence and Relation: doth yet more puzle me. What is that Consequence, or what the Relation, for which indifferent things are approved as Necessarie Things are for their intrinsick Excellencies: this I cannot guess at. He cannot Mean that they are approved, because they are only consequential to Necessarie Things: for if that Consequence be Necessarie, it maketh the Things to be Necessarie, and to cease to be indifferent: if it be not Necessarie, but the Necessarie Things may do well without them, it can no way make them more approved than if there we no such Consequence. For their Relation to Necessaries Things, how can it make them approved? if this he Mean, and if this Principle hold, the Papists have a notable Foundation for the Holiness of their Relicts; and indeed, on this Principle it is Built: they are therefore Holy, because the Persons to whom they were related were so: may not relation transfuse a Holiness into his Coat, his Shoe, or what else was about him, as well as either the Birth of CHRIST transfuseth a Holiness into all the recurrent Days of all Years that Answer to that Day on which he was Born: or if he make the Relation of these Days to be to the Holy Exercises performed in them: shall everie time and everie place where there hath been Preaching, Prayer, and Celebration of the LORD'S Supper, &c. be ever after that Holy and Approved of GOD: this is strange Doctrine. He goeth on: when we Commemorate the Nativitie, we Worship GOD and adore His Love that sent His Son into the World: and the Church Commands that this should be performed with all possible Solemnitie at some stated and fixed Seasons: all this is true: But how doth this Prove 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.

[Page] §. 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 [Page] 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 Ma [...]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 [Page]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, qua Ferias Ethnicorum, seu clavum clavo pellerent, sed quis dicet hunc Zelum secundum Scripturam, qui omni adeo verbo, & Exemplo Scripturae careat; moreque rationem humanam secuta est: Alting. in Exeges. Confess. August. Art. 15. p. 93. giveth account that the Lutherans objected to the Zuinglians, that they had no Holy Days except the Lords Day. I hope here are some Christian Churches on our side: Danaeus (beside what I have cited out of him before) hath these Words, Eth. Christian. lib. 2. cap. cap. 10. Nobis hodie eosdem dies observare nihil necesse est. And after, Itaque, neque dies illos colere, aut observare necesse est, aut operae proetium. And below, Apparet quanta superstitio postea inducta sit, & multitudo istorum dicrum Festorum, ut omnino tolli satiùs sit. Thes. Salmur. in a Disputation on this Subject, by Capellus, commends these Churches, which in their Reformation, did quite abolish them, (it is evident then, that such Churches there were: and we are not contrary to all Christian Churches) and he giveth his Reason, in religione enim, quando vel tantillum a Dei praescripto disceditur; & homines aliquid sibi licere volunt, aut putant, omnia tuta timenda sunt, siquidem experientià comprobatum est, a quam exiguis, & imperceptibilibus initiis, mirus facius sit in Idololatriam, & horrendam superstitionem in Ecclesia Pontificia progressus. And after, Ut satius esse videatur, bono aliquo utili, sed minus necessario carere, quam ex illius usu incurrere in grave grandis alicujus mali periculum. Here I confess this Author doth not expresly condemn the [Page] Holy Days as simply unlawful, yet he is far from allowing them: Rivet on the fourth Command discourseth to the same purpose. I find also cited, Constitutiones Dordraci, 1578. Where are these Words. optandum esset libertatem sex diebus operandi a Deo concessam in Ecclesiis retineri, & solum diem Dominicum feriatum esse? What is said may sufficiently evince that Presbyterians in this, are not so Antarctick to all the World as he imagineth: though it is their Principle to take the Apostolick Church, and none other for their Guide; yet with due respect to all other sound Churches, both Ancient and Modern.

§ 13. He passeth over in silence not a few of the most material Passages, and what is truly Argumentative, in the Book that he hath now under Consideration; and pitcheth on two Instances that he had given, and I had Answered, of Anniversary Holy Days instituted by the Jewish Church; whence he pleadeth that the Christian Church may do the like; the first is the Fasts mentioned, Zech. 15. The Answer to this was given, 1. God disowned these Fasts, and if it be alledged that they were disowned, only on Account of Neglect of Seriousness in Managing them, that must be proved. His Reply is, He leaves us to Guess what Word of Scripture he buildeth this Fancy upon. I crave him Pardon for that Omission; himself supplieth it, p. 173. it is verse 5. Did ye Fast to me. He saith, that imports only that they were Careless, &c. in their Publick Appearance before God; and sheweth that as much, or more hath been said of Solemnities that Christ himself appointed; all which we deny not; neither do I doubt that so much is imported, yea and mainly aimed at, in that Passage. Their Profaneness and Irreligiousness did bear more Bulk in the Prophets Eye than their Superstition. I indeed call for Proof that no more is here reproved, but their wrong Way of going about these Fasts. And I give this Reason for that Demand: though it is a Negative that is to be proved, as he stateth it. He bringeth an Argument from a Practice which God expresly disowneth. It is evident that there was Sinful Evil in this Action; he must then prove that there was also some Good in the Action; otherwise he can draw no Argument from it to prove its Acceptableness; the Management of this Solemnity was Evil; that cannot prove these Holy Days to have been accepted; for on that account expresly they are disowned: the Controversie is about the Authority by which they were appointed; to wit, the Churches; we say that could never make them Good: he saith it doth: here is then an Affirmative that he must prove: But to please him, for this once, I shall [Page] prove, that these Fasts are disowned on this account also: though it be not here expressed. This Action is simply condemned, viz. their Fasting: the Lord looketh not on it as done to Him: therefore all the Sinfulness that is in it; is to be lookt on as the Ground of this Disowning: that want of Divine Institution was one part of the Sinfulness of it, I prove, because in general (under which this Particular is comprehended) all Religious Acts, or Solemnities which have no Divine Authority are condemned, Matth. 15. 9. and by other Grounds that I have above laid down. If there be two or more Sorts of Immorality in one Action: no doubt both are condemned in that Action, though but one of them be expressed; as in this Instance, Jer. 7. 31. in that Infanticide, there was Idolatry, and most Unnatural Murther, and also Will-Worship, the Action is simply condemned; but only the Evil of Will-Worship is mentioned, which thing I Commanded not, neither came it into my Mind: will any say that the other Evils of that Action are not condemned; nor the Action for them, because they are not mentioned in that Place. Wherefore, from an Action so positively condemned, he can make no Argument for its Lawfulness, (which is our Debate about the Fasts) unless he can, aliunde, prove, that this was no Fault in that Action, that it had no Divine Authority; for to suppose it, is to take for granted what is the Matter of our Debate. From all this it appeareth, that he hath no Ground to say, that if the Jews had had regard to the Moral Institutions, their Solemn Fasts had been acceptable to God, though appointed by Humane Authority: neither is there Cause to reject this Exposition as new, seing there is such Ground for it. He next taketh notice of another Answer given to his Objection, The Prophets had many things of greater Moment to reprove, and insist particularly on, that they contented themselves to comprehend such things as these under general Reproofs. Hence he infers, that these were not particularly reproved. What Advantage were it to him, if this were granted; is it not enough that they are clearly condemned in general general Terms. But this Consequence we will not yield: it only followeth, that other things of more Moment are, in some Places of Scripture, mentioned, when these are not. But there are particular Reproofs of these in other Places, as hath been above shewed, and will more appear anone.

§ 14. I shall now adduce another Answer to his Argument; which might take off its Force, supposing that these Fasts were not condemned by the Lord, (which yet I do not grant) but approved. They were [Page] appointed under a present Calamity, and Providential Call from the Lord, viz. the Captivity, and Desolation of Judea, and the Temple. Here was a Call to extraordinary Fasting on that Occasion; and they only determined the Circumstance of Time, which was not determined by the Lord, nor any other Appointment was made by God, which might super [...]de this recurrent Solemnity. Now that the Church appointed these Solemnities merely for that Ocasion, appeareth from their Enquiry about the Continuance of them, now that Calamity was over. Some might plead long Custom on the one hand, others with more Reason, might plead, that the Cause being taken away, the Effect should cease; as Calvin, on the Place observeth: This cannot be said of our Holy Days, which are appointed to Perpetuity; and without any determined End; and also for the Ends these are designed for, (I mean our Holy Days) the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances, and not left it to Men to devise Ways to Commemorate these Mercies. I add yet another Answer, these Fasts were appointed in a very corrupt Time, and State of the Church, which cannot afford us a binding Example; and we have no Ground to think, that in the Churches Recovery in Ezra's Time, these Fasts were continued: what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary. I had brought two Instances of Solemn Times of Humane Institution being condemned, which he next examineth, p. 175. &c. 1 Kings 12. 33. Where Jeroboam is condemned for appointing a Holy Day, that God had not instituted. His Answer to this is, that this is to Disguise Scripture History: Jeroboam is reproved for Idolatry, and Worshipping the Calves; but if he had appointed a Feast in Honour of the true God, and commanded the People to offer their Sacrifices at Jerusalem, he ought not to have been blamed. To this I Reply, that this is a very surprising Answer, and I know not that any beside himself, hath ever made bold with Religious Institutions at this Rate: for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not directly Clash with any particular Appointment of God; and that both in the Jewish and Christian Church. And if this Doctrine be received, no Ceremonies that either the Apostate Jewish Church, before Christ's Incarnation, or that the Antichristian Church in the Days of the Gospel hath introduced, can be condemned; let them appoint and do what they will, only keep from a Sinister Opinion about the Value, or Necessity of these Devices of [...]n: And if this Principle be good, why might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices beside Jerusalem, [Page] not hindring Sacrifices to be offered there too as well as appoint Feasts beside these that the Lord hath appointed, not condemning the Observance of these of Divine Institution. Further, Jeroboams Feast is expresly condemned on this Formal Reason, that the Time was Devised ( [...] Created) of his own Heart, he made it of nothing, there being no Ground for it by Gods Authority. Now according to this Learned Author, Men may Create as many of these Days as they will, provided they design to Worship the true God on them. It is a strange Dream (to use his own Word) to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account, for which he is so expresly condemned; no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry; but that he was Innocent in Devising this new Feast, is a new Opinion, beyond these which this Author is Enquiring into.

§ 15. The other Scripture brought to condemn these Solemnities not instituted by God, and yet made Anniversary by Men, is, Matth. 15. 9, In vain do they Worship me, Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men. We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religious Ceremonies, in general, and Anniversary Holy Days that have no Divine Warrant, as a Species comprehended under that Genus. This my Adversary seemeth to Smile at, as Ridiculous; and that from the Confidence he hath in an Exposition of this Scripture, wherein I think he is Singular; and may be more exposed than any Comment given by others: which he superciliously rejecteth: it is this, Teaching for Doctrines, in the Language of the New Testament, is affirming such a thing to be the Command, or immediate Will of God, when it hath no other Original than Humane Institution; and nothing else but what shall bear some Analogie to that, is the Crime here reproved. It seems his Confidence was mixed with some Diffidence of this his Comment on the Text: when he thinketh to Ward off a Blow by the uncertain Sound of, what beareth Analogie to that: what he will make to bear Analogie to calling that God's Command, which is but Mans Device, we cannot tell, unless he shall please, in his next Edition, to inform us. For his Exposition it self, it is no way to be admitted, nor can he prove, by Instances, that this is the Language of the New Testament: I am sure this Place cannot be so understood. For the things that Christ here calleth by that Name are, strict Observance of Washing the Hands when they came from the Mercat-Place, Religious Washing of Pots, Tables, Cups, &c. Dotations made to Corban, the Church Treasure, with Neglect of Relieving their Necess [...]tous Parents; now that the Jews did ever pretend, or Teach, that these [Page] were the Commands, or immediate Will of God; more than our Ceremonialists Teach their Ceremonies to be such (for both pretend a general Command for obeying the Church) I think he will never be able to prove: all that appeareth that they Taught about these Things (so far as either Scripture, or other History doth inform us) is, that these Things ought to be observed; that it is Sin, and Schism, and therefore Censurable, to neglect them; and that on account of the Churches Authority to impose them. And do not Prelatists Teach the same Doctrines concerning their Ceremonies, and the Holy Days, in particular. He citeth Hammond. Practi. Catechis. p. 203▪ but telleth us not what he saith, for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author, in that Place he Citeth; where he seemeth to speak in another Strain, in his Notes on this Scripture, his Words are, My Commands are not Heeded by them, but their own Constitutions set up in stead of them; this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly, Luc. Brug [...]. docentes, id est, sequentes ipsi, & alios docentes ut sequantur. Also, Interpreters generally, and among them Hammond himself, look on [...] ▪ as what is meant by [...], they Taught these Commands; their Doctrine was, that they should be obeyed, and the Things practised; but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God. He hath an incoherent Passage, p. 277. We do not pretend that we have any express Institution in the New Testament, for Celebrating the Christian Festivities. We know that they owe their beginning to the Piety and Wisdom of the Apostles, or their Successors. I gladly would know how he can know that the Apostles gave them a beginning, if they be not instituted in Scripture; unless he will rest in uncertain Traditions, as a part of the Rule of our Faith and Practice, to supply what the Scripture is defective in. Neither shall we demand of him express Institution, if he can shew us Institution by good Consequence drawn from Scripture.

§ 16. His strongest Refutation of another Citation, viz. Jer. 9. 31. is to call it a Foolry. He maketh the Argument to be Foolish enough indeed; as a Wise Man may be exposed as a Fool, by putting on him a Fools Coat, and Hood and Bells; but they are neither Wise, nor Ingenuous Men who Treat him so. He maketh our Argument from that Text, to run thus; God did not Command the Israelites to burn their Sons and Daughters in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; Ergo, to appoint a Time for the Solemn and Religious Performance of that Worship, which he himself commanded,[Page]falleth under the same Censure. This Way of Arguing is none of ours but his own. We thus argue, God condemneth that Worship of the Jews, as on other accounts, so on this; that he Commanded it not, neither came it into his Mind, Ergo, no Worship devised by Men, and not instituted by God, is allowable. And we have above proved the Celebration of Holy Days to be, not only a determining of a Circumstance of Worship, which is not determined in Scripture, but must be determined by Men; but to be an Addition to the Command of God, for setting apart some of our Time to his Solemn Service. If this Reason be Foolrie, Calvin as well as I, must be a Declared Fool, (viz. by the Wisdom and Candor of this Author) who on this Place, hath this Passage, Haec ratio diligenter notanda est; quoniam his Deus ansas hominibus praecidit, ubi hoc solo titulo condemnat, quicquid tent abunt Judaei, quia non mandavit ipsis; no [...] est igitur alia quaerenda ratio in coarguendis superstitionibus, nisi quod carent praecepto Dei. And a little below, Ergo, magnum pondus est in his verbis, ubi dicit Prophet [...], Deum nihil tale mandasse, & nihil tale sibi venisse in mentem; quasi diceret, nimium sapere homines, cum excogitant quae ipse nunquam quaesivit, imo nunquam voluit cognoscere. That the Phrase, I Commanded them not, hath in it a Meiosis, I shall not controvert, but this Meiosis doth not hinder, but that Literally, and in Propriety of Speech, this horrid Fact is condemned, as uncommanded Worship. No doubt, this Fact was not only not commanded, but forbidden, yea greatly abhorred by the Lord; but it doth not thence follow, that it was not Evil, [...]o nomine, because not commanded; seing that Immorality of it is expresly mentioned.

§ 17. Another Scripture for Humane Holy Days had been mentioned in the Apology, p. 42. John 10. 22, 23. where it is said, that Christ walked in the Temple at the Feast of Dedication. Which was none of these that God appointed. It was Answered, His walking in the Temple on that Day cannot be strained to signifie either Joyning or [...]pprobation: this Answer he is pleased to represent, p. 179. as if it had been, that Christ went thither only to walk, which he calleth an Irreligious Fancy. This is not fair Dealing: it was neither said nor thought, that Christ went thither only to walk. We think he had a higher End, viz. To take Occasion to Discourse with the People, or to Preach the Things of Salvation, while they were assembled in the Temple. His Refutation of this (beside what is said) is, Christ was at the Feast of Dedication, who never separated from the Jewish Worship. Answer, That he was at the Feast, wanteth Proof; he [Page] was in the Temple on the Feast Day, Ergo, he was at the Feast; id est, joyned in that Solemnity, non sequitur: That he never separated from the Jewish Worship; is said without Warrant; we affirm, he did, and give our Reason for what we say, viz. he condemned all that Worship, that had not Divine Institution, as is before proved; Ergo, he did not joyn in it. I think sober Men will judge this a good Consequence. Here was (saith our Author) the most proper Occasion to reprove Humane Religious Festivities. Answer, Our Lord knew betterwhat was the fittest Occasions for what he had to do than this Gentleman could Teach him. He had condemned them in general: on this particular Occasion, he had greater Things to Treat with them about, and things, that, being uncontroverted, were not so like to irritate them, and render his Doctrine ineffectual to them. That he quarrelled nothing in the Jewish Constitution, merely because it was of Humane appointment; is to [...]ly in the Face of a considerable part of his Doctrine, mentioned Matth. 15. from the beginning. He is con [...]ident to say that Christ complyed with such Usages, (viz. Ceremonies of Humane Appointment) among the Jews. And he bringeth two Instances of it; one is, Christ kept the Passover, not according to Institution, but according to the Custom that then obtained in the Jewish Church, viz. With having the Loins girt; having Shoes on the Feet, and a Staff in the Hand: and he asserts, that there is nothing in the Original Precept, that giveth the least Hint of its being Temporary, and Relative to their Itinerary State in the Wilderness: but rather, that it was of perpetual Force and Obligation, yet the Church changed that Ritual of Divine Institution, into another that signified more propperly Rest, as the other did their Travelling in the Wilderness. Here is plain Dealing; whereby our Author giveth us yet further to understand his Principles. I shall not call this Parcel of Divinity simply New: but I am sure it is New among Protestants: nor did I ever meet with any of the Prelatick Party, who carried the Churches Power of instituting Ceremonies to this Height. For if this Reasoning have any Force, it will conclude, that the Church, may not only add to Gods Institutions; but may abolish some of them, and put others, more sit, in their Room; and if so, why should we blame the Church of Rome, who, though Christs Appointment was that Bread and Wine should be given to the People in the Lords Supper, yet have thought it sitter that they should only have the Bread, and the Wine should be reserved for the Priest alone; and Kings, and some others, by the Popes Indulgence: and they give as good Reason for what they say, as he doth [Page] here for his Principle, viz. That Receiving both Elements was fit for that State of the Church; but not for her more Multiplied and Numerous Condition, so the Council of Constance, Sess. 13. Licet Christus post coenam institueret, & suis discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie, panis & vini, hoc venerabile Sacramentum: tamen, hoc non obstante, sacrorum canonum Authoritas, laudabilis & approbata consuetudo Ecclesi [...], servavit & servat, et licet haec consuetudo ad evitandum aliqua pericula & scandal [...] est introducta rationaliter, quod licet in Primitiva Ecclesia hujusmodi Sacramentum reciperetur a fidelibus sub utraque specie, postea a confecrantibus sub utraque, & a Laicis tantummodo sub specie panis recipiatur, &c. Also the Council of Trent, Ses, 21. chap. 21. Recognosceth the Councils Power in this; that though Christ did Institute the Sacrament in both kinds, yet they make a Law against it, which cannot be changed but by the Church it self. Let the intelligent Reader judge, whether here be not a harmonie of Principles, in this Matter of the Churches Power, between these two Anti-Christian Councils, and this Author who owneth himself a Protestant; let it be also left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Christ, more than that of Man, whether it be not more rational to say, that seing it is evident, that some Rules about the Passover, which were at first enjoyned to the Israelites in the Wilderness, were afterward not observed by the Church, and even by Christ himself (who was a strict Observer of the Mosaical Law while it stood in Force) were appointed but for that present time, and that the [...]hange that the Church afterward made was from her Knowledge of this Temporarie Institution, and not from any Power that the Church pretended to, to Alter what GOD had Instituted?

§. 18. Another Instance he bringeth of CHRIST'S complying with the Jewish rites not Instituted by the LORD is, the Jews used a postcoenium, of Bread and Wine, after the Paschal Lamb: This Christ not only complyed with, but he adopted it into his own Religion, and gave it a high Signification, and made it a Faederal rite of the New Covenant, &c. here is another piece of his Divinitie, which I confess is not so singular as the former; for some pretenders to be Antiquaries, and great Criticks, have in this, trode the way before him. Answer, If we should yield what they here demand, as to Matter of Fact, viz. that the Jews used to eat Bread and drink Wine, after eating the Paschal Lamb; and that Christ did the like; will any rational Man say, that this is an Approving of their Adding to the Ceremonies of the Passover. For, 1. Can they prove [Page] that Christ did this in imitation of that Jewish Custom: or that he had any regard to it: may not we do the same Action that another doth, yet do it on other Designs than imitation of that Person? or, is it imaginable that our Lord would build so great a Gospel Ordinance on such a Foundation, as is the Practice of such an Apostate People as the Jews then were? sure he had a higher Design in this Heavenly Institution. Again, if there was such a Custom then in the Jewish Church; there is no ground to think that it was of any great Antiquitie; or that is was brought in while that Church continued in any measure of Puritie; but it must have had its rise in the time of that Apostace that ushered in their rejecting the Messiah, and their being utterly rejected of God, for so doing; for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie; nor after it while the Maccabees lived: Now can any Man think that Christ, who had reproved their Religious Washings, and other Ceremonies, would be so fond of these, which stood on the same bottom with them? I further Answer, that this Tradition of the Postc [...]nium is a groundless fancie: I find no such Custom among the Jews, of taking Bread and Wine after the Paschal Supper. Scaliger first broached this Opinion of a Postcaenium, or two parts, or Services in the Paschal Supper. And is reprehended by Buxtorf for it, but Defended by Capell de literis Hebrae: p. 167. who out of Maimonides, giveth a long Account of all the rites used by the Jews in the Celebration of it: Lightfoot also, and Grotius, give a verie critical Accompt of their Rites out of the same Rabbi: Addison also, in his Description of the present State of the Jews in Barbarie; describeth that Feast, as Celebrated by them: but what our Author allegeth is found in none of them: but on the contrarie; I find two things that they agree in, which maketh against his Postcaenium of Bread and Wine, and Christ imitating of it: The 1. Is, the Jews used many Benedictions at several Cups, and Morsels they took: so did not our Lord: he Blessed the Meat that they eat, no doubt, and we read of this Blessing Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper; but to say that he repeated so many Benedictions (which were no fewer than Eight or Nine; beside several Instructions that that they read out of the Scripture, which Reading they called [...]: and other Composers of their own) and all these Benedictions were by a set Form of Words. If my Antagonist will perswade us that our LORD conformed to all these Rites, he must prove it by good Arguments, and not Authoritatively impose on Peoples Credulitie. The 2. Thing that I observe out of the Accompt that these [Page] Authors give of the Passover is, that they begin with a Cup, then they take the quantitie of Olive of the [...], or bitter Herbs, and dip it in Sauce made for that Feast, then they eat what each one listeth, and after some other Observations, they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before, and after they may eat nothing that Night: here is no concluding with Bread and Wine, for a Postcaenium. Yea, Capellus (who seemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion, that Christ had regard to the Passover rites in Instituting His Supper) giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth: for he telleth us, that Christ took Bread and Wine in stead of that Morsel of the bigness of an Olive: whence it clearly followeth, that Christ did not appoint Bread and Wine in Imitation of the Postcaenium, consisting of the same Materials: If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations (as he phraseth it) their Opinions will be able to stand against all his Assaults. I adde the Observation of Buxtorf Synagog: Judaic: cap. 13. who after a full Accompt of the Jewish Passover, and all the Rites of it, hath these Words, p. 307. ex paucis istis facile perspici potest, Judaeos [...]estum paschatis amplius ex Mosis, vel Dei praecepto, sed juxta Rabbinorum suorum Traditiones [...]lebrare, quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta.

§ 19. His next Work is, to Justifie his high Extoling of the Holy Days: he had said, it is certain that nothing perserveth the knowledge of the Christian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Festivities of the Church: and this I called raving, the Word and Sacraments being more useful for that End. To this he Answereth two things, p. 181. 182. The first is, that he did not Attribute this effect to the Festivities without the Word and Sacraments, to which they are subordinate: as being the fittest seasons for Christian Exercises. I still think this is no sober Doctrine: for there is a fitter Season for these of Christs appointment, even the Christian Sabbath. Beside, it is evident that he Spake of his Festivities, though not in a separated Notion, yet in a distinct Notion, from the Word and Sacraments; and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effectual without, than with Mans devices, I mean the Holy days; because having no Institution, they have not the Promise of the Blessing, and are but vain Worship; but that GOD'S Ordinances used with the Holy days; if any Efficacie be to be expected from that Conjunction, have a greater Efficacie toward preserving Knowledge among the People, than the Holy days can have; therefore, there is a more Efficacious mean for that end, what ever notion he take the Holy days in. But the Reader [Page] may know, that this Expression was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him; but several others of that, or a higher strain; which were Examined, but he is pleased to Pass what was said against them; with this shift, he is not at leasure to follow the Vindicator every where, far less is he inclined to Examine all these Exceptions against the Author of the Apologi [...]. I find him at leasure for as needless Work, as it were to Clear to us these, and the like Passages, do we not see all Nations agree in this, that publicke Solemnities, and annversarie Festivities, and Fasts, are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion, (this is a soaring flight of his fancie) they preserve and increase our Mortification. They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul: and the visible Practices of the Church Preach Repentance more effectually, and make more lasting Impressions, than the loose and definite Homilies of self conceited Men (all the Sermons of the Presbyterians, no doubt are here meant) the Reformation of the Greek Church is hindred by neglecting of Fasting: the Holy days are the Catechisms of the People: all the Notes made on the Passages for exposing of them, he passeth over in silence; the Reason is, if ye will believe him, not that he could not Answer all; but because he was not at leasure. A second Answer he bringeth is, that the Festivities cannot be considered without the Word and Sacraments; and other Exercises of Religion, and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate; as it is usual in Disputing for one to say most when he hath least to say; and he calleth it gross ignorance to think otherwise. I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahysical Precision, either formal, or objective, of the Holy day, from the Religious Work of it; while they Celebrate it, without going to Prayers, in idleness or that which is worse, I know this is not the intent of the Church; yet, it is evident that these Days are capable of such an abstracted Consideration; I mean, in Practice, what ever be in the speculations that Men have about them: All that he so laboriously sayeth about the Conjunction of the Holy days with Religious Exercise on them, will evanish, if we consider, that our Question is not, whether the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion be necessarie to these Great Uses, and Effects that he speaketh of, for that we are agreed in; that these are necessarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion: they preserve and increase our Mortification: [...]hey aw the most Stubborn and Impenitent, &c. (that is, they are Means adapted to these Ends) but that which we Debate is, whether these Ends may not be attained as well, by the Serious and Solemn Exercises of Religion in the use of these Means and [Page] Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed; or if the Holy days be necessarie, or the Religious Exercises, as performed on the Holy days, be ne cessarie for that End. This we deny, and we require that they may Prove it. And the Question is not, whether the Holy days, separated from Religious Exercises, are abominable; but whether Religious Exercise, or the times of GOD'S Appointing it, to wit, the Weekly S [...]bbath's, without the Holy days, be defective? I take Notice of a Learned distinction he hath about the Holiness of these Days, p. 183. that they are not Holier than other Days, in themselves, or because the Sun is in such a part of the Zodiack: but such a time being separated for such an Exercise, receives its Denomination from the Authoritie, and Exercise it self, by which it is distinguished from other Days. This seemeth to be shuffling, and not the distinct plainness that ought to be in Disputation; For 1. Some of his Partizans ascribed more Holiness to them than can be in extrinsick Denomination, even a relative Hol [...]ness by which Religious work on them is more Acceptable than at other times. So Hooker, above Cited. He should have told us, whether he understandeth this relative Holiness, or a mere Denominative Holiness; that they are called Holy, but there is nothing of Holiness in them, even with respect to the Authoritie and Work that they have relation to. He doth indeed tell us; that they are called Holy days by a relative, and extrinsick Denomination, which is a Metaphysical notion not easily intelligible (he Chargeth others with nonsense, and gross ignorance, on less Ground,) a relative Denomination must be a Denomination built on a Relation; which supposeth a relative Holiness in these Days, which yet he seemeth to disown again. If the Authoritie by which they are Instituted, and the Exercises performed in them, can communicate a relative Holiness to them; wherein doth their Holiness differ from that of the LORD'S Days? It hath no more but a relative Holiness, resulting from Divine Authoritie injoyning it, and the Holy Exercises that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it. The Difference then, must be only this, that it hath a relative Holiness of GOD'S making: these a relative Holiness of Mans making: and so Man as well as GOD, shall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holiness to Days, and consequently to Places, and other Things: and how much of the Popish Superstition, and Power of Consecration, that will bring in, I know not; neither, I suppose, was himself aware of it. I think it is evident, that the first Day of the Week (which we own as the LORD'S Day) hath no intrinsick [Page] Holiness of it self: the Sun being in such a Degree of any Sign of the Zodi [...]k as maketh up the Number of Eight, from where we begin to Count, doth not Communicate any Holiness to such a Day. Now if he think the Church can give the same sort of Holiness to these Days that the LORD giveth to the Christian Sabbath; he must prove that such Power is granted to her; I am sure some of his Party disown that Notion. What he Objecteth to himself from the abuse of these Days is confirmed, and his Answers refuted, §. 5. of this Section.

§. 20. The Antiquitie of the Holy Days he next considereth, p. 185. He had in his Apologie, required that we should tell when they began to be Observed, and without that he will conclude that they were used since the days of the Apostles; It was told him, this is Iniquum Postulatum; and the Consequence is naught. Both because of the Defectiveness of History, and they came in by insensible degrees. Next, it was shewed from the silence of Scripture, and of the History the first Age [...], that Christmass (for of that was the Question) was not Observed for 300 years after Christ; which was Con [...]rmed by Easter being much noticed, but it not; and this was Confirmed from Cent. Magd. Spanhem. and ancient Histories cited by them: also Spondan speaketh but faintly for it: all this he thought fit to overlook; only he Examineth the Assertion; which he doth falsifie, by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter. And laboureth to prove out of Origen, and some others, that some of the Christian Feasts were mentioned sooner than 300 years after Christ. I am not much concerned whether it be so or not, for if they were then used, and injoyned by the Church, scripture silence of them is enough to us; and laying so little weight on humane Authority for them, I searched no further; but Trusted to them who had made it their Business to trie it. But now, when I have further considered that Matter, I [...]nd the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Christmass very Lame; he first citeth Origen, contra Cel [...] ▪ mentioning the Christia [...] Festivities: but he is not pleased to point to the Place of that Large Work, where this Passage may be found, that it might be Examined. The like Omission in another, about a Word of Augustin, he agregeth at great length, p. 195. though that Sentence be most frequently cited: may not one guess that Origen speaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths, which are not forbidden, Gal. 4. 10. as some might think them to be, because Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralel Place. Col. 2. 15. also of Easter, that in, and before Origins days, was observed, and contended about. His other Citation, Origen on Math. Homil. 3. I cannot find; though I [Page] lookt over that Homilie. May be he hath used some later Edition which hath been interpolated, as most of the Writings of the Fathers have. His next Author is Hippolitus, as he is Cited by Photius: all his Proof out Hippolitus is, he wrote Homilies in Sanctam Theophaniam, and a Conjecture that himself layeth▪ no weight on: it is NIAC. is found in Gruterus his Ancient Inscription of the Works of Hippolitus, the rest of the Line being defaced. The Answer to all this is easie. 1. Hippolitus is an obscure Author; I know not what weight is to be laid on his Testimonie, if he had it. 2. Photius, who lived [...]n the Ninth Centurie, may be rejected, by an Argument Ad Hominem; which he maketh use of to invalidate the Credit of the Scotish Histories, concerning our Conversion from Heathenism, p. 232. 3. Hippolitus writing Homilies in Theop [...]aniam cannot prove his Point: unless that he can Prove that that Word, from the beginning of Christianitie was not used to signifie the Incarnation, or GOD manife [...] in the flesh (which is the proper Import of it) but only the Anniversarie Day of the Celebrating that Mystery; which was its current Signification when Photius wrot. For his Niac, it is so wide and groundless, and a strained Conjecture; that few wis [...], Men will be fond of mentioning it: much less of making an Argument of it: he supplieth it (I know not by what Authority) [...]. He next citeth the Canons of the Apostles, the Authority of which we cannot own; unless he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given. For what he sayeth of the Natalitia Martyrum; I denie not that in Process of time, they did degenerate into Holy Days, such as he pleadeth for, and becoming so Numerous, they became a Burden to the Church; and were di [...]used, till the Pope restricted the Observation of them to such as he had Canonized; but, at first they were nothing but Commemorations of them, made after the ordinarie Service of the Church: and that Age, and some that followed, were so respectful to the Martyrs (for Encourageing People to be Faithful in that Firey Tryal) that they gave the Martyres extraordinarie Priviledges; whence it may be Inferred, that from these Commemorations, to other Holy Days; is no good Consequence. He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def. of the Vindication is once mistaken in his Calculation (though I do not think it impossible that he may so mistake) nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antiquitie. It is no consequence, the First Christians did Commemorate the Martyres, who Succeeded the Apostles; Ergo, they [Page] could not forget the Apostles themselves; if they understand such a way of Commemoration; the Reason I have already given.

§ 21. He Inferreth, p. 190. that the Feast of the Nativity was early Observed; because Easter and Pentecost were so. The Consequence will not hold; and the Reason was given Def. of Vindic. p. 28. viz. many of the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewish Customs (among which was the Observation of Easter and Pentecost, the Feast of Weeks may be added) but had not then begun to devise new Holy Days of their own. He Answereth an Objection that was brought, that the Day of CHRIST'S Nativity is uncertain, nor can it be Proved that it was December 25. He Answereth, there was no need to determine that Question; and all Christians (he excepteth some Presbyterians) are agreed that this Determination was not Ne [...]essarie; and that Christians in different Nations, make no scruple to comply with the Chronological Accompts of that Countrey where they live, they Commemorate the Mystery; but do not Impose on the belief of People in matter of Fact. He sayeth, the Vindicator left this Consideration al [...]ogether untouched. In this he is in the Wrong; and is Guilty of what he blameth another for. There were Arguments brought to Prove that if such a Day was to be Observed yearly, it was needful that we should know what Day in particular it is; all which he hath left untouched. They are, it was never heard of, that the Birth day of any Person was kept, but on the Day on which the Person was Born. That if this Determination be needless, the Church might appoint any Day of the year for this Commemoration, which none ever affirmed. It was also told him, that others, particularly Master Hooker, pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days (which he mistaketh as if his Abilitie had been compared with Master Hookers, whereas no more was intended, but that Master Hookers Arguments, which are lookt on as the strongest on his side, are inconsistent with his Notion) while he sayeth, Eccles. Polic. lib. 7. 3. 69. that GOD'S Extraordinarie Works have Sanctified some times, & Advanced them, so that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD, more Holy than other times; and afterward, as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Presence Sanctifies some Places, so His Extroordinarie Works Sanctifie some times; from this the Author of D [...]f. of Vind. inferred justly that the Church in chusing another Day, acteth Arbitrarily, and unwarrantably; and Absurdly; neglecting the [...]ay so Sanctified It was also told him, that it is a probable Argument, at least, that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Observed on account of CHRIST'S Birth; seing He hath concealed from us what Day it was that CHRIST was Born; especially seing He hath Instituted the observation of the Day of Christ's [Page]Resurrection, viz. the Weekly Sabbath; He hath told that it was the First Day of the Week; all this my Adversarie hath overlookt, as either not worthy of his Notice, or as easily Answered. I look on his Citation out of Austine as not to this Purpose, when he sayeth, nos & Dominicam diem, & Pascha Coelebramu [...], & alias dierum celebritates; sed quia intelligimus quo pertineant, non tempora observamus, sed quae illis Significantur temporibus, this indeed Proveth that Augustin thought that these were not to be Observed for themselves; but for the Mysteries that were Commemorated on them, but it no way evinceth that he thought there was no need of chusing the Days themselves, on which the thingsCommemorated were Acted; but one Day of the Year might be as fit as another, as the Church should Determine.

§ 22. It is unreasonable to put it on us to disprove that Christ was born Dec. 25. as he doth, p. 192. For that we cannot do so well as by fixing on some other Day, and proving that to be the Day of the Nativity: which we pretend to be uncertain: it rather is his part to prove, who affirmeth that our Lord was born on that Day. And yet, if it were needful for our Cause, probable Arguments might be brought, whic [...] may incline us rather to think, that he was born at another Season of the Year: some of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity was in September, or in October. But whatever may be the Concernment of our Adversaries, it is no Concernment to us, what was the Day: it is enough to us, that the Mystery it self is firm and sure. The Reader may find this Question about the Day and Moneth of the Nativity, Learnedly handled by our Countrey Man Master Bailly, operis historici, & Chronologici lib. 2. quaes. 7. p. 42. & seq. where he concludeth, with Spanhemius, Mensem & Diem Natalitium a nemine determinari debere, nec posse, cum de iis Scripturae silent, nec quicquam certi primis Ecclesiae Christianae seculis a quopiam prolatum sit. He had been charged by the Author of Def. of Vind. with Shu [...]ling, in that he had pleaded God's Appointment for Holy Days, because God hath appointed that we should obey the Apostles and their Successors, as our lawful Ecclesiastical Rulers: because though we are to obey the Apostles, whom we know to have been Infa [...]ibly Guided; we are not to obey their Successors (real or pretended) further than they bring Divine Warrant; which cannot be shewed for Holy Days. He endeavoureth to clear himsel [...] from Shuffling, by telling us that there was no more meant than that the [...]hurch, may, by that Power which is perpetually lodged in her, Regulate the Publick Solemnitie [...] of Worship; and when she enjoyneth nothing but what is lawful, we ought to obey. Here is [Page] Shuffling to Excuse his former Shuffling; he is entangled by Wrestling to Extricat himself. For he supposeth the whole Question, that there is a Power perpetually lodged in the Church, to appoint Holy Days; otherwise he saith nothing to the purpose. Again, he supposeth that appointing of Holy Days, is as much in the Churches Power, as other Regulating of Publick Solemnities; whereas he should have considered, if he would have Explained, and not Confounded and Darkened the Matter, that there is a Regulating of Publick Solemnities, which lyeth in determining Circumstances, which must be determined, and yet are not determined in Scripture, such as the Time, Place, and Order of these Religious Actions, that the Lord hath appointed his Day to be spent in: there is another Regulating, which is adding to what the Lord hath appointed; more Days to his Day, new Religious Ceremonies to these which are of Divine Institution; or determining Circumstances, which neither are determined by God, nor need to be deterned; such as are more Holy Days than Christ hath appointed; the Churches Power about the first sort we do not controvert: her Power about the second is the Subject of our Question: and here he either supposeth the Question, viz. That the Church had such Power; or he saith nothing to the purpose. Yet further, when he speaketh indistinctly of Apostolick Power, and that of their Successors, as to this Regulation; if he mean no more than such Regulation as is always in the Churches Power, he giveth the Successors of the Apostles the same Regulating Power that themselves had; the Consequence of which is, that their Successors (I suppose he meaneth the Bishops) may institute new Offices, new Government, new Discipline, and all other Ordinances in the Church, as the Apostles might: which is full as high as the Papists Screw up the Power of the Church, and is indeed, to make the Bishops absolute Lords over God's Inheritance. And this he confirmeth by telling us, that the Apostles made Constitutions that were laid aside by their Successors; and other Usages came in their Room, but because he saw this lyable to Exception he distinguisheth betwixt greater Usages, that are variable unless they are equally subservient to the great Ends of Discipline, in all Ages and Countries; & nisi consuetudine Ecclesiae universae sint roboratae: and lesser Usages, whose Continuance and Abrogation may depend on the Convenience of particular Churches; and he giveth an Instance in the Deaconesses, which he saith are not in the Presbyterian Meetings, nor any Reformed Churches. If he would have Extricated himself from the Shuffling that was [Page] imputed to him, he should have given us some Rules, or Characters, by which we might discern, what Constitutions of the Apostles are to be accounted Great, and Unalterable; and what Small, and Changeable by their Successors: if Marches be not clearly Rid here, we are at a Woful Uncertainty: yea, bold Men may dare to meddle with Episcopacy it self: and pretend that it is one of the lesser Apostolical Constitutions; if they did at all appoint it. The Marks that he hath given us are very insufficient, their universal Subservience to the Ends of Discipline will be as much controverted, as whither they be great Constitutions or not: he saith Bishops and Holy Days are such; we deny it; and will Debate it with him; and so we are still in the Dark, what Apostolick Constitutions may be laid aside, or must be retained; for his consu [...]tudo universae Ecclesiae, first that dependeth on uncertain History to know it. Next it is to set the universal Church above the Apostles; or to make her infallible, not only in Fundamentals; but even on Government and Ceremonies. The Instance he bringeth proveth nothing; if he can prove that Diaconesses were an Apostolick Constitution, I shall acknowledge the Presbyterian Churches to be Defective through the want of them.

§ 23. He Vindicateth himself, p. 194. from Pleading for blind Obedience, by telling us, that he only Pleadeth for Obedience in lawful Things, not for Obedience in Things Arbitrarily Imposed, as the Papists. If he prove the Observation of Holy Days to be lawful in it self, and that the Church hath Power to institute them; I shall crave him Pardon for what was said of blind Obedience: but while he bringeth the Authority of the Church for the Ground on which we should obey in this Matter, and maketh it a sufficient Argument why they should be observed, that the Church Commandeth it: I must still think that this is either to Plead for blind Obedience, or Egregiously to Tri [...]e. He hath next, a long Discourse about a Citation out of Augustine: of which before. In the Def. of Vind. p. 30. it had been said, that it is not a Day being Anniversary that we scruple, but that it is separated from Civil Use by Mens Authority, and Dedicated to Religion in an Anniversary Course. This he Treateth in Ridicule, not (I suppose) because he cannot, but because he will not understand it. We neither Scruple because the Day is Anniversary; a Day for Civil Solemnity, appointed by men, may be such: nor because it is set apart for Religious Use; an Occasional Day for Solemn Humiliation, when God by a special Providence calleth for the Work, and Man determineth the Day, is lawful, as is the perpetual recurrent Lords [Page] Day, appointed by God; nor thirdly, do we quarrel these Days, merely because they want a special Divine Warrant; because Anniversary Days for Civil Use, might be appointed by Men. But the Ground of our Scruple is, the Complex Nature of these Days; that they are wholly separated from Civil Use, as the Lords Day is; that they are perpetually Discriminated from other Days in the Year; and that they are perpetually Dedicated to Religion, and all this, not by Divine, but by Humane Authority. If there be any Raving, or any thing unintelligible in this, I shall be content to be Instructed by him; or any who is of his Opinion. Are there not many Actions that are Good and Lawful; considered under several Circumstances; which if ye consider all their Circumstances Complexly, are Unlawful; for Instance, the Magistrat may appoint his Subjects to meet in Arms; he may also appoint that this Meeting be Yearly, Monethly, or Weekly, if need be; yea he may appoint this Meeting to be on the Lords Day, in Case of Necessity; yet he cannot lawfully appoint that they should, without Necessity, meet every Year, every Moneth, or every Week, on the Sabbath Day. He complaineth that it is called Thrasonick Triumph, when he telleth us of Danger and Impiety in separating from the Church, in these excellent Constitutions that are received from the beginning, and in all Countries where the Name of Jesus hath been Worshiped: such Constitutions and Solemnities have been derived from the Apostles, or Apostolick times: These are his Words; though in his Review of them here, he seemeth to Smooth them a little. He will have it only to be Thrasonick Boasting, when a Man admireth his own Wit or Performances. I love not to contend about Words; nor need I to write a Dictionary on this Occasion: nor shall I judge what Opinion he hath of himself; but I leave it to the Reader to judge, whither it may not be so Termed, when one insulteth over his Adversary, as having great and evident Advantage against him, when yet there is no Cause for so thinking; and whither he be not guilty of this Boasting, (or whatever he will call it) while he insinuateth the Universality, the Antiquity, and the Apostolick Authority of the Holy Days, and that with charging his Adversarieswith dangerous Impiety, on account of their differing from them; while all these are the things that he and I do controvert about.

§ 24. He taketh it ill that it was called a loose Reasoning, when he telleth us that the Knowledge of Christ doth not extinguish the Light of Reason; therefore such Constitutions (as the Reason of Mankind is agreed in) have [Page]nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion. This was called loose Arguing, because he taketh an Uncontested Truth for his first Proposition; and the Conclusion that we Debate about is supposed, in place of the second Proposition. His Defence is; No Society of Mankind ever thought Anniversary Holy Days unlawful; but all of them thought them proper Means to Excite Religion: he telleth us that Clamours against them (so he termeth our Reasons) destroy all Unity and Order, about things not only Innocent, but Useful in their own Nature and Tendency: here is yet more loose Arguing, while he supposeth still the thing in Question. We deny their Innocency, also their usefulness; and must do so, till we see better Arguments for what is asserted: the Apostolick Churches did not use them; whence we may with Confidence conclude, that they did not think them proper Means to Excite Devotion; yea, it is no weak Consequence, if we infer, that they thought them unlawful; being none of these things which Christ had Commanded, nor his Apostles Taught. That they were not forbidden, is Answered above; they are forbidden in general, and that is enough. That Reasoning against Holy Days of Humane Appointment destroyeth all Unity and Order, &c. looketh more like Clamour than any thing that we have said; there was Unity and Order in the Apostolick Church, without them; and so is there in the Presbyterian Societies. His Syllogism that he presenteth us with, p. 201. doth not Retrieve the Looseness of his former Reasonings: it is, whatever is agreeable to true Reason, is rather improved than condemned by Religion; but such Constitutions (he must mean the Holy Days) are agreeable to true Reason; Ergo, there is nothing in them contrary to the Purity of our Religion. I take no notice of the Form of this Syllogism (of the Rightness of which he is confident) it may easily be reduced to Form, by a little Change of the Conclusion; here is indeed closs Reasoning; but it is not concludent Reasoning: for we deny the Minor: though he attempteth its Proof, both in prosecuting the first, and the second Proposition. I am not fond of his Method of Probation; he concludeth it after the Form of a Sorites; whereas there is nothing like it in his Progress: but that is a small Matter: I except against his Proof in what is more material; that all Nations are agreed in this; and this is the best Evividence of what is agreeable to true Reason: I deny both these Propositions, 1. How will he prove that all Nations were agreed about the Necessity and Usefulness of Holy Days? Or, I distinguish this Proposition; all Nations are agreed in general, that there should be some Religious Holy [Page] Days: if I should put him to the Proof of this, it might puzzle him; but for our part, we think it of great Use, and necessary also, necessitate praecepti; whatever may be said of the necessitas medii; we think it a Wise and Excellent Constitution of the Divine Will, that we have recurrent Days, (I mean the Christian Sabbath) and Occasional Times of Solemn Worshipping God: but that all Nations are agreed about the Necessity of Holy, Religious Anniversary Days of Mans Appointing; this is yet unproved; the Jewish Holy Days, (till that Church fell into manifold Apostacy) were appointed by God; the Heathenish Religious Rites, (and their Holy Days among the rest) were appointed (as they pretended) by these whom they owned for gods; which I could prove, if it were not to digress; with that Pretension Numa, and others gained the People to submit to their Religious Rites. For his second Proposition; it is utterly false, that the Agreement of Nations is the best Evidence of what is according to right Reason: this might hold, if Men were generally Perfect in Knowledge, and Holiness; if their Mind, Will, and Affections had no way been hurt by the Fall; but in the present State of Fallen, Corrupt, and Sinful Men; it is a False, Dangerous, yea Pernicious Position: if understood (as here it must be) of Matters of revealed Religion; such as instituted Worship is. His Proof of this Assertion is most absurd; which is, two Maxims of the Civil Law, wofully misunderstood; and misapplyed, viz. Quod major pars Curiae efficit, pro eo habetur, ac si omnes egerint; and, Refertur ad universos quod publice fit per majorem partem. This is to be understood, of Humane Courts in any Nation, or Society; not of the Consent of all Nations: otherwise one Nation could not make Laws for it self; but must peruse the Volumns of all Nations, that they may know what Laws obtain in most Nations. Again, which is yet more to our purpose, these Maxims hold in Civil, not Religious Matters: to make the Consent of Nations to be the Rule of Religion, (as this Author manifestly doth) hath so many Absurdities wrapt up in it, that it is a wonder that such a Fancy could fall into the Head of one who owneth revealed Religion; and is not far from Hobbism, or Deisin, with which he is not sparing to charge the Presbyterians, on far less Cause given. I am far from charging him with these horrid Opinions: but I advise him to beware of Zeal for Humane Holy Doly Days on such Principles as would lead Men into that Snare. If we must be determined by a Pole among Mankind (as his Assertion doth plainly import) in the Matters of our Religion; [Page] Heathenism will clearly carry it against Christianity. Yea, Turkism will bid fair for it: and Popery will clearly Outvote Protestantism. This is a thousand times worse than what he (or his Friend) is so angry with a Presbyterian Parliament for, having regard to the Inclinations of the People, in settling Presbyterial Government; we must now receive the Holy Days, because the Inclinations of the Apostate World, Heathens, Jews, Papists, &c. incline that Way. His distinguishing of such Constitutions, by considering their general, or abstracted Nature, and considering them with their Ends and Objects; will not help him; for corrupt Men will always be generally for what is worst, consider it as ye will; neither can it be said, that this Rule of Judging of Religion holdeth not in the Essentials, and great Points; but in the inferior Matters, and Rituals: for, the instituted part of Religion lieth more remote from Mans Reason, as a Contriver of it, than other things in Religion do: because these depend merely on Institution, and the Will of the Instituter; as ye can less give a Reason, why Bread and Wine should signifie the Body and Bloud of Christ, (except from the Wi [...]l of him who appointed this) than ye can do why we should Pray to God, obey him, &c.

§ 25. He taketh it very ill, and calleth it strong Natural Nonsense, that the Holy Days (and other Religious Ceremonies of Mans Devising) are called new Means of Grace, which are not to be appointed by Mens Reason; but by Gods Authority, He saith they are only appointed to increase our Devotion for the old Means of Grace; they are but Circumstances of time determinable by the Church. All that is sufficiently refuted already: but he repeateth, and forceth me to do so; First, That which is appointed to increase our Devotion toward Prayer, the Word and Sacraments, (which are the old Means of Grace) is a Mean of Grace it self; for increase of Devotion is Grace; therefore, the Means toward that End must be Means of Grace: and if these be appointed by the Lord, as the Sabbath is, for increase of our Devotion in Prayer, &c. this is one of these he calleth the old Means of Grace, viz. Means of Gods appointing; if appointed by Men; for the same end, they must be new Means of Grace appointed by Men; and superadded to these of Gods Appointment. But the Holy Days are such, ex tuo ore; being appointed to increase our Devotion, this cannot be said of mere determining a Circumstance of Worship; as appointing a Week Day Sermon. 2. That which is necessary to the Beeing and Beauty of Religion: to keep us in mind of the Mysteries of our Religion, is the Peoples Catechism, &c. must be a Mean of Grace; but all this, and more, he [Page] hath ascribed to the Holy Days; not only to the Work to be done on them, but to it as done on such a Day; they must then be new Means of Grace, beside what God hath instituted. 3. That they are but Determinations of the Time of Worship, is above refuted; and himself refuteth it, by affirming that they are appointed for increasing our Devotion. I should allow him not only to Smile, but to burst out into Laughter, if it had been said (as he pretendeth) that Christmass was kept in Honour of Julius Caesar, before Christ was born; he need never want Matter of Laughter, if he be allowed thus to Devise what may make him Merry. All that was said is, that Holy Day was so kept; and thence called Yule in Scotland. The Import of which is no more but this; that the same Day being kept by the Heathens on one Account, some Christians changed it into another Use, and Celebrated it as the Day of Christs Nativity; as I could shew they did with many other, both Times and Places. His Criticising on the Word Yule, making it Noel, and then turning it to a nouvelle; and Expounding it, a Day of Tidings, I might rather Smile at; I think it not worthy a Laborious Examination. I need not take it very ill that he useth me with Contempt and Scorn, when he, p. 208. putteth the Excellent Buchannan among the highest Order of Devils. It was said that our Author saith as much as that the Holy Days are the Power of God to Salvation. He Answered, p. 209. he looketh on them as the Publick and Stated Seasons wherein the Power of God to Salvation is manifested. This is far below what he had before said▪ that they are necessary to the Beeing of Religion, &c. and this Expression he Apo [...]ogizeth for, ibid. blaming his Antagonists ill Nature, because he understood it not of the External Profession of Religion; and that it was meant that they are very useful for it, as the Exercises of Religion must be performed, sometimes with Ord [...]r, Uniformity, and Society. I confess neither is my Nature so good as to applaud this Answer, nor is my Understanding so good as to comprehend how this can be the Meaning of that A [...]ertion. Would he have us so good Natured as to think all is sound that he saith, whither it can be reconciled to any sound Sense, or not? I am sure he doth not set us a Copy of such good Nature. We have the Mercat fallen very low; from the Holy Days being necessary to the Beauty, and Beeing of Religion: first, to this, that inward Religion may do well enough without them; next, that they are not necessary, but only very useful to the External Profession of Religion. And then, that External Religion needeth them only sometimes. Further, that it may subsist always without them: but it will not, in that [Page] Case, be so Orderly as were needful. Yet again, it is but for the Uniformity of External Religion, that they are any way useful, so as the Beeing and Beauty of it may be kept where they are not observed: only these Churches are not like their Neighbours. And lastly, Religion, Internal and External, may have both its Beeing and Beauty, in particular Persons, though they observe no Holy Days; only it is useful, that if they think fit to go to Church, and to Worship God, in Society, on these Days, that they should observe them. If he will allow us thus to understand all his big Words, it will tend much to Compromise our Differences. He taketh it amiss, that it was said▪ that he Damned them all to Hell who do not observe Christmass; and this he disowneth. The Ground of that Inference was (for it was not charged on him, further than that it followeth from his Principles) that he maketh the Observation of it necessary to the beeing of Religion. I think they who are without the Beeing of Religion, are in the Way to Hell; yea though they understand it of External Religion, which they are capable to Practise; what can we think of the State of Presbyterians, who do not, yea will not; and think they ought not observe the Holy Days, if the Observation of them be necessary to the Beeing of Religion? It is not imaginable that a Person of such Sentiments, can have any Degree of Charity to them, with respect to their Salvation, unless he think a Man may be Saved without all External Religion.

SECTION X.

Of Schism.

THe Enquirer falleth next upon the Presbyterian notion of Schism, as one of the New Opinions; the Opinion of the Presbyterians in this, he taketh from one Person, who never pretended to Write in the Name of all the Presbyterians; neither did ever Write of Schism, of set Purpose, or fully; but only endeavoured to take off that odious Charge that his Party had laid on Us, by Answering their Arguments: However, I am willing to Account for what he Opposeth in that Author, or to yield to the Force of Argument, if there be any thing which cannot be Defended. My Antagonist hath treated on this Subject so indistinctly, that there is a Necessity to give a more clear Account of the Nature of Schism in general; without which we may wrangle, but not [Page] Dispute. It hath been an ancient Practice, and is frequent in later Times, and in ours; for different Parties to brand one another (and that with fierey Zeal) with the odious Name of Schismaticks; without considering, or at least Defineing what it is that they call Schism; The bitter Epithets among the Ancients given to them whom they imputed this Blame to, did sufficiently shew their Zeal against Schism, but did more shew that there were Schisms among them; and that they were Angry one with another, and hold [...]urth some particular Causes of these Heats; than lead us to a distinct Knowledge of the general Nature of Schism: Some modern Authors have Written more dis [...]inctly of it; yet the particular Cause they were concerned for, hath distorted their Thoughts of the Nature of Schism into one side; and wrested its Essence to serve their Hypothesis. It is Observed by the Learned and Reverend Stillingfleet, Irenic. p. 108. that the word Schism (though it sound harsh, it being often taken in an ill sense) as it importeth a separation from a Church, is not a thing intrinsically evil in it self; but is capable of the Differences of Good and Evil, according to the Ground, Reasons, Ends, and Circumstances inducing to such a Separation; the withdrawing from a Society is but the Materialitie of Schism; the Formalitie of it must be [...]etcht from the Grounds on which that is built. He citeth also another Author, Observing that Heresie and Schism as they are commonly used, are Two Theological Scarcrows, with which they who would uphold a Partie in Religion, use to fright away such, as making Enquirie into it, are readie to relinquish and oppose it, if it appear either Erroneous or Suspicious.

§. 2. Before I come to search into the Opinion of the Fathers, and others, about the Nature of Schism; it is needful to premise a few things▪ 1. Schism is a Breach of Unitie; and therefore, there can be no Schism where there ought to be no Unitie; yea, where there need be no Unitie, or where there can be no Unitie. Wherefore that we may understand what Schism is, it is needful to Consider what Unitie should, and must be amongh Churches, and among Christians. There are several sorts of Unitie, that we cannot have with all Churches, as local Communion: some that we need not have, as Identitie of Rites: some that we ought not to have with some Churches; as Communion in false Doctrine, or impure Worship. 2. The Unitie of the Church may be Considered in all the Notions in which the Church is considered; or in all the sorts of Churches: In the Catholick Church, visible, and invisible, in all the Combinations of Chur [...]hes among themselves, National, provincial, [Page] classical, and in particular Comgregatious. It is an undue Notion of Unitie and Schism that Independents have, that they are only to be Considered as in a particular Congregation. 3. Unitie consisteth in Joyning with, and c [...]eaving to the Church in all these Acts of Communions with her that the LORD hath made our Dutie▪ so that it is not only Schism to depart f [...]om a Church (without just cause) that we have been joyned to; but not to joyn with some Societie of Christians, when it is possible for us; and when we can do it without Sin; the former may be called a [...]ositive, this a negative Separation. 4. Schism may be also called Positive, or negative in another Sense; the former, when a Partie in a Church, doth not joyn with the Church; yet setteth up no Church in a separated way from that Church, whereof they were Members: the later, when they set up such a distinct Societie; there may be just Causes for both: The first, When I cannot joyn with the Congregation I belong to, because of some Corruption that I must partake of, if I joyn; but I partake with some other more pure Societie; The second, When a Body of People cannot joyn without Sin, nor can they have the occasion of a Societie, where they might joyn; they must either live without Ordinances, or set up another Religious Societie; on this Ground Protestants did thus separate from the Popish Churches. 5. There may be a partial Separation, when one Ordinance is so corrupted, that we cannot joyn in it, and yet can joyn with the Church in all other Acts of Communion: and a total Separation, when either the Church will not suffer us to joyn with her in any part of her Service, unless we joyn in all; or she is so Corrupt that we can joyn with her in nothing that is Religous. The former by most wise and sober Men, is not reckoned such a Schism; as that any are to be blamed as Schismaticks on that account; but the Author I now Debate with, aggravateth that even to a very high degree of Schism; as also do many of [...]is Partizans; driving many Consciencious and good Men from them, for the sake of some Usages, which themselves count indifferent, and the others apprehend to be unlawful. 6. The Differences in Opinion about Religious matters, especially when Managed with heat, and animosities, may be called Schi [...]m, according to the import of the Word; yet in the usual Ecclesiastical notion of Schism, they are not to be so reputed; unless some kind of separation, or shuning the ordinarie Church Communion one with another, follow upon them. Diversitie of Opinion, and of Affection, are sinful evils; but it is diversitie of Religious [Page] Practice, following on these, that maketh ChurchiSchism. 7. When a separation falleth out in a Church, the Guilt of it doth certainly ly on the one side or the other; and often neither side is wholly innocent; they who have cause to separate, may manage their Good cause by evil Methods, and in a way that is not wholly Commendable: now to know on which side the blame of the Schism [...]ieth, we must not always conclude that they are in the fault. 1. Who are the fewer Number; otherwise most Reformations of the Church were sinful: Nor, 2. Who separate from the Church Rulers, themselves being in Possession of Church Authority: for this should condemn our Reformation from Poperis; Nor, 3. Who separate from that Partie that hath the countenance of civil Authority, and hath the Law on its side; not only because it is the Gospel, not the Law of the Land, that is the Rule of our Religion, and Church Practice: but also because that is variable, and by that Rule, they who were the sound Partie one year, may be Schismaticks the other; without any Change in their Principles or Practice; which is absurd. Wherefore the blame of Schism, in that case, lieth only on them who hath the wrong side of that controverted Matter about which they divide; or who, though their Opinion be better than that of the opposite Partie, yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without sufficient Cause; every thing that we may justly blame, not being sufficient for making a Rent in the Church. Hence it plainly followeth, that Mens assuming to themselves the name of the Church, is not sufficient Ground for them to Brand such as Schismaticks who depart from their Communion: Where Truth and Gospel Puritie is, there is the Church, and they who have most of these are the soundest Church.

§. 3. Having laid this Foundation for Discerning what is truly Schism, and where the Blame of it lieth: I shall next enquire into the Opinion of the ancient Church, about Schism: it is evident that they did Oppose it; and set forth its Sinfulness, and sad Consequences, with a great deal of Zeal, and that justly; for it is not only a sinful thing on the one side, or the other, but is a great Plague and Judgment from the LORD on a Church, and tendeth to the of Ruine of Good Order, of the inward and outward Practice of Religion, and of Mens Souls; and herein I shall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Discourseth, p. 211. 212. He is in a vast Mistake, if he reckon it among the New Opinions of Presbyterians, that they think well of Schism, that is truely such; [Page] or speak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard, and Fatal Effects of it; nay, our Principle is, that a Man should part with what is dearest to him in the World, to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church; yea, that nothing can Warrant, or Excuse it, but the Necessity of shuning Sin. It is also evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in bestowing on one another the odious Names of Schismaticks, as also of Heretick; and that often proceeded from a true (though mistaken) Zeal for lovely Truth, and beautiful Unity: at other times it might arise from some sinful Infirmities, that they (as all Men are) were Subject to. Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions, because they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Fathers called several Practices Schism, and shewed a great dislike of them all. As, 1. They blamed Dividing from the Universal Church, as Schism; and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed, under this Head, which I shall not now mention; it being my Work at present, only to Enquire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter. I find they were not of my Adversaries Opinion in this; many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about, and blameth People for, as Schismaticks, and Sectaries, which they laid no such stress on; They bare with one another, though they Dissered in Rites, and several Customs. They did not fall out about what they counted indifferent, but maintained Peace, and Concord, notwithstanding of different Practices in one Church from another. Euseb. lib. 5. C. 23. citeth Irenaeus, reproving Victor of Rome (where Usurpation, and imposing on others early began) for Excommunicating other Churches which kept not Easter on the same Day with him; and he setteth before him some Differences between Polycarpus and Annicetus; so as neither could perswade the other to be of his Mind; and yet they did lovingly Communicate together: The Words of Iren. as Eusebius hath them, are [...], &c. Some think they should Fast one Day (to wit, before Easter) some two, others 40 hours; but yet still they retained Peace; the Diversity of their Fasting Commended the Unity of their Faith: and in the same place [...], they maintained Peace, and none was cast out for that Difference. Among Cyprians Epistles, one from Firmilian, sheweth the same thing, i [...] plurimis provinciis multa pro locorum & nominum varietate diversa fiunt, nec tamen ob haec ab Ecclesiae Catholicae [...]ace atque unitate aliquando discessum est.

§. 4. It is also very plain, that the Fathers, (I mean of the first Ages) did not place the Unitie of the Church Catholick in being of the same [Page] Opinion about all points of Doctrine; but did bear with one another, and maintained Peace, even when they Differed about some of the lesser Truths; yea, when some of them would impose their Opinions on others, and Censure them who Differed from them; they were, by the rest, dealt with, not as Maintainers, but Disturbers of the Peace and Unitie of the Church. Justin. Martyr: dialog. cum Tryphon: speaking of these Jewish Converts who clave to the Mosaical rites; if they did it out of weakness, and did not impose on other Christians, sayeth of them, [...]. That we must receive them, and Communicate with them, as of the same Mind, or Affections, with us, and as Brethren. And we find that in the Difference between Stephen Bishop of Rome, and Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, about the Validitie of Baptism Administred by Hereticks, Stephen was by the rest of the Bishops condemned, as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church; because he Anathematized Cyprian on this account. Firmilian in the Ep. above cited, hath these Words on this occasion, quod nunc Stephanus ausus est facere, rumpens adversum vos pacem quam semper antecessores ejus vobiscum amore & honore servabant. Irenae. lib. 4. C. 62. Condemneth them as makers of Schism, who used such Crueltie toward their Bretheren; propter modicas & quaslibet causas magnum & gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt, & dividunt, & quantum in ipsis est, interficiunt; pacem loquentes, & bellum operantes, vere liquantes culicem & camelum transglutientes.

§. 5. But we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy Zeal, Charging such as Apostats from the Church, and breakers of her Peace, who held Opinions contrarie to the Essential, and Fundamental, or any of the great Articles of the Christian Faith; so that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church, in a Harmonious consent to these great Truths. Irenae. lib. 1. C. 3. p. 53. edit. Colon▪ 1625. having given a short Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion, hath these Words, hanc igitur praedicationem, & hanc [...]dem adepta Ecclesia, quamvis dispersa in universo mundo, diligenter conservat, a [...] si in una eademque domo habitaret, ac similiter iis fidem habet, ac si unam animam unumque & idem cor haberet; atque un [...] consensu hoc praedicat, docet ac tradit, ac si uno ore praedita esset. Quamvis enim dissimilia sunt in mundo genera linguarum, una tamen & eadem est vis traditionis; nec quae constitutae sunt in Germania Ecclesiae aliter credunt; nec quae in Hispania, neque in Galliis; neque in Oriente, neque in AEgypto, neque in Lybia, aut in medio Orbis terrarum fundatae sunt, sed quemadmodum Sol[Page]Creatura Dei unus & idem est in universo Mundo; ita & praedicatio veritatis ubiquae lucet, & illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis venire volunt. Eusseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irenae, condemning Tatianus, the Author of the Sect of the Encratitae, and saying of him, [...] ▪ he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Church, or a breaking her Unitie. The same Historian, lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egesippus narrating, how long the Church remained a Virgin, Teaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets, and what the LORD himself taught, and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth, Rome, and Jerusalem; and then sheweth how Heresies arose, whose Authors he calleth false Christs, false Prophets, and false Apostles, and of them he sayeth, [...], they divided the Unity of the Church, by their corrupt Doctrines against GOD, and against his CHRIST. Several other Citations might be brought to this purpose; but these may be sufficient. I do not Question, but that there might be other things which might be called Schism, even with respect to the universal Church, as if any should bring in Idolatrous, or Superstitious Worship, contrarie to the Rules of the Gospel; or should violate any of the necessarie and landable Canons of general Councils, and should set up Societies in opposition, not only to one or few, but to all the Societies of Christians, or all the Soundest of them; But of the first, we hear little of the first Ages; neither could the second be, because they had no general Councils; nor had the Church then begun to make so many Canons as afterward: for the Third, we find none guiltie of that except some Hereticks, who were Noted for their Heresie; and their Schism little spoken of, as being the Consequent of the other, so it was with the Novatian Schism.

§. 6. There is another sort of Unity much regarded among the Ancients, which though the Breach of it had as bad influence on all, or most Churches, and so on the Catholick Church: yet it properly respected Neighbour Churches; either, which were united by the Bond of one Government, a Provincial, or lesser Synod, being made up of them: or only living in the vicinitie of one another, or having frequent occasion of Correspondence; they who were not under any uniting Bonds, but these commune to all the parts of the Catholick Church, yet had an Unity of kind Correspondence, mutual Assistance, as occasion offered; acquainting one another with their Affairs, so far as it was of any Advantage: admitting the Members of other Churches to Communion [Page] with them, on occasion; refusing Communion with such Members of other Churches, as were by them Excommunicated: and this Unity was then broken when these Acts of Friendship were shunned, or refused; especially when they who were cast out by one, were received to another: or when occasional Communion was either shuned by them who so joyned in another Church, or denied to such Sojourners, if they desired it: or, when one Church shewed Rage, Furie, and Bitterness against another; because of what they differed about. Instances of this are many: the Difference betwixt Stephen of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage, came to that Height, that they would not Communicate together; one of them Anathematized the other: and it spread so far that the Churches of Europe, and these of Africk did concern themselves in it. Eusebi [...] (cited Catal. Test, verit. p. 26.) ascribeth the Persecution under Dioclesian chiefly to the Contentions of Priests and Bishops. Basilius Magnus cited by the same Author, p. 27. maketh an Observation, that among Men of other Imployments there was much Concord; in Sol [...] vero Ecclesia Dei, pro qua Christus est mortuus, & in quam Spiritum Sanctum abunde & opulenter [...]ffudit, maximum dissidium, & vehementem multorum, tum inter ipsos, tum contra Divinam Scripturam dissentionem obs [...]rvari, & quod horrendissimum est, ipsos Ecclesiae pr [...]sides in tanto & Animi & Opinionum inter se dissidio constitutos, tantaque contrarietate mandatis Domini repugnantes, ecclesicam Dei crudeliter dissipare & gregem ipsius absque ull [...] commiseratione perturbare, ut & ipsis nunc si unquam, prodeuntibu [...] & florentibus iniquis, impleatur illud Apostoli, ex vobis ipsis exsurgent viri perversa loquentes, ut abstra [...]ant post se discipulos. The Learned Owen, of Apostacie, p. 500. observeth that the Scandalo [...] Divisions among Christians, especially among their Leaders was the first [...]tep of the visible Degeneracie of Christians; and afterward because the Sport of the Heathen.

§. 7. The Unity of Associated Churches who were Governed in Common, to which Government that of the several Congregations was subordinate, consisteth especially in the Agreement of the Rules in their Meetings for Managing the Publick and Common Affairs of the Churches, and each Member submitting to what was Determined by Common Consent of the Plurality; whether it were Injunctions, Reproofs, or Censures. The Breach of this Unitie was when any, one, or moe, of that Ruleing Society took on them to Oppose or Contradict what was Determined as above-said: much more when they did that by themselves, which should have been done by the whole, as when Foelicissimus, [Page] and some others of the Presbyters of Carthage, absolved some of the Lapsed, neglecting Cyprian the Bishop, or Praeses, and the Body of the Presbyters: which Cyprian did Highly, and Justly Resent. Or when they, or any of the People, refused Subjection to the just Decisions of the Church Rulers Assembled. This sort of Schism is much of the same Nature with what followeth, I insist no further on it: for it is the same Thing, as to Church Unity, whether any Minister of the Church Rebell against the Bishop; if that be the right Government of the Church; or against the Synod, Presbyterie Classical, or Congregational; if that be the way that CHRIST hath Appointed. Yea, it is the same Breach of Unity, to set up another Bishop, beside the true Bishop of the Church; or a new Synod or Presbyterie, beside these which one was before a Member of, or Subject to; yea, or to gather a Church, and to set up a Minister and Meeting in a Parish, beside what was orderly there settled. Wherfore the last sort of Unity, or Schism, is that which belongeth to a particular, Congregational Church. This Unity if we take Schi [...]m in a large Sense, is broken by Diversitie, either of Opinions, or Affections, among the Members of the Church; when they Disagreee, and Manage their Differences with Strife and Contention; even though there be no separation in their publick Exercises of Religion. At Corinth there was such a Schism; they came together, and yet the Apostle saith, there were Divisions ( [...]) among them. But Schisms in the Church, were of old, and now are, taken in a more restrained Sense for a causeless separation from the Church in the publick Exercises of Religion; either by withdrawing only, or by setting up another Religious Society also. This the Fathers Expressed, sometimes by Rebellion against the Bishop; or withdrawing from him; that is Denying due Subjection to the Pastor of that Church; and Obedience to him with the Presbyterie. So it is sometimes Expressed by them; but even when the Presbyterie, or Church is not named; it is so to be understood; and the Bishop is so often Named, because he was (in these times) the constant Praeses of their Meetings; and even this Praelation (though without sole Jurisdiction, into which it did at last, Issue) began early to be too much taken Notice of, as I have more fully shewed else-where.

§ 8. I shall first shew that Schism was often (yea ordinarilie) thus understood by the Ancients. Next, that they did not always blame this Disobedience and Separation as a Sinful Schism: but allowed it to be done in some Cases, and for some Causes. For the former, Cyprian [Page] in many Places condemneth this, as Schism: Ep. 40. §. 4. Edit. 1593. Deus unus est, & Christus unus, & una Ecclesia, & Cat [...]edra una, super Petrum Domini voce fundata; aliud Altare constitui, aut Sacerdotium novum fieri, praeter unum Altare, & unum Sacerdotium non potest; Quisquis alibi collegerit spargit, Adulterium est, impium est, quodcunque Humano Furore instituitur, ut Dispositio Divina violetur. Here it is evident that he speaketh of Separating from the Church; also, Ep. 55. §. 6. Neque enim aliunde nata sunt Schismata, quam unde, quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur; nec unus in Ecclesia ad tempus Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice Christi cogitatur. This also Pointeth at Deserting the Lawful Pastor of the Church; and Setting up a Meeting in Opposition to him, and the Church. What he saith of one Priest, and one Judge, cannot be meant, that the Presbyters were no Priests; for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian; but it is to be understood of one Church Authoritie, in Opposition to Setting up Altar against Altar; likewise, Ep. 64. §. 4. H [...] sunt ortus atque conatus Schismaticorum male cogitantium, ut sibi placeant, ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant: sic de Ecclesia receditur, sic Altare profanum foris collocatur; sic contra Pacem Christi, & Ordinationem atque Unitatem Dei rebellatur. Other Testimonies to the same Purpose might be brought, Ep. 69. §. 7. he calleth the Church, Plebs Sacerdoti unita, & Pastori suo Grex adhaerens: and Ep. 38. §. 1. saith of Schismaticks, [...]um Episcopo portionem Gregis dividere; id est a Pastore oves, & Filios a Parente separare, & Christi Membra dissipare. And de Unitate Eccles. §. 10. he saith of them, Conventicula sibi diversa constituunt; so also Ignat. ad Mag▪ nes. p. 32. Edit. Vossii, quarto, 1646. [...], they conveened not firmly (that is, it would not hold in Law) according to the Command; and Ep. ad Smyrn. p. 7. [...]: who doth any thing (viz. in Religious Matters) without the Knowledge of the Bishop: (that is, in a Parish without the Pastor, or in a Presbyterie, without them orderlie met, with their Praeses) he serveth the Devil. The second thing above-mentioned is, to shew that there were some Causes, for which the Ancients allowed People to separate from their Bishop, or the Church, that they were Members of. I find but three expressie mentioned, 1. Apostacie from the Christian Faith: as in the Case of Martialis and Basilides, who Sacrificed to Idols, Ep. Synodal. apud Cyprian. quae est, 65. §. 1, 3, 4. where, after many Words to this Purpose, are these, Propter quod Plebs obsequens praeceptis Domini, & Deum metuens, a peccatore Praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad Sacrilegi[Page]Sacerdotis Sacrificia mis [...]ere; quando ipsa maxime habeat Potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. A second Cause was Haeresie, Irenae. lib. 1. c. 13. Opportet longe fugere ab eis; speaking of Haereticks. Origen. Homil. 7. in Ezek. alloweth one to separate from his Bishop: Si habueris (saith he) occasionem Doctrinae p [...]ssimae, & aliena ab Ecclesia dogmata. Theodoret. lib. 1. c. 22. telleth us that at Antioch many of the Clergy, and People withdrew, and set up private Assemblies; when three Arrian Bishops Eulalius, Euphronius, and Placentius were set over them. And lib. 2. c. 24. that they did the like when Leontius, who favoured the Arians, was set up: and that Flavianus and Diodorus took the Charge. Vincent. Lyrin. adversus Haer. c. 16 relateth of Photinus Bishop of Sirmium, a Man of great Abilities, that when the People discerned his Error, Quem ante [...] quasi Arietem Greg [...]s sequebantur, eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere coeperunt. Thirdly, The Scandalous and Wicked Life of a Bishop: which the Words cited out of that Synodal Ep. in Cyprian, a little above, do plainly bear; and Irenae. lib. 4. c. 44. Qui vero Presbyteri serviunt suis voluptatibus, & non praeponunt [...]imorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquo [...], & principalis confessionis tumor [...] elati sunt, & in absconsis agunt mala, ab omnibus absistere opportet. I shall not now determine whither this was sound Doctrine; if it be understood of Peoples deserting their Pastor for his Personal Immoralities, before the Sentence of a Church Judicatorie be interposed. I only relate the Opinion of the Ancients. Origen. indeed saith Homil. 7. in Ezech. that they should not, for his Scandal, desert the Faith that he Preached: But he speaketh nothing of their deserting his Ministrie, nor contradicteth the rest whom I have cited.

§ 9. I now come to consider what Apprehensions Modern Writers have had of Schism. And here were a large Field to Expatiat in; If I should Examine all or most of them, so many have written on this Subject, and so different their thoughts are of it. Wherefore I chuse one, whom, I think my Antagonist will not except against, the Learned Bishop of Worcester, in his Irenic. p. 109. The Sum of whose Discourse is; all are bound to joyn into some Church Societie; and being so joyned, should continue in that Societie, till his Communion with them becometh Sin. Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church Communion, and consequentlie warranteth Separation; he supposeth, that Corruption in the Essentials of the Constitution of the Church, may warrant it; but where there are Corruptions crept into a true [Page] Church, yet remaining such, he saith the Question is, whither we may separate from such a Church, for purer Administrations; particularly, whither we should separate from a Church, because of Corruptions in the [...]xercise of Discipline: he determineth it, that one may separate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice, which are avowed; and owning them, is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church: he alloweth in that Case, not only Noncommunion, but a total and positive Separation: but he telleth us, that where Soundness of Doctrine is retained, but some Corruptions in Practice are tollerated, but not imposed, Separation is unlawful on that Account. He saith thirdly, where Doctrine is sound, but some unlawful, or suspected Practice is required to be owned, and conformed to, denying of such Conformitie and Communion with the Church in these things is lawful, but positive Schism, or erecting Altare contra Altare is not lawful. These are Concessions of that profoundly Learned Writer. Against which I have nothing to object, but what I have elsewhere Debated with him, viz. Where some unlawful, or suspected Action is required to be done by Ministers or People, and if the Church so imposing, will not suffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances, unless they will conform in these, both they must do (for keeping a good Conscience) and he alloweth them a Negative, and Partial Separation: and the Church forceth them on a Positive and Total Separation: what shall they do in that Case? either they must live without Gospel Ordinances; or they must set up Meetings wherein they must have them: the former is unreasonable; the latter, is, that Positive Separation which he condemneth. I with he, or any else, would tell us what is to be done in that Case. Let us then, improve that general, and indisputable Maxim; that we ought not to joyn with any Church, however commendable she be in many things, when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is our Personal Sin: and that other Truth, which cannot be denyed; that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacraments with the Church, unless they will do that which is sinful, or that they, after their uttermost Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching, apprehend to be sinful; they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments; and it will clearly follow, that a positive Separation, even from a true Church; and setting up a Church in a Church, is not only lawful, but is a Dutie; and the Sin of that Schism doth not ly on them who so leave the Church, or are driven from her; but on that [Page] Church which requireth such unlawful Terms of Communion, and imposeth them with such Rigour.

§ 10. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schism. I proceed to Examine what my Adversarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyterians to be Schismaticks; which he attempteth without making any Distinction among them: though he knoweth there were different Practices among them, with respect to joyning in Communion with the Episcopal Church. He saith, there is not a Church on Earth, with which they can joyn in Communion, without fear of being polluted. It was Answered, that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland, France, (when the Protestants had their Assemblies there) and Geneva. &c. It was not said by the Author whom he refuteth, that we dislike several things in these Churches; but by him: and it was Answered, we can communicate with a Church that is not so pure as we wish: what we dislike we shun the Practice of it; but do not, for that, refuse to communicate with the Church where it is found. His Refutation of this is, at this rate it will be hard to find Schismaticks in all the Records of the Church. This is most false: for some did cast off Communion totally with the Church, and set up separate Meetings, when they could blame no part of Church Practice: but had Quarrels with the Persons that governed the Church. As in the Case of Felicissimus, who quarreled with Cyprians Promotion, and several others who made Schisms, because they could not be made Bishops. Again, he argueth, we cannot be said to be Members of a particular Church, or to hold Communion with it, if we do not joyn in their Worship, as it is established among them. This is easily Answered by a plain Distinction; unless we joyn in their established Worship, as to the greatest and chief Acts of it; conceditur: as to all the parts of it, even to the least, negatur. I may joyn with a Church in the Word and Sacraments; and yet if they have a Holy Day or two beside the Sabbath, may forbear, yea I may, without this, be a Member of that Church (if they will suffer me) which all the Reformed Churches do, except the Episcopal Church of England. I shewed before, that the Ancients did not place the Unity of the Church in an Uniformity in these Punctilio's, (so they who owne them, do reckon them) and the Modern Churches, mostly are of the same Sentiments, and Practice. In Confirmation of this his Argument, he hath these Words, p. 214, 215. Since he forbears the Practice of these things he disliketh, why may he not be said to hold Communion with all visible Churches on Earth. And instanceth not only in the Churches of [Page] France; but in the Roman Church. This is an Absurdity beyond what he is aware of; for some Churches we are obliged wholly to flee from; because of Fundamental Errors, Idolatry, and horrid Corruptions of all Ordinances: so we sep [...]rate totally from the Church of Rome, so the Orthodox of old refused to Communicate with, or be Members of the Arian Churches; yet they did not shun Communion with some Churches, that differed from them in small Matters, as I have shewed above, §. 4. of this Section. And the Learned Stillingfleet (as I have observed already) alloweth of a Partial Noncommunion, where Communion is not totally cast off. What he saith, of our no more coming near a Liturgy than we would Sacrifice our Children in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom: these I say, are not the Words of Truth and Soberness; nor have they so much of Argument in them, as of unreasonable Sarcasm; and are not to be regarded. Cannot one dislike a greater and lesser Evil, unless his Aversion to both be equal?

§ 11. He falleth next on the Doxologie, p. 216. and doth insinuate without any Shadow of Truth or Candor, that we turn out the Episcopal Clergy for presuming to retain it in Public [...] ▪ Worship: all Scotland knoweth the contrary. We do not use it, but we never laid such Weight on using it, as to forbear all Communion with a Congregation where it is used; I called it a Humane Composure. He saith, the Matter of it is Orthodox and Unquestionable; Ergo, it is no Humane Composure; non sequitur; I said; there is no Warrant for constant Use of it. He saith, there is as good Warrant for it, as there is for Extemporary Prayer in Publick Worship. This is false; we read of no Praying by a Book, or set Form; but the Spirits Help, not that of the Book, is the Help we must look for, not only as to the Manner, but the Matter of our Prayers; what we should Pray for; Rom. 8. 26. But I insist not on this▪ he confesseth it to be a Digression; and but toucheth it slightly; I judge it a very impertinent Digression, (but I behoved to follow as he leadeth) for I think neither Ancient nor Modern Divines will call them Schismaticks, who cordially joyn with the Church where they live in all of her Worship, except this; and it seems he hath little Ground to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks, that he bringeth in this to help out his Proof against us. It is false also, that all the Churches abroad have Humane Ceremonies so twisted with their Solemn Worship, that Presbyterians cannot joyn with them. We have often (and do when occasion serveth) very cordially, and to our Edification, joyned with them; and yet partake in none of these: nor [Page] is so much of these among them as he would make us believe. Another of his Arguments to prove us Schismaticks is, p. 215. If the present Presbyterians had lived a hunder and fifty years before the Council of Nice, there was then a necessity (by their Principles) to separate from the Unity of the Church; because all the things they scruple were then practised. It was Answered, that the Hierarchy was not then in the Church; this he taketh no notice of, nor shall I, for we have already Debated it sufficiently. Neither do we make the Beeing of the Hierarchy the Ground of Separation; but that Ministers, at least, must owne it, or have no Communion with their Church. But he telleth us of a great many other things that were then used, as Anniversary Days, Significant Ceremonies, the Sign of the Cross, &c. And beseecheth me to read some of the ancient Monuments of the Church. I thank him for his good Advice; I have followed it, in some degree (though I cannot Brag of my Reading, nor Vilifie others, as if their Reading were short of mine) before he gave it; and shall yet further, as I can; and though I find that some of these crept early into the Church; (and yet, may be, not so early as he imagineth) I do not find that the ancient Church placed her Unity in these things; and I think, by the small Reading that I have attained, I have proved the contrary, and therefore if we had then lived, we might have been counted no Schismaticks. I further Answer, the Ancients placed Schism, with respect to the Universal Church, in her Heterodoxy, not in different Rites; and therefore we maintain Unity with the Fathers, while we believe as they did; for that Unity that should be in a particular Church; we are not capable of it, but with that Church where we converse, not with that which was 1600 or 1700 years ago; therefore it is improper to say we are Schismaticks, because of what we would have been in that possible Case that never was.

§ 12. His third Consideration to prove us Schismaticks is, that our Predecessors condemned the same Practices as Schismatical; the Answer to this was given; this Argument was used by him before, and I Answered it before: He saith; I leave him to Guess where it was brought, and Answered: and truly I thought it was an easie Guess, being but in the end of the former page, viz. 33. If he had read heedfully what he undertaketh to refute, he could not have been at a Loss here. It was there told him, that as the former Presbyterians did not separate from the Episcopal Church, so nor did all of them of late: and they who did, were driven away by the Apostacy of his Party, from the way that they had engaged in; and that by forcible[Page]changing of the Church Government, without her Consent, or any Means used to satisfie the Consciences of them who scrupled. I add, in former times Presbytery continued, only Bishops were superinduced; therefore Ministers did not leave their Stations, till driven from them: but at the last Settling of Episcopacy, Presbytery was razed, (so far as Men could) and what Shew of it was left, stood on the Foot of the Bishops Authority, who Called and Impowered them to Act. This true Presbyterian Ministers could not submit to; it being an owning of a Power in the Church, which they are convinced is unlawful. His fourth Argument is, No Schismaticks can be named in the Records of Ecclesiastical History, to whom that Name is more agreeable, than to the Presbyterians in Scotland. In Answer to this, the Donatists were mentioned, as Schismaticks, more justly reputed such, than the Scots Presbyterians can be. And the Novatians might also have been brought as another Instance; to whom I confess, what was said agreeth more directly, viz. That they separated, because the Church admitted the Lapsed to Repentance. His Refutation of this is a long Discourse of the Original of the Donatists; in many Circumstances, that do no way concern the present Purpose: and in which are some Mistakes, as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records, as that Lapse of Memory is, ascribing somewhat to the Donatists, which agreeth better to the Novatians; and yet there was great Affinity between these two sorts of Schismaticks; they both had the same Rise; Donatus in Africk; and Novatus a Presbyter at Rome; (together with one of the same Name, who, upon Discontent, came from Carthage to Rome, and joyned with him in making a Schism) both of them were, (as they thought) disobliged by the Election of a Bishop, the one, that Caeciliaenus was Elected; who (as he alledged) was ordained by a Traditor; yea, was a Traditor himself; that is, in time of Persecution, had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt; the other, that Cornelius was made Bishop; both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church, than the rest of the Pastors had; the one, that all the Churches had fallen into Apostacy, through their Communion with them who had been Traditors; the other, that they who so had fallen, or otherwise, in time of Persecution, were not to be admitted to Church Communion again, nor get Absolution; though he, nor his Followers did not deny, that they might obtain Mercy from God, upon true Repentance, (the contrary of which some impute to them) both of the Sects were called [...], Puritans; both of them separated [Page] from all the Churches of the World; and managed their Separation with unreasonable Rigour; especially the Donatists, and among them the Circumcelliones; who were furiously enraged against all who differed from them▪ Both of these Schisms spread far and wide. It is observed by some, that there were of both sorts, Men of strict Lives. Though some of the Ancients tell us of their Haeresies; yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith: of the Donatists Cresconius said, they confessed the same Jesus born, dead, and risen again; they had the same Religion, and the same Sacraments, and there was no Difference about the Practice of Christianity. Augustine confesseth that their Difference was not about the Head, but about the Body, not about Christ, but about his Church. Augustin. de Unitat. Eccles. c. 4. and Epistle 45. saith, they were agreed in the Creed, in Baptism, and other Sacraments of our Lord; also Ep. 162. he telleth us, that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome, and his Brethren, [...]ffered to hold Communion with the Bishops that Majorinus (whom Donatus and his Party had set up in Opposition to Cae [...]ilianus) had ordained; which Condescendence is also evident, from Collat. 1. Carthag. Art. 16. apud Optat. Milevit. p. 45. 6. Edit. Paris. 1631.

§. 13. Our Author tells us, that we ought to have named Schi [...]maticks in the Primitive Church; whose Pleas when Represented with all possible advantage, are not so fair and plausible as these of the Presbyterians. I Answer the Donatists and Novatians were Schismaticks in the ancient Church; and their Pleas for their Separation were not so fair as these of the Presbyterians, which I shall shew in these Three things. 1. They had no good, nor sufficient Ground to separate; we declare that we will never separate, because the Church admitteth scandalous Sinners to Repentance and Communion, as the Novations did: nor because some Ministers and People, are not so innocent as they should be, as the Donatists did: we condemn their Schism as much as he doth. What the Donatists alleged was false in matter of Fact, as was made appear. First, By some Judges appointed by the Emperour, to try the matter▪ next by a Synod held at Arles: And lastly, by the Emperour, after a full Hearing of the Matter: and if it had been true; it was no just ground of Separation; though it had been a great Grievance. The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all, because the Church was not culpable in such Admission, which they did unreasonably bl [...]me. Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is so unreasonable. What we dislike is, an usurped Power set up in the Chuch; and humane Ceremonies [Page] imposed on us; and our owning of these formally in Words, or materially in our Practice, is made a condition of our Communion with the Church. It is true, if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreasonable; and that what we dislike is Warrantable; he may blame us, for none Complyance; but what is the Question between him and us; if we Scruple without cause, the blame lieth on us: if not, the Guilt of Separation lieth on them who impose such things. Wherefore the Determination of this Point, who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Present, dependeth on the Question now under Debate, about Episcopacie and Ceremonies. 2. We always were willing to unite with them, if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways; which themselves confess to be indifferent. I mean the Ceremonies; and if they will not require our owning of Episcopacie, directly nor indirectly. The Novations nor Donatists never offered such terms of Peace. It is not what they do that skareth us from them, but what they will needs force us to do. 3. We do not Exclude any of them from our Communion; as the Schismaticks of old did. Who either of their Clergy, or of the People have been Excluded from the LORD'S Supper with us, on account of their Opinion in the things that are matter of our Debate. 4. We do not condemn their Church, as no Church; as the Donatists did to all beside themselves; we condemn only some things among them that are of inferior moment. 5. It is evident that themselves are the cause of all the Schism; and they are not of the healling temper that the Church was of, which had to do with the Donatists: that Church was willing to forbear them, even in their most unreasonable Separation; and to indulge such as were of a Religious Conversation; but differed from the Church without cause, in matters of lesser moment▪ The Episcopal Church had no Pity on such as differed in indifferent Ceremonies, acknowledged to be such; but drave them away from their Communion unless they would comply in these, which they could not do without wounding their Conscience. If he can Prove that we deny Communion with the Episcopal Church, on on frivolous pretences, as he supposeth, p. 222; he gaineth what he contendeth for; but he findeth it easier to suppose this, than to Prove it. It was said by his Antagonist, that the Donatists forsook their lawful Pastors; which Presbyterians do not: the Bishops being none of our Pastors. He saith this is the very Crime of the Presbyterians, in their Erecting Altar against Altar. Answer, 1. That is not all that we plead for, as is clear from what hath been said. I [Page] have shewed §. 8. Cases in which, even lawful Pastors may be forsaken; and ibid. that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them. But I say, 2. That the Bishops set up in Scotland were none of the lawful Pastors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule. And I am willing that Matter be Determined. 1. By the strength of Argument; if he can Prove the Warrantableness of the Power that they Claim to, we must yield. 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church, which was positive, plain and unanimous in this, that the People should chuse their own Bishop, and other Church-Officers; see Instances, Enquirie into the Constitution, &c. of the Primiiive Church; c. 3. p. 63. Append. ad Catalog. Test, veritat. p. 33. The ancient Church did never own a Pastoral relation, in any Man, to a People, on whom he was thrust by the Magistrat, or any Power not Properly Ecclesiastical, and without their own Consent. This is our case, the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable Possession of Presbyterian Government, the Magistrat, not the Church, made a Change, and set Men over the People to be their Bishops, whose Office they could not own, and whose Persons they had no concern in: I Question whether the Primitive Church (I mean the first Ages) would have counted it Schism to disown such, and to cleave to their own lawful Pastors, who had been called by them, setled by Church Authority among them, and laboured among them, to their Comfort and Edification. His denying the Donatists to have taken their Name from Donatus a casis nigris, is contrarie to Petavius, rationar: tempor: lib. 6. p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him: his Assertion, p. 220. that Presbyterians have thrown Deacons out of the Church, is so false, that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it: If he understand it of Preaching Deacons, he should have said so: and proved such an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church.

§. 14. His Fifth Reason to prove the Presbyterians Schismaticks, is from the Doctrine of Cyprian; of which he is so confident; that he maketh my asserting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a Pastor of a Flock, or a Presbyterian Moderator, not a Diocesan; to be a plain Demonstration that I have never read Cyprians Writings. If I had read much more than either he or I have, I should not so often, nor so superciliously, vilisie others. If I have read little he will find it the easier to refute what I have Written. Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task these few Lines in my Def. of Vindic. which he now [Page] undertaketh to refute: Which Book I have Answered (with such reading as I could attain, both of Cyprian, and other ancient Writers) in a Book Intituled the Cyprianick-Bishop Examined; where I have endeavoured to Answer all that he hath here Written, before I saw it. I am not willing to Transcribe it, being the most part of that Book. He may read it, if he thinketh fit; and if he, or any other, will refute what is there said of Episcopacie in Cyprians Age, I shall be willing to be Informed by him. His Triumphant Conclusion, p. 225. evanisheth into smoak, if what hath been said, be duly Considered. He begineth another Debate, about Preaching Moralitie; which he passeth in a Word, overlooking all that had been said in Refutation of his former Book on that Head: While it was told him that not all the Clergy, but he, and such as he, was so blamed. Also, that Preaching Moralitie was never Censured, but Applauded, and lookt on as necessarie; but what we Quarelled was, that some do only Preach Moralitie, and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit, by which they should obey the Law acceptably, and the Righteousness of CHRIST, on account of which they, and their Works that are moraly Good, should be accepted; and a great deal more to this purpose was Discoursed, to shew his Mistakes in that Matter: to all which he maketh no Return, but that his Antagonist had seen no Sermons of his in Print, nor heard him: and therefore could not tell what sort of Doctrine he preached. I think there was sufficient ground for thinking that he useth to Preach in that strain, seing he so doth Defend and Applaud it; but much more occasion was given for so thinking, from a large Discourse in his Book; that I was then Refuting, Vindicating their way of Preaching, in which their is nothing of that which is the Marrow of Gospel Preaching, viz. the imputed Righteousness of CHRIST, and the influence of his Spirit, by which we must do that which pleaseth GOD. His so often Rehearsing (as he hath done the Third time) an Error of the Press, which maketh a Passage that is unexceptionable to be Nonsense and Blasphemie, after it had been Solemnly disowned by the Author; this, I say, sheweth the Mans temper: I am sure this silly shift will Reflect more on himself, in the Eyes of them who are not Malicious, than it will on the Person whom he would Defame.

SECTION XI.

[Page]

Of the Government of the first Christian Church of Scotland.

ANother Debate my Antagonist Engageth in, wherein what we hold must be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is, what way the Christian Church of Scotland was at first Governed; whether by Bishops, or the Pastors of the Church, acting in Parity? We cannot give a distinct and paricular Account of their way, in this Matter, because of the Silence, and Defectiveness of the History of these times; and therefore, it is a Mis-representation when he saith, that we hold that they were Presbyterians; if he understand Presbyterian Government in the the usual Sense, as made up of Kirk-Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods, and General-Assemblies; we suppose they had a Government in that Church; and that it was Managed by Church Officers, and directed by the Word of GOD, as they then understood it; for this we can bring no other Proof; but that they were Christians, and we owe them that Charity, having no cause to think otherwise of them: and I think this will not be Contested between him and me. All the Question that remaineth is, whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power, and Ruled in Parity, or had Bishops set over them, who had the Power of Ruling the Church; the rest having only Power to Teach. We are for their Equality of Power; my Antagonist for Episcopal Jurisdiction to have been, even then, in the Church of Scotland. I do agree with him that this is questio facti, and must be determined by Testimonie; and that of Credible Witnesses, who might know the Truth of what they Assert. I have brought Credible History for what we say; all which he Rejecteth as fabulous; some of his Party (particularly Spotswood) bring Instances of Bishops in Scotland, at that time, without any to Attest the Truth of what he Writeth. Which of us, then, go on the best grounds? Our Author had in the Apology (which I take to be his) pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head; First Vindic. Question. 1. p. 4. 5. all that he saith in the Apology, I Answered; Deff. of Vindic. p. 36. 37. he doth in the Book now before me, endeavour to Answer part of what was said (as he had also done in the Apology) overlooking what he thought not fit to touch. I shall now Consider what he here saith; omitting nothing that is Material: He [Page] hath not yet cleared his Assertion that Blondel took that History of the Culdees ruling the Church, from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks, Boetius and others, or such as were little removed from his own Age. For Blondel doth not mention one Monk contemporarie with Buchanan; nor any Monk save Fordon, who was far removed from his Age; wherefore the Objection from the Word Contemporarie is not Obviated, nor Answered, by any thing said in this, or his former Book. It was Objected that his Rejeing the Writers whose Testimonies were brought, as incompetent Witnesses, was to Raze the Foundation of the History of our Nation, which he Answereth, by shewing that it is the Establishing, not Razing of History, to require Competent Witnesses for what we Believe: This is to divert into another Question; what was blamed in him was not, that Witnesses whose Testimony we receive, must be Competent; but whether these adduced by me, in the Debate, were such. I only Mark here; not Examine (being aside from our present Debate) what he saith, p. 230. that if History be Destroyed, and the Moral Certainty that is conveighed by Testimony (he must mean Humane Testimony) then the Authority of Revelation falleth, and Atheism is Introduced; at least boundless Sceptecilm, and uncertainty. Whether this tendeth not to make Scripture, and all our Religion to Depend on the Churches Testimony, let it be Considered. If the Vindicator said, that we may believe a Matter of Fact without sufficient Evidence, let him be loaded with as many Epithets as he can Invent; he Pleaded that Buchanan, Boetius, Major, Fordon, Usher, the Centuriators, Baronius, Beda, and Prosper, had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church, and if none of these be Competent Witnesses, our Historie is lost; and cannot be made up by the Collateral Testimony of some of the Roman Historians, who spake of our Affairs obiter.

§ 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains, from p. 231. to Prove, that no History is to be Believed unless it be [...]ttested by sufficient Witnesses, who had occasion to know what they Affirm; I would gladly know who Opposeth him in this; he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body, so far as I know; nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits; I mean, without this History cannot be Believed upon the Faith of these Witnesses, which are thus incompetent; for by other Topicks a Matter of Fact, done 1000 years ago may be sufficiently Proved; as the Learned Heideggerus Proveth both many Antediluvian, and Postdiluvian, Passages, by Consequences drawn from Scripture, in his Excellent Book, Historia Patriarcharum; Wherefore I look on Du Lamy's Work, de Authoritate[Page]Argumenti negantis in Quaestionibus facti, to be of good use, and that the Popish legends are by that Argument solidly refused. I confess also, that there is much strength in Eusebius his neglecting of some Books as Spuroius, because not sufficiently Attested. Only I shall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Discourse, though I fully assent to the Conclusion of it, viz. that History must be sufficiently Attested: and then I shall State this Question about the Credebility of History, a little more clearly than he hath done. And, 1. I observe, that p. 233. he denyeth that quaestio facti can be otherwise Determined. The contrarie of which I have already shewed, viz. that it may be Determined in some cases, by Consequences drawn from uncontested Matters of Fact. Next he saith, ibid. that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the present Debate, about our ancient Church-Government; this is Questionable, if it be not downright a Mistake: it is confessed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time; the Question is either, whether they were Bishops, or not; we hold the Negative; or if he Word it thus, whether they were any more than Presbyters, we say, no: or, whether there were Bishops set over these Teaching Culdees, or not; we are still for the Negative; wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative. I further Object, that, in the end of the same page, he insinuateth, that they against whom he Debateth do believe all things without Examining the Testimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded. We do not so with any thing of Moment; far less with all things. Yea, we do not so in the Case now under Debate. Another Remark I make on what he hath, page 231. and 235. If a Matter of Fact be not Attested by any Credible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which such a Thing is said [...]o have happened, it is to be lookt on as a Fable: and he addeth that Du Launy supposed that Orall Tradition could not carry any Matter of Fact further; and to Ridicule any who might think otherwise, he hath devised a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China. This may suffer a little Correction; and must not be taken as a Principle, neither on his Authority, nor Du Launy's; more than a Storie of 200 years old can be. 1. It is hard to fix a Period, how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Posteritie; especially, if it be not about the Credenda of Religion: If I can believe a Storie of 200 years old, from a grave and wise Author, whose veracity I do not Question; I know not why the Addition of 50, or a 100 years more, should make it incredible, if it come from the same hand. Wherefore this is too peremptorie a [Page] Decision: there are on the other hand, many cases in which, Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far less time than 200 years. 2. If this Doctrine be received, what shall we think of the Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, and others, which our Author, as well as others, Citeth often and Considently? It is true, they give us Vouchers out of ancient Writings; but many of these may be Proved to be Fabulous, by this same Argument: and this they do not always. 3. He forgetteth and contradicteth himself, in the very next page; while he sheweth, out of Sir George Mackenzie; that the Bards repeated the Scotish Genealogies at their Marriages, Births, and other Solemnities, and calleth this an infallible Conveyance of true, constant, and perpetual Tradition: here is but Oral Tradition; and it went beyond the Limits of 200 years; otherways, it could not be a sufficient Evidence for all the Kings that were before Fergus the Second; which is the Design for which Sir George bringeth it. 4. Good Historians, who make it their Business to Search into the Affairs of former Ages, may attain to some probable knowledge of what passed for more than 200 years, by Comparing one thing with another; which others who have not made that their Study cannot easily reach; yea, they do not always set down all the Grounds of what they Write, for that would oblige them, sometimes to write a Controversie, instead of a Historie. I say not this to Oblige any Body to take all on Trust that Historians, even of the best Note, do Write; but to shew the unwarrantableness of Determining so dogmatically about the Credibility of History; Neither do I think Defending our Opinion about the ancient Church-Government in Scotland needeth the help of this Observation. Before he had peremptorly Condemned the Historical Evidence that we bring; he should have Answered what Sir George Mackenzie (an Author that he seemeth to value) hath Written against the Bishop of St. Asaph, p. 311. that History requires, nor admits, no Mathematical, nor legal Proof. But is satisfied with Moral certainty inferred from probable Tradition, old Manuscripts, credible Histories, the Testimonie of forreign Authors; and probable Reasons. 2. That our Histories being already acquiesced in, and received by the Generality of Mankind, and especially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Historians, the best Judges in such cases, need no Confirmation, nor further Proof. And he sheweth, p. 6. that Livies History hath no surer Grounds than Tradition, he Writing long after the time he speaketh of. All this he fully Proveth.

[Page] § 3. He doth, p. 236. unjustly suppose, that I had asserted, that the History of our Nation must perish, if there was no Presbyterian Church in Scotland, so near the Apostolick Age. I said not so, nor had Words to that Effect. What I did, and do affirm is, that if none who have written the History of this Nation, are to be believed, our History is lost; for the Collateral Proofs from the Roman Historians; that he talketh of, could give us but a very lame Account of our Affairs. He maketh, p. 237. these Recitations of the Bards to be twisted with the Practice and Custom of the Nation; and that by a constant, and uninterrupted Practice; and that from the first Colonies that were planted here: now let me ask him; what Authority he hath for this; is not here an Oral Tradition (for these Recitations are not extant, but are perished time out of Mind) for much more than two hundred years, and thrice as many more. Nor doth Sir George Mackenzie give better Evidence for the Antiquity of our Kings, than we give for what we assert. He telleth us against Saint Asaph, p. 129. that the Tradition of our Nation might well be preserved for six hundred years, which is far beyond our Authors Period. That I Reasoned against Christmass from the Silence of the first Ages, is no way inconsistent with what I have, on this Occasion, written; for if our Author can prove it from any other Topick, we shall not reject it. We shall tell him, whence the Historians had what we receive, and assert from them; when we come to Debate with him, the Truth of things we hold; we are now upon the general Argument, of the Credibility of a History. We are not obliged to give him Instances of other Presbyterian Churches before Calvin and Beza, others have done it. What he saith of the Waldenses I have disproved, Section 1. §. 1. I promised, above, to state this Question, about the Credibility of History, more clearly than he hath done; for which there is much need; for he neither distinguisheth Matters related, nor Persons relating, nor the Weight that is to be laid on what is related in History. 1. Then Matters that are of no great Moment, whither they be true or false, we may receive with a Historical Faith, on more slender Grounds than what is of great Moment, or, the Consequences of Believing which is of great Advantage, or in Convenience. Matters that we build an Article of Faith on, or that our Christian Practice, yea, or that any great Worldly Interest dependeth on the Truth or Falshood of what is told us, have need to have Credentials proportioned to the Stress that is to be laid on them. And therefore I yield so far to this Author, that he shall not be obliged to believe what we assert [Page] in this Matter, unless we bring such Evidences as the Matter requireth, and is capable of. 2. The Credibility of a Historian, must bear some Proportion to the Degree of Assent, that we are to give to the thing narrated. If our Author will have us to look on any History, as an infallible and irrefragable Ground of our Belief; he must give us more than the Testimony of Men; or the best Historians who are not Divinely Inspired. As I have shewed Section 3. §. 31, 35. on the other hand, we talk not so high of the Historical Evidence that we bring, and therefore, a Probability of a lower Degree, than what he talketh of, may serve. 3. Tho the Credit of a Historian be not, by it self, sufficient to perswade us of the Truth of what he saith, yet if it be supported by the Probability of the Thing, by Circumstances that favour it, or the Testimonies of others; or by any good Topick, from which the Truth, or the Probability of the Thing may be inferred, the History is not easily to be rejected. 4. The Persons who write the History are to be distinguished, some of them have given Evidence of their Ignorance, Negligence, Foolish Credulity, and Listening to Fables; others have manifested great Learning, Industry, Care to Examine what they narrate; or are Attested by others to be Men of Probity, Learning, Wisdom, and Exactness: certainly more Weight is to be laid on the one, tho living at some Distance from the Period he writeth of, than on the other, tho nearer to it. 5. They who live at great Distance from any Period of Time, may give great Light concerning what was done in it, if they do not barely Assert what they Fancy, nor Measure the Things of that Period according to the Opinions, Customs, the Dialect of their own Time; as many of the Historians that our Author layeth much Weight on, have done; but consider Things as then they were Stated, and bring probable Grounds, either from the Histories written by credible Persons in, or near that Time, or from any other Medium.

§ 4. I now proceed to the Vindication of our Argument from History, for the first Christians in Scotland being Governed without Bishops. He mistakes when he saith, that I bring Blondel as a Historical Witness of this: I mentioned him only, as Citing these Authors which assert it. Which are, Joan. Major. de gest. Scotor. lib. 2. c. 2. Per Sacerdotes & Monachos, sine Episcopis, Scoti in fide sunt eruditi; and before him, Fordon Scoto-Chronicon, lib. 3. c. 8. Ante Palladii adventum, habebant Scoti fidei Doctores, & Sacramentorum Ministratores, Presbyteros solummodo, vel Monachos Ritum sequentes Ecclesiae Primitivae. It is true, Blondel citeth also Boet, who was [Page] later than either of them: But what he citeth out of him, seemeth not to be so much to his Purpose; wherefore I wave that Testimony. Our Authors Answer to the other two Testimonies is, they were not competent Witnesses, living at so great a Distance from the Time they speak of. To which I Reply, First, they cannot be esteemed Partial Witnesses, being both of them Papists, and not Presbyterians: and it may be rationally thought, that if they had no sufficient Ground for what they said, they would rather have either said what made for the Way they owned, or at least suppressed what they had no good Warrant to assert, against their own Way. To this he saith, p. 245. that the Monks advanced this Fable to gratifie the Popes Design of Exempting the Religious Orders from Episcopal Jurisdiction. Reply, This doth not meet with our Case; for Major was no Monk; and so not concerned to tell a Lie to please the Pope in that Design. And for Fordon; whatever Temptation he might have, to endeavour the Lessening of the Extent of the Episcopal Power; he would not design to root out Episcopacy wholly out of Scotland, (which this Testimony tendeth to, for the Period he speaketh of) contrary to the universal Sentiments of that Church, whereof he was a Member. Wherefore that Consideration doth no way derogat from the Credibility of his Testimony. Secondly, We have no Ground to think that these Historians spake by Guess, or that they invented this Story; for the contrary of it cannot be proved: and the thing it self is not impossible; yea, Sir George Mackenzy, in his Advertisement before his Book against Saint Asaph, maketh it appear, that in our Countrey there were very Ancient Manuscripts, and that the Priests learned our ancient History from the Druids; and he maketh it clear, p. 2. &c. that our Histories (of which that of Fordon and Major are a part) being received by the Generality of Mankind, especially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Historians, ought not now to be called in Question. And I must still think, for all that he hath said in Opposition to it, that the History of our Nation falleth, if these Authors are not to be believed; seing without them, he shall never be able to make up a Scots History out of Roman Authors. Thirdly, The same Author p. 5. sheweth that Men satisfie themselves in most things, with the general Belief and Tradition of a People; that Manuscripts infer no Mathematical Certainty; but the Authors of them might mistake; that the Histories of all Nations are no better founded. All which sheweth how unreasonable it is to Question the Authority of these Histories; especially when none do so, but one who is straitned [Page] with an Argument brought from their Testimony, against a Cause that he is fond of. It is also much to our Purpose, that the Learned Usher, de primord Eccles. Brit. 808. citeth the same Passages, with Approbation; he citeth also Balaeus de scriptor. Britan. affirming that Palladius was sent, ut Sacerdotalem Ordinem Romano Ritu institueret, which we may rationally think: was to set up Bishops. Also the Learned Doctor Forbes, Iren. p. 157. citeth the same Passage of Major, and addeth of his own, adeo ut Ecclesia Scoticana plus quam 230 annos erat absque Regimine Episcopali; and Forbes was Zealous for Episcopacy.

§ 5. The Testimony of these Historians is supported by other Historians, who shew Palladius was the first Bishop that Ruled in the Scots Christian Church; and that Church had Subsisted, and had Government, and others of Christs Ordinances in it, above two hundred years, before Palladius came among them. This is Attested by Baronius and his Epitomator Spondanus, ad ann. 431. and by them taken out of Prosper, see Spondan. p. 592. this is more fully cleared, first Vind. p. 4. His Answer to this I now consider. He saith, p. 244. that the Controversie cometh to this, whether Prosper saith, that two hundred years before Palladius was sent to the Scots, there was a Presbyterian Church in Scotland, this is a ridiculous State of the Question, and made by none but himself: we affirm that Prosper said, that Palladius was the first Bishop sent to the Scots: and we, aliunde, prove that there was a Christian Church in Scotland, two hundred years before that time. Whence the Consequence is clear, that during that Space, the Scots Christians had no Bishops. I must ly under his Charge of Supine Negligence, in not Reading the Authors I cite. I only may be bold to require him to make that appear. That he thus attempteth. Baronius saith in the same Place of Palladius, Quem perductum etiam ad Hiberniam Insulam, sed cito mortuum, Probus in rebus gestis Sancti Patricii scripsit, dictum est superius. Hibernorum quidem Conversionem Deus Sancto Patricio reservavit. I hope the Judicious Reader will neither think it a Token of Supine Negligence, nor of my not Reading the Books I cite; that I did not Transcribe this. For it was no ways to the Purpose in hand; it might as well be so Constructed, that I did not write over all that followeth in Baronius, about Saint Patricks Descent, about his Ordination, his Instruction in Divinity, &c. But the Weight of his Objection lyeth in this, that Baronius and Spondanus understood Prosper so, as that Palladius was sent to Ireland; and not to that part of Britain that we call Scotland. Here the Enquirer giveth me Occasion to return [Page] the Civility of a good Advice to him; that he would consider what he Readeth, and what he Citeth out of Authors: for it is against all Sense and Reason, to make Baronius and Spondanus, either mean this in this Passage, (or so to understand Prosper) of a Mission to Ireland, and not to Scotland. It is to make a flat Contradiction between their Meaning and their Words: Whereas they say, Sanctus Prosper missum ait Palladium ordinatum Episcopum ad Scotos; quem perductum etiam ad Hiberniam, &c. The Meaning then must be to our Author, tho he was Missus and Ordinatus ad Scotos; he was not sent to the Scots, but to Ireland. Do not the Words bear it in their very Face, that he was sent to Scotland, and was their first Bishop: and after he had been there for some time, he was brought over to Ireland; it is not said Missus, nor Ordinatus; but Perductus: his Mission was to Scotland; what Casuality or Design led him to Ireland, is not told us; neither is it Prosper, but Probus that mentioneth his going to Ireland: and that he never was in Ireland, I have shewed in the Place Cited.

§ 6. He further endeavoureth to overturn our Argument from Prosper, as he is Cited by Baronius; where he attempteth two things, 1. To shew that Palladius in Prospers Sense, was not the first Bishop, that was in Scotland; but the first Bishop that was sent to them by the Pope. This he buildeth on Prospers Words, both as they are Cited by Baronius, and also are in the Augustane Copy; the first are, Basso & Antiocho consulibus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius, primus Episcopus mittitur. And the other Copy is, Basso & Antiocho consulibus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, ordinatus a Caelestino Papa Palladius, primus Episcopus missus est. I see not what moved him to transcribe the Words twice; unless he see a Mystery that others cannot observe, in the Difference that is between mittitur, and missus est; but he will have mittitur, or missus est, primus Episcopus to signifie that he was not the first Bishop; but the first Bishop of the Roman Mission; if he be allowed to put what Sense on Mens Words he pleaseth, it must be so: Baronius and Spondanus did not so understand the Words; neither can any Man so understand them, unless his Preconceived Opinion do Darken his Mind, that he cannot see things as they are. If Prosper had thought that there were Bishops in Scotland before, he should have spoken more plainly, and told us, that the Pope sent him to Rule over the Scots Bishops, or, that whereas Scotland was formerly Governed by their own Bishops; the Pope would have them thenceforth Governed by such as he set over [Page] them. He telleth us of several Bishops sent to other Churches; not to introduce Episcopacy; but to bring them in Subjection to the Pope. This I deny not, (tho he instanceth only in Austine the Monk, who was sent to England) but this furnisheth an Argument against himself; for none of them is called primus Episcopus of such a Nation, except he who was sent to Scotland. Augustine is neither called primus Monachus, nor primus Episcopus, though, as Beda, hist. lib. 1. c. 23. hath it, he was ordinandus Episcopus, si a Gente Anglorum susciperetur. He saith it is not evident from Prospers Chronicon, whether there was any Formed, Organized Church in Scotland, when Palladius was sent by Caelestine. This is wholly beside the Purpose: for Prospers Testimony is not brought for that End. Is it not enough that it is clearly proved out of Authentick Writers: that the Scots were Christians anno 199, and Palladius came to them about 431. Now can he imagine, that the Scots Christians all that time, were not an Organized Church; if he think that therefore they were Unorganized, because they wanted Bishops, this is to beg the Question.

§ 7. His other Answer is not a Refutation of me, but of Baronius, who took the Chronicon consulare for Prospers Work; whereas our Author saith it is none of his; and for this he produceth the Authority of Pithaeus: which is not sufficient against that of Baronius. And even Pithaeus himself confesseth that Chronicon per consules digestum, hactenus in omnibus Hieronomiani Chronici editionibus Prosperi nomine subjungitur. All the Ground he hath for denying it to be Prospers is, that the Stile differeth from what he calleth the true Chronicon, whereof a Fragment only remaineth. He telleth us also, that Doctor Cave saith, that the Chronicon consulare is much Interpolated: but that doth not prove the Book spurious; neither doth it derogate from the Testimony we bring out of it; unless he can say that it is one of the Interpolations, may be, Foisted in by some Presbyterian; which if he say, it will make the Presbyterians older than our Author will allow. He quarrelleth, that I had asserted, that the Christian Faith was received in Scotland in the beginning of the second Century; and calleth it a Dream; because we have no certain Records of any Progress of Christianity made in the Island at that time. He should not have been so confident in this Matter, without Answering what was brought for that Assertion, or Dream, whatever he will call it. He should have disproved that Donald was our first Christian King: that he began to Reign anno 199, that Palladius came to Scotland 431, [Page] in all which Space the Scots lived without Bishops. If I have brought our Christianity any nearer to the beginning of the Christian AEra; I shall confess an Error in Calculation, which I deny not that I may readily fall into. What he saith of Squeezing of his Words: I cannot Answer, for he neither tells where, nor wherein; for my Book lying open to his Remarks; the Reader must judge whether it be so, or not, and what Advantage he hath got against it; the Error of my Title Page, putting of in stead of for the Clergy, is not such as he would represent; if they do not owne it, he should crave Pardon for making it; if they do, I have not Miscalled it; tho I confess changing his own Word was an Oversight; but I hope it is not a Beam; but a Mote that he hath discovered, by his Critical Skill.

SECTION XII.

Of Ceremonies, and the rest of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Presbyterians, which have not yet been touched.

THe last Effort made by this Author against the Presbyterians in his fifth Chapter, is made up of his Essay against our Opinion about Ceremonies, and other Miscellany Purposes, which hardly can be reduced to one Head: which I shall consider as his Discourse shall bring them in. Before I Examine his Dissertation, I observe two things in general concerning it. The first is, the course Treatment he giveth the Presbyterians, without Exception, as if he had them under his Feet, in this Conflict, before he enter on the Debate. He calleth our Opinion (or rather his own mistaken Apprehension of it; for it is none of ours, as will by and by appear) a silly Theorem, on which he saith, we have broken the Unity of the Church, and filled the Heads and Mouths of People with a thousand Airy and Unaccountable Fancies: he calls what we say on this Head, Raveries, and a Labyrinth of Idle Talk, Fooleries. My other Observation is, his odd Representation of our Opinion, which he maketh to be altogether new, and our own: and indeed as he representeth it, it is wholly new, and none of ours, but his own: it is, that a Significant Rite in the Worship of God, not founded upon Divine Institution, is Superstitious, Unlawful, and Abominable, and such as may Legitimate a Separation from any Church, where it is enjoyned to preserve Order and Uniformity. Against this I have two Objections, 1. That we did never [Page] condemn all Significant Rites in Religion, even tho they be not founded on Divine Institution. Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite, and we know no Divine Institution for it; and yet we use it in the Worship of God, viz. Prayer, and several other Exercises; and will separate from no Church because of it. That a Minister Preach in a Decent Garb, and not in a Fools Coat, is a Significant Rite used in Religion, not founded on Divine Institution, yet we shall not separate for enjoyning that. This loose and indistinct Way of Refuting an Adversary, cannot Instruct, nor Convince any Body. I shall not Retaliate his Harsh Words, by giving this Way the Epithet it deserveth. They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Understanding, use to distinguish three sorts of Modes of Mens Actions; that are found in Religion, viz. Circumstances, Rites, and Ceremonies. Circumstances are Modifications of Actions, as Time, Place, Person; or, a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Essence, but is used with it, relateth to it, and is an Accident, or Adjunct of it: and it may be such, either with respect to the Physical or Moral Beeing of the Action: Circumstances use to be sorted in these Memorial Verses,

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando.

And forma, figura, locus, tempus, stirps, patria, nomen.

Circumstance is a Word of larger Extent than Rite, and that than Ceremony; a Rite is the Manner of going about any Action (chiefly that which is Publick or Solemn) confirmed by Law or Custom. In a more large Sense▪ it is taken for any Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action, rather than to the Substance of it: such Rites are used in Judicatures, Marriages, Burials, Inaugurations, &c. some of them are Civil, some Military, &c. and some also are Sacred; when they are appropriated to Religion. A Ceremony is a Sacred Rite: the best Authors that I have seen, whether Heathen or Christian, Popish or Protestant, agree in this, that a Ceremony is peculiar to Religion: however the Word be sometimes, in common Speech, more largely taken. This applyed to our Purpose sheweth, that our Author doth widely mistake, when he representeth us as against Significant Humane Rites in Religion: we oppose only these of them which are appropriated to Religion, and so are Religious Rites, or Ceremonies. He cannot but know that there are many Actions used in Religion, which are not Religious.

[Page] § 2. The second Thing that I Observe in his Representation of the Opinion of his Adverstaries, is, that they found separation on Ceremonies imposed to preserve Order and Unity. It is no so. Let them devise what Ceremonies they will (which are not down-right Idolatry) and impose them on the most plausible pretences they can think on: yea, let them use them as much as they will; we do not think all this a sufficient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Members: but if they impose on us Religious Rites, or Sacred significant Ceremonies; so as we cannot be suffered to Worship God with the Church, unless we either approve them, or use them, this we think a just Cause of Separation: seing such Complyance were our Personal Action, and sinful in the sight of God. And yet the Separation of them who thus scruple, is rather a passive Separation, than active: they are driven away, rather than run away. Let us now hear what he hath to say in Defence of the Ceremonies, the Question about which he hath so Stated. He will not gather together all our Raveries, but in a few Words, Vindicate the Practice of all Churches, &c. Those are but Words. He had done wisely if he had excepted the Apostolick Churches. And tho I deny not, but that some Ceremonies did early and unobservably creep into the Primitive Church, and that through the Zeal of some Good Men, who saw not the [...]mportance, nor bad Consequences of such Observations; it may be made appear that some of the Ceremonies that they now observe had no such early Original; and that some of these which were observed in the first Ages are laid aside by them. Of the first Sort, I instance Kneeling in the Act of receiving the LORD'S Supper, the Cross in Baptism, and some of the Holy Days, of which before. Of the other Sort, I instance the Trin [...] Immersio in Baptism, the Aagapae, Baptising on Whitsunday, or Dominica in albis, rather than on any other Day; the Osculum pacis, all the Steps of the Catechumeni, and Paenitentes, before they could be received into Communion with the Church; and many other things which one may find in Albaspin▪ Observ. Ecclesiast. which is Compendized by Keitembellius: there are also not a few modern Churches who are not for the Cermonies as they are Pleaded for by Him and his Party. If what I have said be Considered, his first Argument proposed by way of Question admitteth of an easie Answer. The Apostolick Church Worshiped GOD without Religious Ceremonies not Instituted by CHRIST; and I hope he will own these as Societies of Men, who are to be more Considered than others. A sett of Arguments he next [Page] bringeth. 1. The Light of Nature teacheth us to Worship GOD, and all Men have Agreed in this, that Solemn W [...]rship of the DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society. A. If he make the Consequence (which he hath Suppressed) to be, Ergo, we must have humane Religious significant Ceremonies; we deny this Consequence, as not having a shadow of Reason. Again, if this Argument have any weight, humane Ceremonies must be necessarie: And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them: and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worship; but there is a Nullitie in it through want of such Ceremonies: which looketh more like Raverie than any thing he can Charge us with. 2. Saith he, This publick Worship should be fixed and Established by the Wisdom and Authority of Competent Judges, as to the Manner and Method. Ans. 1. Are the Manner and Method of Worship Religious significant Ceremonies? The Method is a Circumstance; neither Rite nor Ceremonie: for the Manner, it is either some-what that is common to Religion, and other Publick and Solemn Actions; and it consisteth in some civil Rites, therefore used in Worship because they have by Custom, Obtained in other publick Solemnities: this manner of Worship is not to be Determined by the Wisdom and Authority of any particular Judges; but the Tacite Consent of the Nation bringeth it in by using it in all such Actions: So in the Apostles time, for a Man to Prophesie with his Head uncovered, and to wear long Hair; was a Manner of Worship not determined by any Council, but brought in by civil Custom, and so made decent, that it was a fault to do otherways: so it were a fault among us, for a Minister to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb, which Custom hath made such. Or the manner of Worship is something that is peculiar to Religious Worship; and in that case it is Religion, or Worship it self; being Designed, that by it GOD may be Honoured: tho it be a Mode of that Species of Worship: (V. Gr. the Cross is a Mode of Baptism) yet it is a piece of Worship it self; being devised for a Sacred signification, and being peculiar to Religion: this sort of Manner of Worship must be fixed and Established by the Authority of CHRIST, neither do I know any lower Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it.

§ 3. His Third Argument, or Axiom, is, that we ought to express our Ad [...]ration in the publick Worship of GOD, by such significant Signs of Piety, and Devotion, as are known in that Nation where we live, to express our Reverence, and Esteem. The former Distinction will easily shew how little this will make for him. If he speak of natural or civil [...]ites, that is, Actions, or [Page] Gestures, or Things, that Nature or civil Custom hath made so Expressive; we yield all that he saith, but if he mean Religious Rites, or Ceremonies; that is, such Things, Actions, or Gestures as have no place, nor are not lookt on as so Expressive, in any other Solemnity but in Religion; I deny his Assertion: for what ever Custom hath crept into a Church or Nation, which is peculiar to Religion; and tho it be never so well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worship meerly by her own Authority; So as it is neither made decent by Nature, nor by Custom, in other Solemnities or Actions; nor enjoyned by Divine Authority, it ought not to be in the Church of CHRIST. Hence we can allow Sighing, lifting up the Hands, or Eyes in Worship; Nature hath made them Expressive: also a grave and decent Garb; because civil Custom hath made that [...]it. Also using Water in the Baptism, and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper; because Divine Institution hath made them Significant and Useful: but the Cross in Baptism, the Surplice, &c. we cannot allow, because their Signification and Use in Religon ariseth from none of these; but only from Mans will. His Fourth Assertion is, these significant Signs being indifferent in their Nature are variable according to the [...]ge or Country with whom we have to do; and may be Changed by the Authority and Wisdom of our Superiors, as o [...]t as there is sufficient Reason; of which they only are the Judges. Other Ceremonialists use to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation▪ so as they are careful to Shut the Door against the Popish Ceremonies: Some because of their ineptitude, the Bulk of them, because of their Number, being a Burden: but this Author is troubled with no such Scruples, or Fetters, he setteth the Door as wide open as the Pope, or any Church-Rulers (yea, or Rulers of the State) please to have it: no other thing but their Opinion, and Will, can keep out a Deluge of Ceremonial Fopperies. That the Ceremonies we Contend about (I mean Religious Ceremonies) are indifferent in their own Nature, he supposeth: but this is not to Instruct, but to Hoodwink the Reader: for he should have Distinguished the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies: It hath a general Nature, as it is such an Action, V. Gr. the Motion of the Finger, whereby the transient Sign of the Cross is made on the Fore-head of a Child; let that pass for indifferent. It hath also a particular Nature, as it standeth in such Circumstances, viz. as it is Appointed to be annexed to Baptism; as it is Stated in Religion, and appointed to it: and as a Religious Signification for a [Page] Spiritual end is put on it, and all this, not by CHRISTS, but by Mans Authority; we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature, while it is thus Considered: as it must needs be in this Debate. But suppose we should allow an Indifferencie to be in the Ceremonies, as they are humane Actions to be used in Worship; it is said without all Warrant, that our Superiors may Determine, and take away this Indifferencie, and Change their Injunctions about these Actions when, and as often as they see Reason so to do; tho no Body else can see any such Reason. This is to make our Superiours absolute, and to give them an arbitrarie Power, in these things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion; and which himself cannot deny to have a great influence on Religion, and in which it is nearly concerned. Beside to say that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent, wherein Religion is concerned, is to open a Door to so many Impositions as might make Gospel Worship a greater Yoke than that which the Jewish Church was not able to bear; as the Apostle saith, Acts 15. 10. For Circumstances of Actions are innumberable, and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD. We know the Church may determine the Actions in, and about Worship, which are not Determined in the Word, and yet must be Determined: but that she may Determine what ever she thinketh fit, is not to be Admitted.

§ 4. He telleth us, p. 152. that it is impossible to make Objections against the decent visible Motions of the Body in publick Worship, which may not be improved against the vocal Expressions of the Tongue. If he must be allowed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent; this his Assertion could be not Opposed: but there are who call most of these Bodily Motions decent, even in Worship, which are Learned at the Dancing School: which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn: Wherefore these Motions that were made decent in Worship by Nature, by civil Custom other grave and serious Actions, or by Divine Institution, we make no Objection against them, but blame them who neglect them▪ but for Motions that Men will call decent, without ground from any of these, we make Objections (which yet have not been sufficiently Answered) against their being Injoyned in [...]orship, which he shall never be able to Improve against all the Vocal Expressions of the Tongue. He saith we allow all these. VVhat he meaneth by so saying, I cannot Divine, we allow Vocal Expressions, and Bodily Motions too, that such of them as are fit should be used. But we do not allow that the Church, by [Page] her own Authority, without such Warrant as is above-mentioned, should enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other. I hope he hath no ill meaning when he saith Nature led us at first to the Worship of the DEITIE. I think Revelation had as early, and as effectual a hand in it, after the Fall. I confess Nature alone will lead Men to Worship the DEITY; but that Worship will not be such as even this Author will think sutable to Gospel Purity; but will have worse Mixtures than those that we Contend about. He concludeth, that the Reverence we owe to GOD, must needs bring along with it these outward Significations of respect that are made Decent by Custom and Authority, to whose Decision alone GOD left these exterior Rituals of Worship. Thus he still endeavoureth to lurk under ambiguous Expressions: we confess the Decision of some exterior Rituals in Worship is left to civil Custom: and others to Divine Authority: but that the Decision of any Rituals in Worship is left to Church Custom, where the Thing hath no Decencie but in Religion; or to Humane Authority: this is what we Question; and he should Prove. He speaketh, p. 153. of Rites in the Worship of GOD (among the Jews) that were only Significations of Reverence and Uniformity which were still retained, as they were transmitted to them by Patriarchal Custom, and Traditions, though only founded on Humane Appointment. But he hath not thought fit to give us any one Instance of such Rites. If he mean Religious Ceremonies; that is, Actions peculiar to Worship, I think he can give no Instance of such in the Jewish Church, before its great Apostacie, except these that were Instituted by GOD, and taught in the Law of Moses.

§. 5. He cometh next, p. 154. to renew the Arguments he had managed in his Apology, p. 155. &c. and were Answered, Def. of Vindic. p. 38. He telleth us of a General Medium he had used, that there are several significant Ceremonies mentioned in, and alluded to in the Scripture, which were Practised in the Worship of GOD under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian AEconomie, which had no other than Humane Appointment. The first Instance he giveth is, Discalceation, Exod. 13. 5. He had in his Apology, joyned with this, looking to our Feet when we go to the House of GOD; Eccies. 5. 1. But he hath now wisely left out this last: and Insisteth only on Discalccation. What was Objected here, with some freedom, that was bad Logick, he representeth as reflecting on Mr. Mede, who discourseth of that Observation among the Eastern-Nations. I have as high Esteem of Mr. Medes Learning as he hath; and have said nothing that [Page] can import the Contrarie. The Answer given to this Instance, was, this was Commanded of GOD; and so is no Argument for Observing what is brought into the Worship of GOD merely by the Authority of Man. All the Reply that he bringeth is, that this Command was no new Institution of a Ceremonie, whereas he saith, what GOD said to Moses was only an Advertisement to Observe a Custom that he knew to be used in the Eastern-Nations; so that had Moses put off his Shoes before that Advertisement, he had done nothing amiss: and so this is a strong Confirmation of Ceremonies that express our Reverence though founded on Humane Appointment. Here I remark. 1. Whether this was a new Institution of a Ceremonie or not, is not to our Purpose: Moses had express Divine Warrant for what he did: if he can shew the like for our Ceremonies we shall Observe them. The LORD might Enjoyn what he would, either for that time, or for perpetual Observation: either what was used among the Nations; or what was not so used: Let us see an Approbation of any of our Ceremonies that is Paralel to this, and we shall lay our Hand on our Mouth. 2. It is evldent that this was a Civil Custom, and made expressive of Reverence by that Civil Custom; and therefore, the LORD is not here either Instituting, or Approving, a Religious Ceremonie, but requiring to express profound Reverence in the Ordinarie way, and that on such an Extraordinarie Occasion. Corn. a lapide; saith, Minus enim audacter & curiose accesserat Moses. That this was a Civil Custom, and had its Signification, not from Man's Authority Appropriating it to GOD'S Worship (which is the Foundation of the Ceremonies we Debate about) is clear from Mr, Mede, and what my Antagonist bringeth out of him. Also, the same Learned School-Man (I mean A Lapide) saith, his ritus a mancipiis descendit, qui nudis pedibus incedebant, in signum subjectionis, and therefore he Paraphraseth that Text, Exod. 3. 5. ut totus in Dei jus & obsequium transeas. It is Observed by Ainsworth on the same Text, that this was a Civil Sign of transferring our Right to another, Deut. 25. 9. Ruth 4. 7. It was also by Civil Custom, an Expression of Sorrow. 2 Sam. 15. 30. Isai. 20. 2, 4. Ezek 24. 17, 23. Now, if he can shew that the Ceremonies have, by Civil Custom, such aptitude to Signifie what we ought to express in the Worship of GOD, we shall not Oppose them. It is, 3. Evident from his own Words, p. 55. where to my Question, why do not they Observe it, if it be a fit Ceremonie to express our [...]everence in Worship; he Answereth; what is so Expressive in one Age or Countrey may be not so in another. Surely this Change can only come from Civll Custom: what is peculiar [Page] to Religion is the same every where. If then this Action was broug [...]t into Religion by the Significancie and Aptitude it had been got by Civil Custom, it is no Praecedent for such Ceremonies as that cannot be Pleaded for.

§ 6. Another Instance he had brought was, Sackcloth and Ashe [...], as signifying grief and sorrow in their Solemn Humiliation; To these 2 Things were Answered; The One, Why do not the Prelatists use these? This he Rejecteth, as unparalelled Nonsense; because, if they were still in use in our Countrey who would refuse them that was not resolved to be singular. A. I should be none of these singular Persons: If they had now Significancie by civil Custom: I should be willing that they should be used in Religion, when Humiliation and Sorrow were Solemnly to be exprest: but when they want that, I think our Brethren do well not to use them in Religion. Yet I must say still, that if they were Religious Ceremonies of Old; that is peculiar to Religion; they should be still used without any Dependence on the civil Custom of our Time. I see not what Nonsense is in this. If he did not look on them as Religious Ceremonies, but only as used in Religion from their Signification that they had by Civil use; the Nonsense was in bringing this as an Instance of Religious Ceremonies of Humane Appointment, for they had no Authority but from Men; therefore they never were, nor now should be, Religious Ceremonies. His next Instance is (as he saith) ad hominem. Lifting up the right hand to Heaven, in Swearing the Covenant. It was Answered, that this [...]ite, not only hath Warrant from Scripture Example, but is the Civil Custom of the Nation, the like cannot be said of the Controverted Ceremonies. His Reply is, a Ceremonie being mentioned in Scripture maketh it not only allowable; but sheweth, that it was in it self, before Lawful and decent. And it is Lawful to us, on the same Reasons that made it Lawful to them who first Practised it. In Pursuance of this his Reply, he allegeth, that we hereby Grant, that many such Usages are alluded to in Scripture, which are merely of Humane Appointment, and yet Deny their Lawfulness; which is to make all Men that Lived before us to be Sottishly Superstitious. To this Purpose he Discourseth, p. 158. 159. Let it be Considered that we do not make bare Allusion made in Scripture to any Usage, to be a sufficient Proof of its Lawfulness: for some were Alluded to that were very far from being Lawful: Instances may be given of putting the Branch to the Nose, kissing the Hand, or kissing the Images that they worshiped, which (and many more) were Practised by Idolaters. Our Opinion [Page] in this Matter is, that what Rites are mentioned in Scripture, as used in the Worship of the True GOD, by His People, and are not any where Condemned, we ought to look on as Lawful, and Approved of GOD, that is, as they then were used. Now some of these Rites were of Divine Institution, as all the Jewish Ceremonies Enjoyned by Moses: these were then Lawful, but now are not so; because they are Abrogated by CHRIST; also all these Instituted by CHRIST are still Lawful. Others of them are Natural Expressions of the Acting of the Mind: such as Sighing, lifting the [...]yes, &c. these are always Lawful: others of them were Civil Customs, which by Use acquired a Significancie, and fitness to express our Affections that we should have in Religious Worship; such as Sackcloth, renting our Cloaths, Incurvation, &c. these are certainly Lawful to be used in Worship, when, and where they have that Significancie, by the Force of Civil Custom; but in Times and Places where that Significancie is not, the Ground of it being ceased, I see not how they can be Esteemed Lawful, having, then, and there, no Use or Significancie in GOD'S Worship; but what they have from Man's will, which ought not to Regulate GOD'S Worship. Our Author Mistaketh when he saith, that we think some ceremonies Lawful which are mentioned, or alluded to in Scripture, though they had no other Original than Humane Appointment: this we Disown: for none of these Three ways by which Rites get their Significancie (which [...] have now mentio [...]ed) can be justly called Humane Appointment: Civil Custom is that which cometh nearest to it, but yet Differeth far from it: for Humane Appointment is an Act of Authority, i. e. a Law, or Injunction, or Declaration of the Will of one, or more Men, expresly Concluding that so it shall be: Custom is a Tacite Consent of People, whether Great or Small, whether Placed in Authority, or not; in using such an Action, or Word, for such an End, or Signification. I shall not Debate, what Men in Authority may do, toward putting a Civil Signification on Words and Actions, and making them Current in Civil Selemnities: but [...] Maintain that they cannot give a Religious Signification or Use to any Word, or Action, or Gesture: that is, they cannot Appoint it to be used so in Religion, when it hath no Aptitude for that Use or Significancie from its Common Use in other things: for this were to Dispose of the External Worship of GOD at their will.

[Page] § 7. For the Rite of Lifting up the Hand, so often mentioned in Scripture, as Practised by good Men, by good Angels: yea, by God Himself, (speaking of Him after the Manner of Men) that it had its Original from Humane Appointment, is simply denyed. We have no Footsteps of such a Law, Antecedent to the Practice of it, either in Sacred, or other Records. I may with Confidence conclude, that this Usage had its Original, if not from Nature, as Lifting up of the Eyes to Heaven, yet from an Universal Custom, and that of all, or many Nations. It is true, other Rites were also used in Swearing; but none of them so frequently mentioned as this. Wherefore it can be no Precedent for, nor give any Countenance to, Ceremonies peculiar to the Worship of God brought into it by the Authority and Appointment of Men alone. It is hence evident, that we are not guilty of counting all them Sottishly Superstitious, who used such Rites, and that even in Religion, tho we think Humane Religious Ceremonies unlawful. Our Author, p. 159. is pleased to make himself Merry with the Distinction I have used of Civil Rites, (which he, with little Accuracy of Speech, calleth Civil Ceremonies) and Religious Ceremonies; that the one may be used in Religion, without Divine Institution; the other not so. He calleth it a Metaphysical Distinction; and new Phylosophy; and Co-aeval with Presbytery in its last Figure. These Sarcasms are the Tokens of his Surprize, and Admiration; not of his being much Conversant with their Writings who Treat of this Subject. Let us hear his Thundering Arguments after these silly Squib. If the Civil Authority can introduce a [...]i [...]nificant Ceremony into the Worship of God, why may n [...]t the Ecclesiastick Authority do it? A. He will not understand what we say: we deny that Civil Authority can introduce a Significant Ceremony into the Worship of God; tho Civil Custom may make a Rite sit to be there used. If the Magistrat should appoint any Habite or Gesture to be used in Gods Worship, to signifie either Gods Will toward us, or our Duty to Him; which hath no such Signification, nor Use, but by the Law, or Will of the Magistrat, we should disowne such a Religious Ceremony, as much in that Case, as if it were appointed by Church Authority. But it is a quite other Case; when an Action, or Gesture, hath got a Signification by long and general Use in Mens other Actions; so as that they are thereby made significant of what we are to express in Worship. This may be cleared by a parallel Instance: Words which have got their Signification by Use in other Things, may be well used in Religion: yet it [Page] doth not thence follow, that the Magistrate may enjoyn Words to be used in our Worshipping of God, which have no Signification, but from his Will: for if this were allowed, the Magistrate might not only enjoyn Latine Service, to be used among a People that understand not that Language; but might enjoyn Words that now signifie Error, or Blasphemy: and give them an Orthodox Signification: which I hope our Brethren will not affirm. If Men may enjoyn a Surplice, because white Garments, in some Ages, and Places, were used commonly to signifie Purity or Gladness: why may he not enjoyn the Language to be used in Religion, that our Ancestors used many Hundreds of Years ago; tho it may be now neither used nor understood: it would come, in Time, to be as Significant to us, and as Religious, as now the Surplice is, where it hath been long used. He Mistaketh, or Misinterpreteth the Vindicator, when he saith, that he alloweth of Civil Ceremonies in the Worship of God; he owneth no such Ceremonies, if we speak properly: what hath its Use and Significancy from Civil Custom in other Actions is no Ceremony; it is a Civil Rite, and may well be used in Religion: he repeateth also his former Mistake: as if we thought that Civil Authority might appoint Ceremonies for Religion, but not Church Authority: our Opinion in which, I have made plain to them who will understand what we say. I have also Answered his Question, how the Civil Rite used in Religion is Innocent, while a Religious Ceremony, appropriated to Religion, if it be of Humane Appointment (whether by the Authority of Church or State) is not so. I deny what he so confidently asserteth, p. 261. that Lifting up the Hand in Swearing, is of Humane Appointment: neither is his Proof of it sufficient, viz. that it hath no Divine Institution: for what is brought in, and gets its Use, and Significany, by Civil Custom; is a Middle between these. 2. I am not at Leasure to repeat my Answer, as often as he doth his Objection taken from the Equality of the Civil and Ecclesiastick Authority to institute Ceremonies; with which he filleth several Pages, with a nauseous saying the same thing, in Words little different. The Immemorial Possession of any Rite in the Church (which he insinuateth as an Argument) cannot justifie it, if it be appropriated to Religion, and had no Divine Original. We are not concerned to account for Kissing the Evangel in taking an Oath; whether it came in by Civil Custom, or Ecclesiastick Authority. Let them who use it Answer such Doubts: or rather, let them shew us any Ground for it from Nature, from Civil Custom, or from Divine Institution: if it be destitute [Page] of all these, he should prove, not barely assert the Stubbornness that is in Refusing it. It is absurd to say, that the Ecclesiastical Ceremonies having the Civil Sanction, are, under that Reduplication, to be looked upon as Civil Ceremonies: for he might say the same of the Sacraments of the New Testament, when enjoyned by Law: it is not the Civil Authority, but Rites being used in Civil Actions, and not being peculiar to the the Worship of God; it is their having their Use and Significancy from Civil Custom, that giveth them that Denomination.

§ 8. He Starteth a Scruple, p. 263. which hath no Rise from what any of his Adversaries had ever said; nor any where else, that I know, but in his Imagination. It is, If a Ceremony have one Signification in Civil Actions, and another in Religious Worship; Quaeritur, Whether it maketh it lawful in Worship? A. No. Because its [...]awfulness is founded on the Significancy that it acquireth in Civil Actions. I gladly would know what Ground was ever given him to say so confidently as he doth, that we hold that a Ceremony is lawful in Religion, if it hath been used in Civil Solemnities, tho in a different Signification. If he find any Body asserting that, let him call such Persons Absurd, Ridiculous, Foolish, &c. at his Pleasure; as he very freely calleth us, on that Imaginary Account: but if no such thing have ever been held by any of us, I shall give him no Epithet, but leave it to the Reader to call him as he deserveth. He hath another Argument for the Lawfulness of Humane Ceremonies peculiar to Religion; which he Ushereth in with that Degree of Confidence, and Insolent Contempt of his Adversaries, that might Fright us into Silence, as the Lion by his Roaring Terrifieth his Prey into a Consternation; calling all our Exceptions against Significant Ceremonies in the Worship of God, little and idle frivolous Impertinencies. And no wonder he be so fond of his mighty Argument; I believe it is the Birth of his own Brain. I never met with it before: and I have seen few that are of less weight. It is that the Apostle, Rom. 6. 4. maketh a palpable Allusion to the Significant Ceremony of Immersion; when he saith we are Buried with Him by Baptism into Death, &c. To strengthen this Argument, he telleth us of Immersion being used by Jews, and by Christians; that it is founded on no Divine Institution: but on the Practice of the Jewish Church, and thence derived to Christians; and was never established by any other Authority, but what was purely Humane and Ecclesiastical. He telleth us this Custom was so known, that all their Learned Neighbours were acquaint with it; and for this he very wisely citeth Tacitus hist. lib. 5. speaking [Page] of their Circumcision, but not one Word of Immersion. He calleth for the particular Text where this Ceremony is founded on express Institution; also that we should shew where it was used in Civil Actions: That Scripture Example for it, is but the Consequence of it [...] being Prac [...]ised; and supposeth it. At last, to make all sure, he condescendeth to the Jargon of the Schools (with which this Soaring Eagle, thinks we Poor Worms are only acquainted) that is to put his Argument into [...]gical [...]orm and [...]igure; thus: a Significant Ceremony founded upon no Div [...] Institution, and alluded to in Saint Pauls Reasonings, Rom. 6. 4. is lawful in it self. But the Ceremony of Immersion, in the Administration of Baptism was founded on no Divine Institution, and yet alluded to by Saint Paul, is a thing received in the current Practice of the Apostolical Church, Ergo, such a Significant Ceremony in the Worship of God, founded on no Divine Institution, is in it self lawful. I shall far more easily dispatch this Argument, than he hath framed it. If it were not to Hazard his further Despising us, as Conversant only with the School Jargon of Syllogising: I should observe that he flyeth so high, as to take little notice of Syllogistical Form, for all his pretending to it: for the Major Proposition is the very Conclusion of the Syllogism, only he hath altered the Word, putting such a Significant Ceremony, for a Significant Ceremony alluded to by the Apostle Paul: other Informalities in it I pass: it is below him to mind them: Aquila non captat Muscas. For a more material Answer, I first deny the Major, as thus universally proposed: Allusion to a Ceremony is no Proof of its Lawfulness: as I have proved §. 6. Next, I deny the Minor: I affirm that Immersion was founded on Divine Institution: which I prove, 1. Because it is here mentioned, as the lawful and approved Way of Administration of Baptism: which Ordinance Christ had appointed: it were a strange [...]ancy to think that Christ had enjoyned baptism, and not told them who were to Administer it, what He meant by it, or what they should do. Next, Whereas he demandeth a particular Scripture for its Institution, (tho we be not obliged to that Exactness, yet) I adduce Matth. 28. 19. where Baptizing is Commanded: every one knoweth that [...] signifieth properly to Dip, or Plunge in Water: and that it is taken more largely for any Kind of Washing, or [...]insing, as Mark 7. 4. it is not to be thought, that when ever the Jews came from the Mercat, they Plunged themselves over Head and [...]a [...]s in Water, act. 1. 15. the Spirits Cleansing the Soul is expres [...]ed by that Word, so Act. 11. 16. 1 Cor. 10. 2. Hence it plainly followeth, that Christ [Page] 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. [Page] He doth not here distinguish Rituals, nor exclude these of Divine Institution; but layeth them, in the Bulk, open to the A [...]bitriment of the Bishop [...]; if they think it for Edification, they may dispose, even of the Sa [...]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 Imm [...]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 Found [...]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 Wald [...]nses retaining the trina immersio, and the trine Fraction of the Bread in the Eucha [...]ist. We never thought the Wald [...]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 am [...]g them, tho they had been Ordained by Laying on the Hands of the Pre [...]by [...]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 Sol [...]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 Solae [...]ism [...], and cometh over this Passage now the second time, which is no Solaecism at all. What followeth is yet more f [...]i [...]olous, and is designed to Reflect on a Person of more Wo [...]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, [Page] 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 [...]xpression; which he doth here again repeat, which needs no other Answer then the repeating that Reverend Brother's Words, which our Author c [...]peth at, as they may be seen in the Postscript to the second [...]indication of the Church, p. 2 [...]0. His Words are these, Thinking my self free to joyn in these Duti [...]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 parting Blow to the Ordination of the later [...] Presbyterians: which he saith, p. 277. is left naked, and destitute of all such Arguments, as might excuse the Ordination of other Forreign Churches. And he doth more than insinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination. His Arguments (so far as I can pick them out of his Discourse) are, 1. They were under no necessity to separate from their Bishops in the Isle of Britain, A. 1. Want of Bishops might be the same Excuse for the want of Episcopal Ordination, that it was to other Protestant Churches for whom he pleadeth it: they might have had Bishops if they would, in France, Geneva, Switzerland, &c., as well as we might. 2. The Necessity lay in this, that we thought, (and still must think, till he, or some else, instruct us better) that Bishops ought not to be in the Church. 3. He speaketh of separating from our Bishops in the Isle of Britain: that plainly insinuateth, that not only the Bishops in the Church of Scotland are ours, but the Bishops of England also, and that we are under their Jurisdiction; as some of them have pleaded: this, from a Minister of the Church of Scotland, is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependeth on for his Bread. 3. If Ministers in Scotland have no Ordination, because, in want of Bishops [Page] among themselves, they went not to the English Bishops for Ordination, why is not the same Defectiveness imputed to these in France, who might have come over to England for the same End. But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation: and therefore, any Weapon that cometh to Hand, must be used to beat them down. Before I leave this Point, I shall make it evident that the other Reformed, who are without Bishops, can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath, 1. Because they might have had Bishops to rule them; for what could hinder them? their Magistrats did not; for they are of Opinion with themselves: except in France, where the Popish Magistrats did not, nor would oppose that piece of Conformity with themselves. Yea, Thuan. blameth the Protestants for not setting up Bishops: the Primitive Church under Heathen Magistrats, had Bishops in our Authors Opinion: and we think they wanted no needful Church Officer, even in that State. 2. It is plain that the Reformed were against Episcopacy, as no Ordinance of Christ, as I have shewed: and it is evident from Confession of the French Church, Art. 30. and of the Belgick, Art. 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort, was not disliked by any of the Externi, save these from England.

§ 11. His second Argument that the Scots Presbyterians have no Ordination is, It is very uncertain, whether they retain such Solemn and Formal Words, when they impose Hands, as expresly declare, that the Priestly Power of Administrating Sacraments, and Absolving Poenitents, is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained. If there be no such Conveyance, there is no Ordination; and if the Words made use of, doth not plainly and formally signifie such a Power, then there is no such Power Conveyed. A. This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point. For such Words may really be used, tho both he and I be uncertain, whether they were used or not. Again; how can he prove the necessity of such Words: what if Words be made use of, which do really and materially signifie the thing designed; tho they do it not formally and plainly? He is the first that I have met with, who layeth so much weight on the Form of Words. It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached, while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions. Against it I thus argue, 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture: which must needs have been, if the Nullity of Ordination, and consequently of the Ordinances Administred by such Ministers, had been the necessary Consequent of Words not sufficiently formal and plain. What a sad Uncertainty and Confusion should follow on this [Page] Necessity of such Words? not unlike that which, in the Popish Church, followeth on the Opinion of the Necessity of the Priests Intention in his Administrations. 1. Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apostles used, when they Ordained Ministers; how plain and formal they were? if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination, it will by good Consequence, make void all the Ordinations of the Apostolick Church: I am sure he can give us no Account of their Words from any Authentick Records. 3. In the Administration of Baptism, no Church that I know of, useth Formal and plain Words that express either Admission into the Church, or Communication of Christian Priviledges, or Covenanting with GOD, or our Renouncing the Devil, &c. I am sure I Baptise thee in the Name of the Father, &c. are not Formal, plain Words, to express these Things; tho I doubt not but that they Include them all: and if Baptism be valid without such a Form of Words, why not Ordination also? He says, p. 278. that there are many of their Number in the West, who think Imposition of Hands unnecessarie. I suppose he hath no Personal knowledge of this: and he should be sure of his Informers before he cast such a Reproach on his Brethren: for my part, I know no Minister in Scotland, West, East, South, or North, who professeth that Opinion: tho mean while I can tell him of others who are not far from it: even the Church of France, in their Synod, at Paris 1565. C. 6. Quick. Synod. p. 62. but I far rather agree with Mr. Firmin, who hath Written a Treatise to prove the Necessity of it. He inferreth likewise, p. 279. from what he had Discoursed, that we have no Organical Church. We are not afraid of his Censures: we can Prove, not only that we have the Essentials of Ordination; but that, for the Manner of it, it is nearer to the Gospel Pattern than what is Practised in that Church which he owneth. I find him to be of the same Sentiments with that Bishop in England that was mentioned to him, who said of a Presbyterian Minister that he was no better than a Mechanick, tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts, and had Presbyterial Ordination. It is strange that he should Insinuate, that we derive our Power from the People: he cannot but know that we Disown that Principle: but Calumniare audacter, aliquid adhaerebit: he hopeth that some will believe what ever evil he saith of us.

§. 12. His next Controversie is about the Presbyterian Church Discipline: which he had most Abusivly and falsly Reproached, Apolog. p. 22, 23. [Page] and was Checkt for so doing by a Modest Answer, Def. Vindic. p. 17, In which that which is most Material he wholly passeth over: bringing some what like an Answer to Two or Three Things. It was asked, what is that Discipline of the Antient Church (which he wisheth were Restored) which is not either the same with ours, or far more strict and Severe. He Answereth that he never found fault with our Discipline for its being strict; but for being factiously Pragmatical, and endlesly Inquisitive, and from its having no Tendency to Edifie the Christian-Church, or to Reclaim wicked People. What can an unbyassed Reader understand by these Words, but that the Man is angry, and hateth the Presbyterians, and their Way: and would fain cast Dirt on them, if he could find it. These indefinite and gross Accusations must either be Proved, that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Discipline of the Church; and this must be in many Instances, and many Ministers and Elders; and all this well Attested: or the Man who thus Writeth must pass for a Slanderer, rather than a Disputant. Our Discipline we Manage by the Rules of the Word, and the Principles of sound Reason; we do not Indulge Sin in these of our own Way; nor medle with Things that are without our Line: nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become such, by being openly known: and if Occasion be given for Enquirie, and nothing be found, we Desist, and leave Secret Things to GOD, to whom they belong; for the Tendency of our Exercise of Discipline, we are sure it is for Edification; and we can make it appear that sometimes it is Blessed with Success; and if it Irritate some, or Harden others, or have no Fruit on many, we Lament it: but are not to be blamed for it; for the same Thing may be said of Preaching the Gospel, and that in a Commendable manner. I Deny not but that some are short of that Dexterity that others have; and that there is Imperfection in the best of us: and if they that blame us can say otherways of their own Church, either they are strangly Deluded, or the World is generally Deceived about their Way. He commenceth a new Debate, p. 283. about Non-resistance which he had raised, Apolog. p. 20. and yet waved, and of which very little was said, Def. of Vindic. p. 16. he now resumeth the Debate, and talketh more freely than before; being behind the Curtain, and not in Hazard of Censure. I was then unwilling, and am still more so, to medle in that Matter; both because it is a Controuerne that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity; and Lawyers are sittest to Mannage it. Also, because it is not now between Prelatists and Presbyterians: the Generality [Page] of both having of late years Agreed in what is Inconsistent with the Prelatical Doctrine that was Current some years ago.

§ 13. Another of our new Opinions he will have to be, p. 289. that they (the Presbyterians) abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD, &c. we have under this Head a parcel of the most False and Impudent Assertions, in Matters of Fact, and the most unjust Calumnies, that ever the Press groaned under. And it is a wonder that a Person pretending to Conscience, or to Christianity, could give such Scope to his Passion, as to have no regard to Truth: and indeed here is little, or no Matter of Debate, nor place for Vindication, but by Denying what he Asserteth without any Attempt to give Evidence for what is Asserted. I Deny not but that there may be found some few among the People that own Presbytery, who through Ignorance, and a mistaken Zeal, run into some of these Excesses that he Taxeth: but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us, sine discrimine: and I am sure the more Sober and Intelligent sort of Presbyterians, abhorreth many of these things that he Chargeth them with. He Asserteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre and cast off all Established Forms and Rules in the Worship of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what he saith: it is a palpable Falshood. For, 1. We neither abhorre nor cast off the Form of Sound Words, I mean the Scriptures of Truth, recommended by the Apostle for us to hold, [...]. 1 Tim. 1. 13. nor do we abhorre or reject the Form of Baptizing, and Administring the LORD'S Supper; nor of Blessing the People at the Dismissing of the Assembly. 2. Even some Forms that we Reject, as needles, and therefore unfit to be used in this state of the Church, yet we do not abhor them; such as Forms of Prayer, we think they were both Lawful, and necessarie, when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Ministers: yet we think they should now be laid aside, when they are not so needed: as a Man should not use Crutches when he is well Recovered from his Dameness. 3. To say that we abhorre and reject Rules in the Worship of GOD is beyond all bounds of Truth, and Modesty. We own, and use the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him: neither do we abhorre or reject the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule: we have our Directorie, and many Good Acts of General-Assemblies, yea, of Synods, and Presbyteries, in their respective Districts. His next Assertion is shameles above measure: that since the Revolution, they Turn out the Episcopal Clergy out of their Livings, if they retain any of the Ancient forms, tho never so short, Catholick, or Orthodox. [Page] Pray Sir, when was this done, by whom, where, or to whom? none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on these Heads, either by Church or State; and none by the Church except for Ignorance, Error in some Great Point of Faith, supine negligence, or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins, or not. It is true, Uniformity, even in these little Things, is required of these who will Joyn with us, be Received into Ministerial Communion, and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us (and much Tenderness, and Forbearance hath been used even in these, for some time) but they who think not fit to Joyn with us, are suffered to follow their Ministerial Work in their Parishes, and Enjoy their Livings, without such Uniformity with us, as he Talketh of. And if we had Required this, or Turned them out, it had been but an Imitating of the Practice of his own Party. Whom do they Suffer to Enjoy Publick Livings who do not Conform to their Way, to the Height?

§ 14. He persists in his false Assertions, while he saith, the Episcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer, Reading the Holy Scriptures in their Assemblies, the Apostolick Creed, and the Doxology. This is far from any Semblance of Truth: no such Prohibition was ever given. He insisteth a little in Pleading for the Use of the LORD'S Prayer: but taketh no Notice of the State of the Question about it, as it hath been Proposed by his Antagonist. His Business seemeth to be, not so much to Convince, as to Accuse. It is False that we have Banished that Prayer. We duely use it as a Directory, and Pray according to it; we Teach it to our Catchum [...]ni, we do not Judge, nor Blame any Man 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 L [...]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 B [...]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 Cr [...]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 [...]ovenan [...]r (which he would have us believe, tho I am perswaded he knoweth better things) [Page] 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 [Page] 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 sti [...]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; no [...] to countenance the Putting, or Keeping, such in the Sacred Fu [...] ction. 5. There is another Cause of Worship being better or worse [Page] 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 [...]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 [...]int [...]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 Uniformi [...]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 [Page] them is to the Meetings of some Dissenters. He next Argueth, that a Litu [...]gie obviates Mens v [...]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 [...]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 hitherto been performed) we regard little his Railing Accusations that he [...]lleth his Pages with. Most of what he here Loadeth the Presbyterians with, may be evidently, and with good Reason, Retorted on himself, and his Party. For Instance, he saith when we represent the Deity, as one that is plea [...]ed with the imaginary Notions that we Groundlesly entertain of Things; this is Superstition, that Poysons the Soul and all its Faculties. Now whether Presbyterians or Prelatists be more guilty of this, let the Reader Judge. The one think that God is pleased with nothing as Worship, but what He hath Prescribed in His Word: And that He hateth Will-Worship, and all Notions about that, which [Page] have no Foundation in Scripture. The other think God is pleased with a great many Things that Men have have Devised for Adorning His Worship; and for an Order and Decency that they imagine to be such; but the Lord hath never declared it to be such. Whether of the two entertain these Groundless Notions of the Deity, which are the Superstition that Poysoneth the Soul and all its Faculties? Another Instance: to say that such a thing is forbidden of God, only because we forbid it our selves, is to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men: but to regulate our Actions in themselves indifferent, according to the Prudent Determination of our Superiours, cannot fall under that Censure. Let us see whether we, or his own Party be thus guilty. We disowne that we say of any one thing, that it is forbidden of God, because we forbid it: if we say of any thing, that God hath forbidden it, and do not prove that it is so; we refuse not to bear the Blame of such Impiety: but it is manifest, that his Party use somethings, as if God had enjoyned them, when they cannot prove that it is so; but only the Church hath enjoyned them: they Command People to obey, to Use their Ceremonies, they Urge them with Rigour, they do more severely Censure the Neglect of them, than they Punish Breaking of Gods plain Commands. And yet they cannot shew, nor do they pretend to, any other Warrant for them, but the Authority of the Church; which he calleth the Prudent Determination of our Superiors. It were needless, as well as endless, to take notice of all the Fantastick Notions that he expresseth about Superstition, and his Ungrounded Suppositions, that the Presbyterians are of these Sentiments, in which he placeth it: what is said may give a sufficient Taste of his Way of Refuting his Adversaries: only I cannot pass, that p. 29 [...]. he insinuateth, that the Presbyterians esteem the Means more than the End; and separate the Ecclesiastical Laws from their Subordination and Relation to the Laws of God. It must be a strange Degree of Prejudice, that could seduce him into such Distorted Notions. Do we esteem the Means more than the End, because we would have the End, Edification, carried on by Means that God hath Appointed, and that He hath Promised a Blessing to, rather than by Means of Mans Devising, which have no Promise of a Bles [...]ing or Success? It is not only Conscience of Pleasing God, but Concern for that End, that maketh us so Careful, that the Means we use be Approved of God. Or do we separate Ecclesiastical Laws, from their Relation and Subserviency to the Laws of God: we are so far from it, that we owne no Ecclesiastical Laws, which are without the Relation of Dependency [Page] on the Law of [...]od; or without due Subordination to it: and it is on this Head that we reject the Church Laws, that enjoyn Humane Ceremonics peculiar to the Worship of God; because the Church hath no Warrant to make such Laws, (if he say that she hath, let us see it) and because these Laws are not Subordinate, but rather Co-ordinate to the Laws of God, setting up the Churches Institutions beside his. That the Negative Scrupulosity that he mentioneth from Coloss. 2. 21, 22, 23. is a great Evil, we doubt not: and if he will call it Superstition, we will not contend about Words (tho the Reason of that Denomination is doubtful; the Will-Worship that is mentioned, being rather to be referred to the Worshipping of Angels, spoken of v. 18. which is there, and also in Conjunction with this Will-Worship, called Humility; that is a vain Shew, of it.) But nothing of this maketh for his Purpose, unless he can prove, that our Scruples about the Ceremonies, are wholly Ground▪ l [...]ss, as these Scruples were; and as the rest of the Abstinc [...]ces are, that he mentioneth; wherefore all that he, at great length Discourseth on this Head, is wholly impertinent. If he can prove the Ceremonies to be Excellent and Useful, as he insinuateth, p. 297. our Cause can [...]ot stand before him.

§ 18. He undertaketh to prove our Scruples to be more dangerous than these, in that the Scruples there mentioned, had a Shew of Wisdom; but the Presbyterian Scruples have more dangerous Consequences, in that they co [...] demn those Solemnities of Religion, which have a direct Tendency to promote Religion, in all its most Excellent Branches. The import of this Ratiocination is, the Way of the Ceremonialists is right, Ergo, the Presbyterians are to be condemned. All this is purely Begging of the Question. We deny any such Tendency to be in the Ceremonies; and cannot be perswaded of what he saith, by his Confident Asseverations, and Big Words. If I could find any thing in his following Pages, that is worth Answering, and hath not been already Answered, (for he repeateth ad nauseam) I should consider it. The Persons that he knew, who were so Fearful and Superstitious, that they would not Break up a Letter on Sunday, we do not approve; nor do our Scruples Countenance such Misapprehensions: if we meet with any such, (for I know none of them, but rather observe that an undue Liberty is taken generally, on the Lords Day) we shall endeavour to instruct them better. He telleth us, p. 302. the fifth or sixth time, that Superstition leadeth to Atheism; and addeth, that by the Power of Prejudice, and Faction, it maketh a Man Despise the Omniscience[Page]of God, and to Venture upon the most Daring Impieties, Tho I will not be an Advocat for Superstition, nor for Ignorant or Groundless Scrupulosity: yet this his Assertion I cannot understand: for it is the Apprehension of Gods Omniscience, that maketh these Poor Souls, who dare not Break up a Letter on the Lords Day, to Fear where no Fear is; and it is want of all Scrupling, even where there is just Ground, that maketh People Venture on the most Daring Impieties; it is because they are Stout Hearted, not because they are Fearful Hearted. And how Faction cometh in to make up the Scene, I cannot see; but that Presbyterians, whom he hath concluded to be Factious, must be the Persons to be thus Loaded. His Probative Instance of what he had said, is yet less Accountable. It is, that the Covenanters, when they in their full Career against the ancient Constitutions of Church and State, (thus his Prejudice against them, doth represent them to him, and his Hatred of them, maketh him so represent them to the World) with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations: and these Stations he highly extolleth; and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are, and concludeth, that we are bound by the Covenant, never to be present at such Exercises of Mortifications, &c. The Stations were their Meetings on Wednesdays and Fridays, for Fasting till Nine of the Clock, and for other Spiritual Exercises. So Albaspin. whom he citeth, and his Adnotator Keitombellius, Observ. 16. p. 23, 24. who also telleth us that this they did, primis i [...]is saeculis, quibus miseriis & persecutionibus undique, & quasi perpetuis stiparentur. I know no Presbyterian, who either hath Sworn against, or Condemneth these Stations; so far as we have a distinct Account of them: have not we, in great Towns the same thing, on the Matter, with these Stations: Morning Exercises for Confession of Sin, Prayer, and Instructing of the People; and that of [...]ner, in some Places, than Twice a Week. That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant, is falsly asserted: indeed in the National Covenant, or Confession of Faith, which was Subscribed by the King, the Nobility, and the whole Nation, they Renounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines, and Practices; and his Stations are mentioned among them: but will any Man, who understandeth what he saith, or who doth not look on the whole of Popery as Pure and Primitive, say, that the Popish Stations, (under the present Degeneracy of that Church) and the Primitive Stations, were the same thing? the best Account that I can find of what now is called Stations among the Papists, is from Onuphrius Panvinius, de stationibus urbis Romae: [Page] where he confesseth that their Original is obscure: he maketh them, in the Primitive Church, to have been Prayers with Standing, in Opposition to these with Kneeling: to which sometimes Fasting was joyned, and he sheweth how several Popes Limited them, and others appropriated them to certain Days: and sheweth how in his time they were fixed to Days; and to Churches in the City of Rome: as it may be presumed was done also in other Churches. He sheweth also their Number, viz. in fourty seven Churches, ninety six Stations, on eighty three Days, and telleth us of Indulgences granted to these Stations by Pope Boniface. This Term may also be applyed to their Solemn Processions, for Perambulating any Piece of Ground: wherein they do often Stand at such a Cross, or at such a Turning, and Rehearse certain Prayers. This Supestition is what is renounced in the Covenant, and it is joyned with Peregrinations and such other Fopperies. He calleth Superstition a Bastard Kind of Worship, p. 305. but Scrupling at Ceremonies, hath nothing in it like Worship, whether Bastard or Legitimate: how will he then Reconcile this, with Calling our Scruples Superstition? The Jewish Superstitions, the Murdering of A. Bishop Sharp, the Heathens Superstitions, that he hath Consulted Juvenal about, none of these touch the Presbyterians; tho one of them was Acted by some who bare that Name, to the great Dislike of the rest of them. He further Argueth, p. 307, 308. that we Contend for our own Opinions, he for the Church and her Catholick Constitutions. The same Arguments the Papists use against Protestants: the Name of the Church is the Shelter that some flee to, when they have no other Cover for the Nakedness of their Opinions. We affirm (and our Assertion is as Probative as his is) that we maintain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture, and not such as we have Groundlesly Chosen for our selves.

§ 19. He next, p. 309. falleth on the Catechism which is owned and taught in this Church; after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condescending to Popular Fancies, and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance. This is his Strain, his Genius, and to be Neglected; his Reproaches, and Praises are of the same Value with us. The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechism, is, it is Unintelligible by the People, (which were a great Fault if true) and that it is Adapted to serve the Hypothesis of a certain Order of School Men: he meaneth, as is evident by what followeth, the Dominicans, or Jansenists, in Opposition to the Jesuits: his Grievance is, our Catechism is not Pelagian, nor Arminian enough. I shall free [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [Page] him of a Fear that he expresseth, p. 315. that if the Vindicator (as he calleth him) take these Paragraphs to Task, he will most Zealously Undertake the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff, that is Contained in their Publick Catechisms, and Write out a whole System to Confute his Adversary. Whatever be that Persons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms, as intirely Orthodox; he need not Fear Writing of a System on this Occasion; the Person he Aimeth at, will be more Sparing than so, of his Ink and Paper; and yet more of his Time and Labour: unless he saw more Hazard to Truth, than can arise from this Authors Attempt: and unless there were none who could do it to better Purpose, as there are many: seing he intendeth not to Question the Orthodoxy of the Catechism, (tho he often Lasheth it that Way by severe Innuendo's) but only to Prove its Unintelligibleness: I shall engage with him only in that. He Talketh Big, of many Instances which might be brought, wherein our Catechisms are Unintelligible; but he is pleased to pitch but on one; which is that Question; Wherein consisteth the Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell: to which the Answer is, The Sinfulness of that Estate whereinto Man fell, consisteth in the Guilt of Adams first Sin, the Want of Original Righteousness, and Corruption of his whole Nature, which is commonly called Original Sin, together with all Actual Transgressions which proceed from it. I shall An [...] madvert a few Things on this his Essay, before I consider particularly the Proofs of Obscurity and Unintelligibleness of this Doctrine. 1. If I should yield all that he here proposeth to himself, he falleth short of his Design; which is to Reproach the Scots Presbyterians: for tho they owne that Catechism, and look on it as one of the best extant, yet it is not of their Composure; it was done by the Divines Assembled at Westminster, few of whom were Presbyterians. 2. Few Men of Sense, who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion, and the Salvation of Souls, will prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechism, which beginneth, What is thy Name; Who gave thee this Name, &c. but will owne that there is more sound, plain, useful Truth, and what is necessary to be known by the [...]eople, in our, than in their Catechism. As might easily be made appear, if I might Digress to State a Comparison between them, from the Beginning to the End. 3. We must not imagine, that whatever is put into a Catechism, must be so plain, that the meanest Capacity, without Help, can sufficiently understand it: for there are Truths needful to be known, which the People must be helped to understand, tho at first View, they Comprehend them [Page] 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 [...]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 [Page] 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 [Page] 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 [...]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 I [...]cumbred with the Affairs of Humane Life, putteth them out of Case for attaining the Knowledge that we Debate about. What he further hath under this Head, is made up of Harsh Words and bitter Censures, not to be Answered: that the Catechism was only designed as the Badge of a Partie (as if the Prelatists met at Westminster designed a Shibboleth for the Scots Presbyterians to be distinguished by) this is wise talk: he calleth it such Words as Monks and ill natured Zealots pitched upon: it is nothing else but to lift up a Banner for Faction, Ignorance, and Superstition. They (the People) are Taught by their Leaders to baule against the Ancient Methods of the Christian Church, and that which they set up in Oposition to it, leads them naturally to Pride, and Enthusiasm: Let any Man whose Tongue is under any Restraint from the aw of GOD, or regard to Man, tell us how this can be applied to the Catechism. More stuffe of this Stamp, he hath, which I am wearie to Transcribe. He saith, this Charge may be fairly managed against the Catechism in general, as well as against this Question. And I am Confident all such Attempts may receive a full and plain Answer. He is pleased also to Reproach the Homilies of the Presbyterians (so in Contempt he calleth their Preaching of the Gospel) with the same strain; he must mean unintelligiblness: [Page] from which he falleth into a new Fit of calling his Opposites by what ill Names he pleaseth. Such an Indefinite Charge as this is not to be Answered; but by Denying it: and I am sure he can never Prove it, the Stories collected, or devised by his Friend, the Author of the Presbyterian Bloquence, are not Probative, where Sense or Reason, or Candor have place, no, not among his own Party, who know the Presbyterians.

§. 21. His next Charge against us is, a Repetition of what he brought, and I Answered before: that the Scripture is not Read in Publick; and this he saith, is pursuant to the Design of keeping the People in the Dark. He saith, the Canonical Scriptures, as well as the Apocryphal (a double Grievance in his eyes) are laid aside from publick use, which he calleth a bold stroke of Atheism, and Enthusiasm▪ But wise Men will think that there is far more of Atheism in such a Bold, Publick, Unlimited Assirming of what is an Evidence of having no regard to Truth. If there were any thing Argumentative (as the whole is most Abusive, and destitute of Truth) in his Harangue that he seteth off these Falsehoods with, I should be at the pains to give them a fair Answer: see what is said of this § 14. He next, p. 317. Quarrelleth with our Ruling Elders: which he Introduceth with a Falsehood that is palpably such, viz. that we have put away Deacons, as well as Bishops: the World knoweth the contrarie: and if this Author do not know it, he is very unfit to talk of the Presbyterians, who is such a Stranger to their Way, and Constitution. We have Deacons, whose Work it is to take Care of the Poor, according to Apostolick appointment. It is true, our Deacons are not allowed to Preach and Baptize, as these who in the Episcopal Church go under that Name: for we find no Warrant for giving them that Power, except it be immediately, and extraordinarily given them by the LORD; as it was to some (not to all) of the Primitive Deacons. It is also true, that in some places, the Office and Work of Ruling [...]lder, and of Deacon, is in the same Person: which hath Warrant from the Word: but that we have no Deacons, is said without any Semblance of Truth. Tho he knoweth that, that Controversie about Ruling Elders, who have no Preaching Power, hath been much agitated between his Partie and us, and his Antagonist (whose Writing he never failleth to Oppose, when he thinketh he can) hath Written on that Subject; yet he is pleased here to content himself with setting his Nigrum theta on this our Oppinion, without endeavouring to Refute it▪ except he will call it an Argument, [Page] that he saith, it is a Sacrilegious Usurpation on the Ecclesiastical Authority. He hath Two Quarrels with them: One is, that they are not set apart by Imposition of hands. I have no other Answer to this, but that some among our selves are unsatisfied with this: but they are Solemnly and Pubickly set apart for their Work, and taken Engaged to it: and therefore, that want doth not Nullifie the Office. That such an Office should be in the Church by CHRIST'S Institution, I hold, tho I will not undertake to justifie the Practice of our own, or other Churches, in some things concerning these Elders. His other Fault that he findeth with them is, that the Preachers encroach so on them, that they never suffer them, whose sole Office is Government, to interpose in the most Essential Points of Jurisdiction, viz. the Solemn and Authoritative Imposition of hands, Administration of Sacraments, and Absolution of P [...]netents. This Objection amounteth to no more but this: Ruling Elders, by Divine appointment, have a Share in the Government of the Church for curbing of sin (for they are Inspectores morum populi) Ergo, they have also all the Authority that CHRIST hath given to the Pastors of the Flock, such Reasoning is not only in it self weak and fallacious, but it doth ill su [...]e the Principles of this Author: do not his Party, at their own hand, give some part of Church Authority to their Deacons, as Preaching and Baptizing; and withhold from them all the rest of it: why then may not we (with much more reason) allow, that CHRIST hath given part of Church Power to these Elders, and yet not the whole of it? But I consider his Objection more particularly: the first Power (mentioned by him) as denyed them is, Imposition of Hands on the Pastors of the Church. If he can Prove that any other than Pastors have that Power, by Divine Warrant, he shall gain this Point. Neither is it consistent with Reason that Imposition of Hands, by which the Authority for dispensing the Word and Sacraments is conveyed, should be done by them who have not that Power themselves: for nemo dat quod non habe [...]. The next is Administration of Sacraments, This is not due to them because they are not the Pastors of the Church; and because they are only Rulers of the Church: whereas this Administration is no part of Government. The 3d. is Absolving of Paenitents: to which he might have Added excommunication, and other Church Censures. A. This belongeth to the Government of the Church; they have a Hand in it; nor is it done without them, for both Censures, and taking off Censures, are Decreed in the Consistorie, where they sit, and vote: only the Pronouncing, or [Page] Executing of these Sentences, in the publick Congregation, is the Work of the Pastor; both because publick Administration of CHRIST'S Ordinances are in his hand: and because these Administrations are intermixed, or conjoyned with the Word, and publick Prayer; which are the Work of the Minister, not of the Elder.

§ 22. Another New Opinion he Taxeth (but will not be at pains to Examine or Refute it) is, that we think the People have a Right to Chuse their Pastors. The Novelty of this Opinion is most absurdly Asserted: for it not only was the way of the Apostolick: but of the Primitive Churck for many Ages, as I have shewed Rational, Def. of non conformity, § 6. p. 197. &c. and should now further have Debated it with him, if he had insisted on it. He misrepresenteth our Opinion, while first he saith, we maintain this Right to be unalterable: whereas we think a People may lose it, as to its present Exercise, by their inhability or negligence, and it devolveth into the hands of the Rulers of the Church. While 2dly, He insinuateth, p. 320. that this Power is allowed in the Body of the People, without due Restrictions and Limitations. We think the People in this, as in all their other Religious concernments, are under the Inspection and Government of the Presbytery, Congregational, or Classical. Instead of Arguing against this Way, he laboureth to cast Dirt on it; which easily may be wiped off. I have proved, in the Place Cited, that they who were designed for the Ministry were not only named in the Congregation for their Assent, or Objecting against them; but they were chosen a Clero et Plebe: for the 36. Canon of the Apostles (it is, Mihi, 37.) which he Citeth: not only we Reject it, with the rest, as not Authentick, nor Probative: but it also Censureth the Bishop that doth not undertake the Office, and Charge: Doth it thence follow that a Bishop may be Imposed on a People without his own Consent, as well as without theirs? that Canon seemeth to be meant of some incident Dislike, either on the part of the Pastor, or of the People, after Ordination; which should not excuse them from mutual Duties: and so it is nothing to our purpose. How popular Election would hinder Uniformity, more than the Patrons Election doth; iss hard to be understood. That People will chuse such as themselves for Intellectuals and Morals, doth not always hold: People generally think that their Pastors ought to have both more Learning, and more Religion, than themselves. And if they be of such perverse Inclinations, they are to be Over-ruled by the Presbytery. What he saith of the scandalous effects [Page]of Popular Election (I suppose he meaneth Tumults and Divisions) were far more visible, frequent. and horrid, when Bishops were otherwise chosen: there was never so much Blood-shed at Election of a Presbyterian Minister, as hath been at Chusing of some Bishops, in the Later Primitive times, after that Office was settled in the Church. What are we concerned more than his own Party is, in the Ridiculous Insinuation he hath of a Company of mean Mechanicks laying Wagers that such a one shall Preach better than another. Is any Church accountable for either the Follies, yea, or the Sinful Excesses of every one of her Members, further than to Rebuke, or Censure them, according to the degree of Offence given; when they come to be known? I know of no such Wagers laid among our People, tho may be, there is too much of being Puffed up for one, against another; as it was in a Church that I hope he will have more respect for than for he hath for the Presbyterian Church, 1 Cor. 4. 6. That he Asserteth that the Talent of Preaching did not commend a Man in the Primitive time [...], is most absurd, if he mean, that a great regard was not had to it, as one of the Chief Qualifications of a Pastor of the Church; if he mean, that this Qualification only is regarded among the Presbyterians, and no more lookt after, it is false and injurious.

§. 23. His next Work is quite out of his present Road: it is not to consider any new Opinions held by the Presbyterians: but to revive a Reproach he had before cast on one P [...]esbyterian, and which had been sufficiently wiped off: but he is resolved not to be satisfied. I am wholly indifferent whether he be, or not. And yet this Charge he only mentioneth; and therefore I shall not insist on it neither: but it seems, this was but Introductory to what he intended: which is, he will Vindicat a Notion that Grotius hath about [...], 1 Cor. 12. 28. who had Interpreted that Word as meant of Bishops. I have abundantly Cleared this Matter, and Vindicated that Text from the Exposition put on it by Grotius, in 3d. Sect. of this Work, § 6. 7. to which I refer the Reader, and shall now only Answer what our Author here bringeth afresh. He telleth us [...] signisi [...]h properly to help one that is ready to fall: this is the Duty of them who are Stronger in the Faith, and higher in Authority: of whom then could it be so well meant as of the Bishop, the Praeses. A most ridiculous way of Arguing: For, 1. It supposeth the Question, that Bishop, or the Praesides Presbyterii, are higher in Authority: which we cannot yield. 2. It can be far better applyed to [Page] Deacons, who relieve them who are ready to Perish. Next saith he: Grotius saw the Episcopal Authority in several Places that the Vindicator will not allow of. A. What Grotius saw, I know not, nor am concerned to know: Some fancy they see a Man in the Moon, which others cannot discern 3. The Apostles might make use of Words to signifie the Episcopal Jurisdiction which are not in use in our Days; there are so many Allusions to the Temple and Syonagogue, that we must know these, that we may be acquainted with the Writings of the New Testament. A. This Reasoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet: may be (might one say) the Apostles by Baptism, by casting out of the Church, &c. understood some other thing than we do: at this Rate Scepticism about the whole Doctrine of the New Testament may be brought in more effectually than by laying aside Religious Ceremonies of Mens devising. We know the Apostles Wrote in Greek: and we know what [...] signifieth in that Language: if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now, he should have Proved it, and not drawn his Conclusion from a May be. And if he thinketh that there is any Allusion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue, he should have shewed it, and not thought us so [...]ame Animals as to acquiesce in his Guess, built on a Possibility, where he cannot shew so much as Probability. His Advice hath been followed, before it was given, in Reading Grotius on the Places he mentioneth; and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Design. He hath another Argument from the Context (which yet is the same above-mentioned, and Answered) that the Apostle having in the preceeding, v. (he should have said in the same v.) distinguished the several Offices, &c. that were then most Observable in the Apostolick Church. I suppose that the helping such as were ready to fall, did most properly belong to the Spiritual Governours. This is above answered: and it is not one whit stronger by being said over again. Further, he Asserteth, but hath not shewed us, how the Context leadeth to this Interpretation: his supposing it to be most proper to the several guids to help them that fall, doth not prove his design; unless he could shew that there was an Officer in the Church who had his Designation from thus helping People: and when he hath done that, he must shew that this is peculiar to the Bishop, and that no other Church Officer is called [...] from helping them who are ready to fall. That Grotius telleth us that the Antient Greeks interpreted the Word, [...] is a wronging of Grotius; who saith not Graeci veteres, but Graeci complures: and it is nothing to his purpose: for Grotius saying it doth not prove it: [Page] nei [...]her doth Grotius cite any of the Graeci complures. Suiceri thesaurus Ecclesiae I can not get at present: but if he say what our Author alledges, his sole Authority must not carry it against all others, who have written Lexicons. Hamond, on the Place, Expoundeth it of Bishops; not on Account of their [...], or Governing Power, but because they had the Care of the Poor, and the Dispensing of the Goods of the Church, as I shewed in the Place above Cited of this Book. Which, if it were granted, would make nothing for Episcopal Jurisdiction. We maintain that the Deacons are here meant, and if the Bishops be Deacons, let them have this Place in the List of Church Officers. For they had no Room in it before, nor on the Score of Jurisdiction over other Church Officers. I do not derogate from Grotius his Knowledge of the Signification of Words, nor of his Ability to have Written a Lexicon: but I do not look on him as beyond a Possibility of Mistake, even in that wherein he excelled. And indeed he speaketh very doubtfully of this Matter, as his Words Cited by my Antagonist do shew: nor doth he positively say, that the Bishops are meant by this Word. Another Proof of the Signification of the Word, is from Ps. 48. 3. where the seventy use it to signifie the Lords helping his People: what is this to the Purpose? the Question is not whether this Word have the Notion of Help; but whether it have the Notion of Government: but our Author Mendeth the Matter, making up, by his Latine Translation, what is not in the Greek; for he saith [...] must signifie, cum suscipiet cam, nempe Civitatem, in Tutelam: why must it signifie this: why may it not as well be turned, cum opitulabitur illi? Chrysost. hath it, [...], ad Munitionem. Aquila [...], ad Exaltationem. None of all these signifie any thing of Government; but of Defence or Support: so that nothing in this Word agreeth half so well to the Bishops, as to the Deacons Work. I hope he will not think, that because the Lord who is in this Psalm, said to Help His People, doth also Rule them, that it hence followeth, that every [...] is also a Ruler. The same Import hath what he Citeth out of AEmilius Portus, who from Suidas Translateth [...] Propugnator, Defensor, Auxiliator. For none of these Words import Government, all that they signifie, may be applyed better to the Deacon, than to the Bishop. I hope I have (with the Current of [...]xpositors) offered a better Exposition of the Word we Debate about, than Grotius hath Chosen: and yet shall readily Comply with my Authors Advice, in being far from Comparing my self with that great Man.

[Page] § 24. What he further saith of that Exposition of Jerom, Quid facit Episcopus, &c. he hath often Repeated, and it hath been as often Answered: to which he had said something, if he had shewed the Consistency of what I said could not agree: but this he thinketh not [...]it to Attempt: only Entreats me to give a Paraphrase and Commentary on the Conclusion of that very Epistle of Jerom to Euagrius, in which (saith he) Jerom affirmeth, that the Hierarchy of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon, was Founded on Apostolick Tradition: and that they Hold the same Place in the Christian Church: which the High Priest, Priests and Levites had in the Temple. For Satisfaction to this his Demand, I refer him to Sect. 6. §. 9, 10. where what he Desireth is already Performed: and it is shewed that Jerom meant▪ no such thing as he alledgeth. The hundred Things in my Book that he will not medle with, and which he is pleased to call Triffling Stories, or Personal Reflections, must stand as they are: let the Reader judge of what I have there said, and of his Censure of it. And yet he spendeth some Pages on a Story, that he and I had formerly Debated, which is of least Moment of any of them: his Reason I shall not Enquire into: nor do I intend to be any further Concerned in Jangle about Stories so variously told us, as that is; and which may be many Ways Disguised: no part of which I was Witness to, nor know any thing of, but by Information. For the Personal Reflections he chargeth me with, he mentioneth but two; I leave it to the Reader, who shall think sit to Compare the two Books, to Consider, whether any thing is said of him, but what to be Literally true, himself had given Ground to think: and they are Matters of Fact, and of no great Moment, save that they may derogate from the Strength of what he Writeth. And let all Men of Candor and Understanding Witness between him and me, whether in his Book now under Consideration, and in his former Apology, there be not many for one of mine, of not only Personal Reflections on his Antagonist, but Reflections on the whole Party, without Distinction or Exception: and that by Imputing to them the Worst of Evils; and Treating them with the most Insolent Contempt that Words can express; as I have here and there observed, [...]: and the Reader may find presently after this his Complaint, viz. 332, 333, 334. The Authority that the Presbyter [...]ans had over she Church of Scotland, and consequently, over the Episcopal Clergy, I had Debated with him before. I need say no more, till he Answer what hath been already Discoursed on that Head. What he saith, p. 332. of his Resolution not to continue this Debate, if not managed by greater Candor and Civility, I do much approve: if he will put that Condition on himself too. If he, or any else, Write in his Strain: yea, if they bring not somewhat that is not yet Answered, and is of Weight. I think our Side will not Trouble them with more Arguings on this Head of Government: there is enough said, if Men will Listen to Argument; if they will not, what▪ is said, is too much. For my Part, I am weary of such Altercations; and shall not be easily drawn into this Paper War any more: th [...] ▪ I am Resolved, by the Help of God, never to Abandon the right Way of God, nor to withdraw my Poor Help from the Truth and O [...]dinances of Christ, when it shall be needed; and I shall be in any Capacity to a [...]ord [...]t

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

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

Rule, Gilbert, 1629?-1701.

Edition statement

1697

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-08 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A57857

ID [STC]

Wing R2221

ID [STC]

ESTC R22637

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12490261

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12490261

ID [VID]

62347

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A57857)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 62347)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 947:15)

Source

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

Extent

[8], 316 p.

Printed by the heirs and successors of Andrew Anderson ...,. Edinburgh :: 1697.. (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.) (Errata: p. [7])

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.