S'CS^JM'ot^ -fL^** f. / D. D. in his BOOK Called, I 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 Asking in Parity, is Averted ,• and the pretended Divine Right of the Hierarchie is difproved : the Antiquity of Parity and Novelty of Epifcopacy as now Pleaded for, are made Manifeft from Scriptural Arguments , and the Tefti- mony of the Antient Writers of the Chriftian-Church : and the groundlefs and unreafonable Confidence of fome Prelatick Writers expofed, Alfo, the Debates about Holy-Days, Scbifm, the Church-Government ufed among the Firfc Scots Chrifti- 1 ans, and what elfe the Enquirer Ghargeth us with, are clearly | Stated, and the Truth in all thefe Maintained againft him. Like wife, fome AnimadverftonS on a Book called the Fundamen- tal Charter of Presbytery • in fo far as it mifreprefenteth the| Principles and Way of our Firft Reformers from Popery : where . the Controverfie about Superintendents is Fully handled : and ! the Neceffity which led our Ancejiors into that Courle fori that Time is Difcourfed. I By GILBERT RULE, one of the Minifters of the City, and Principal of a the College of EDINBURGH. I EDINBURGH, Printed by the Heirs and Succeflbrs of Andrew Andirfm, Prin-.i terto the King's moft Excellent Majefty, Ann* DOM. 1697. I =^te>-^&*sae&&vsz^BXB^:&--^'5ZF-. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/goodoldwaydefendOOrule < ) To the Right Honourable EARL of MARCH FifcomtofB L AS O N BER- R Y, LORD P of POLWARTH.KE and GREENLA LORD High CHAN of the KINGDOM MyNobie Lord, Have prefumed to Prefix your Lordfhips Name to this Work, hoping that your Lordihip wi]l count it no dishonour for the Greateft of Men to Patronize the leaft of the Truths of GOD: and knowing your Zealous and Pious Concerns, as for the State, fo for the Church of CHRIST, as now E- ( A ) ftablifhed c ■> ftablifhed in this Nation, My Defign in this Dedication is not ro feek the Ruhrs Favour : having had for many Years, the Honour to be more Regarded by your Lordftiip than ever I could deierve:nor to Engage your Lordmip to own our Church againft her open and fecret Enemies 5 knowing how fteadi'y you have appeared for (he True Intereft of the Church, and of the Nation, In vtraque fortune and how fixed your Principles are with refpedt to both.But what I aim at is, to exprefs the true Senfe I have < as I know my Brethren alfo to retain ) of your Lordftiips Wifdom, Zeal, and Fortitude encountering the Greateft of Hazards,and enduring the moft grie- vous of Hardfhips, for that Holy Religion that ye Profefs, and for the Liberties of your Native Countrey. The eminent Poll your Lordmip is now in, as it is a Token of your Princes Favour, and His Majefties Wife Choife of a fit Inftrument for High and diffi- cult 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 Glo- ry above all things f when ye have the Occaflon,and Temptation of feeking your own Things ) as ye did when ye Ventured, and loft your All in this World lor him. GOD expeð that ye will now Pay your Vows made in your Trouble, aud that ye will befingly, and actively for him : the Time is fhort wherein we can Walk or Work, and Occafions are uncertain. There will be great Peace in Refie&ion ( when our Work is at an end } on fincere Endea- vonrs,and Application of Mind,to the Work that the LORD hath put in our hand.. That the LORD may long Prefer ve your Lord (hi p,and continue your Capacity to do Him Service, asd that he may Blefsyour Noble Family with Flis beft Bleffings,is the earn eft prayer of, My Noble Lord, Edinburgh} December io y 169 7, Your Lord mips Devoted and moft Humble Servant, G. R. r ) *>-+- .. geftBBBBBg i-uj MamujuLug » i T O T H E -"•"AHat I again appear publickjy in this Paper War, Q be- ing, for my Age Miles emeritus ) needeth no' other-. Apology than the bkcejjsty that the Mouths that were fo Widely Opened againfi the Truth, and right Ways. of GOD, Jliould be Stopped : and I kpew of no ether Endeavours this Way, when I entered on this Work, nw til/ Ihad fintfijed i:. After it was in the Prefs, andjomc Pronrrefs made in it, I read the Learned and Indufirious Mr.William Jamefons Nazianzeni §>u&rzla, & Votum Jufrum 5 n herein ike fame two Authors that I Deal with, are folidly Refuted, and the main Sub- jeU that I Treat off, is Handled : which made me thinks that B ok^ might Superfede mine. Tet the Advice of others Wifer than my f elf A id my ownfecondTkoughts,finding fewer Coincidences in them than might have been Expe&ed: And that the one Work^ is mors Hfiori- caljhe other more Argument ativejfo that they may makg up a complete Anjwer to what our Adverfaries have now thought fit to fay 5 and Con- fidcring that feme, Debates are here in fi fled on which he hath not ton-* ched: and thai twoWitneffes are better than one: thef eConfi derail 0:2 s [J fay ) determined me not to flop the Prefs, And indeed, the ZJ/i~ accountable Confidence of ihefe Authors, on the flendereft Grounds, Jkould be expofed as much as may be : while they Build fo Important Truths and PraUices ( and prefs them fo warmly ) on Phrafes y Words, and Modes of Speaking ufed by the Ancients, which fgnified quite another thing then, than what nowthey are commonly appiyed to. Ths Learned Cltxicus^m his Preface to Ars CnticaySA^/- theend r hat r ) hath thefe Words here, very appofite. Quot 6c quanti viri credide- runt fe Hiftoriam Chriftianarum Ecdefiarum, & Opiniones eorum qui S. S. Patres vocantur, in numerate* habere, qui revera Hofpites ea in re fuerunt ? nempe, Vocabula nuda didiceranr, aut Voces, quibns ex Hodiernis placitis Significationes tribuebant. If we lay f itch Weight on Ways of Speaking of old ufed, as fttfficient Argu- ments for Prelacy, it is reafonable to allow the fame with Rcfpeff to Popery : And in that Cafe, Thou art Peter, and on this Rock will 1 Build my Church: and, I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. fiall infer the Popes Supremacy with as good Rea- fon, as the Fathers Afcribing JurifdiUion to the Bifhop, without mentioning the Presbyters at the fame time, doth infer his J ok Power : feing, as our Lord in Another Place, giveth the fame Power to the rett of the Apo files, that here Hefeemeth to give to Peter alone ^ fo do the Fathers often [peak of the Ruling Power #/ Presbyter s> as well as they fever al times mention that of Bifiops, without menti- oning Presbyters. No ProtelUnt will admit the Confequence in the $ne Cafe- wherefore neither ought we fo to Argue in the other Cafe. ERRATA ERRATA. PAge i. line 16. read Principle, p. 5-. I.25. r. Theorems. % ?o„ /, y. r. James, p. 136. /. 8. r. Matters of Fad:, p. 146. /. 7* n Prafes. p. iyo. /. ;6. r, them. />. 181. /. %q a r. approved. p» 186. /. 37. r. great, p. 194. /. 11. r; Struggling, p, 198. /. 38. r. Rank. p % 199. /. 2. r. the. />. 204. /. 15. r. Andahatarum. p. 207, /, 2. r. injoyn. p. 242. /. ;6. n Holy. p. 247. /. 1. r. Congregati- ons, p. 247. /, 26. r. Religious, p. 257. /. 16, r, found, p. 279. /. 33. y, Ceremony, p. 284. Z. 37. r. Solemnities? p. 297. /. s^ r. acquainted, p. 309. /, 16* r* Things, />. 310. /• ;$. r. Writings. If there be any other Miftakes of the Prefs., it is left to the Readers Candor to Correft them, b »=><; rg- land. pag. 339. Tclleth us,that the Lollards ( the fame Sed with the Waldcnjes ) had t'-r Mini iters Ordained by Presbyters without Bi- Jhops. Now 01 ihisSefr,. even their Enemies wimefs that they were very Antient. Reincrius, an Inquifitor, in his Book contra H*+?ti- cos fayeth, that ;; lad continued longtft of all the Sc8s 5 For fome fay, ( thefeare his Words ) thy have bun fr* m the days of Pope Sil- mfter. 1. ( who was in the time of the firifc Nicen Council) othrs from the day es of the Apo files. § 2. It may alfo be made appear, that his own opini- on, 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 Bijhop Lauds time and but £aw of them after it. $fel!man,p 576.n1 the Canons of Flfri c \ andWolfinjPMh. rhefe words, ^. b* pquidem unum te»cnt tundemordin- em quum fit d?gnior ilia pars Epfcopi.Catal. tcft. verit. To. 2. faith of Wicklif, tant^m duos or dines *>in'Jlrorum effe debere judicavit, viz. Vresbyteros & Dia onos. Fox. J&. monum. T. 2. AmongtheAnfwerS that Lambert the Martyr gave to the 45.Queftions put to him, hath thefe words, /V4.CO. As tombing PrieU-bood in the Pr^mitiveCvurcL there was r.o more Officers in the Church of God, than Bijhop and De- acons, as vchneffeth the Scripture ft 11 apertly.Wt citethalfo Jero**, for this. After the Reformation, in the Book called, the Inftiimion §f aChriftian man, made by the whole Clergy, 1537. Authorized and injoyned by King and Parliament, to be preached through the whole Kingdom, it is faid, That tte new Tejlament ntentioneth but two Orders, Presbyters or Btjhops and Deacons. Crannters^ and other Bifhops Opinion I haveCited. S. 2. § 2.0utof a Manufcript in Stillingjkets Ird.ln the Book called the B-Jhops Boo\, it is faid, that the difference between Bijhop s and Presbyters was a device of the Ancient Fathers, not mentioned in Scripture. For the fame Opinion, ®nen of Ordination, p. 114, 115. citeth Jewe/, Morton, Whitaker, Ff/lka Novell? and the prefent Bishop of Sarum. § Yea, ! J ^.Yea that this our Opinion for Pantie 5 and agatnft the Diane right of Epifcopacy, is as old as the Reformation from Fop'eryj is clear from the Articuli Smalcaldici, figned by Luther, Melanch- thon, and many other Divines 5 as they arc fet down lib. concord, Printed An. 1580.' Lipfi& art. 10. p 506. Where they plead their power of ordaining their Vaftors, without ffi/bops. And cite Jerome faying, Earn ( Mcclefiam Alexandria am ) prim urn ab Epifcopis Pref- byteris, &• MinUiris , communi opera gubematam \uiffe. Thefe ar- ticles were agreed on, An. 1533. After,/). 324, 325. They affirm of JurifdiUio, & Potejias excommunicandi & abfolvendi, that ,liquet confejftone omnium* etiam adverjariorum noftroru%t % communem effe omnibus qui prefunt Ecclefiis five nominentur Vaftores,five Presbyteri^ five Epifcopi. And they cite Jerome, as holding the fame Opinion^ and from his words obferve, hie docet Hieronymus diftin&osgradm EpifcoPorum, & Presbyttrorum i five Paftorum, tantum humana an- fhoritate coufiitutos effe : idque res ipfa loquitur % quia officium & man- datum plane idem e/2, quia autemjure divino nullum eU diferimen inter Epifcopum & Pajiorem, 8cc. Thefe Articles were fubferibed by the Electoral Princes, Palsegravt, Saxonie, and Brandenburg, by 45. Duk§s, Marqueffes, Counts ,and Karons, by the Confuls^nd 8e- nates of~. %$. Cities, Yea, to (hew that this Opinion was not then difliked, even in England 5 Bucer, and Fagius, who fubferibed them, were brought into England by Cranmcr, and employed in promoting the Reformation. The fubferiptions of the Noblemen mentioned, youmay r find at the find of the Preface of that Book* It is, then a confidence beyond ordinary, to call the Presbyteri- an principle of ParitieaweH? Opinion* § 4. It is further to be considered, that as Antiquity is not,by it felf, a fufficient Patrocinie for any Opinion 5 So Noveltie is not aiwayes a juft prejudice againft if. If our Advtrfaries plead Ami- quitie for Prelacy, fo may it be done for many principles which themfelves will call Errors 5 and this fort of Arguments, hath in all Ages of the Church been judged invalide: Ir is Divine Inftituti on \ not humane praUice % Cutfome, or Aniient Opinion, that muft be A 2 a Found- Sea I. C 4 ) r $• 5» a Foundation for our belief: and when they expofe our way as new they mould confider, that whatisEldefl- in reipeft of its bee- ins 'and Gods appointment, may be new in refpeft of itsdii'cove- ry and obfervation: What is old in it felf, may be new to us 5 be- caufe, by the corruption of many Ages, it hath been hid, and at Jaft bibught forth to light again : So Chriftianity it felt was a Novel- tie to the 5 Athenian Philofophers, and by them treated with ditdain and mocking, on that account} more than with rational refutation, AUs 17. I9 5 20. i^ff/frtfj-Doftrineof Converfion, is looked on by fome as what was new in that time. So was Lathers Do&rine, and Cahins, and that of the other Reformers in their day, refteftivc. If my Antaoonift can make it appear, that our Opinion about Par- ity, was never countenanced by Scripture, nor pra&iied in the Cbriftian Church, till of late in Geneva, or Scotland-? Let it then pais for a Noveltie, and on that account be condemned: but it may be more Antient than the Hierarchic 3 tho for many Centuries, it was not pradifed under the Reign, and in the Kingdom of A; ti- Ghrift. 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 thefc paths muftbe iuch as God of old preferred to his People ( as fome expound the place, of the way that Mofes taught them ) and which they walked in, who, we are fore did not err. ( as Grotius ex- pounded! displace, of the wayof^r^w, Ifaac and Jacob ) wc know that error hath been abetted under the Notion ot the old way, 7er.A4.. 1 7- Neither do we think our felves obliged to follow all the paths ofiome Antient good men, more then the Jem were to do as Aaron did, in making the Golden Calf, tho that was a very old pra&ice, and that Calf worfhipping had been before Jermias dayes, both Antient and Univerfal. ff < Some things arc to beobferved in his Introduction,and nrit, the ili words that he very liberally, and ate random, beftowetn on thefe who are not of his way 5 calling their Principles^ Writings, lybels Spiritual Ravcnes >. 2. He infinuateth that we have wck$d* h combined to defame them p. 3, If f. 4- " be not his bmfittefs to -' complain tea. i. f 5 ) §* 5. complain of them, whom he fuppofeth, doprfecutt them, i am furc it mould lefs be his work to Rail, with fuch unmanly, and unchri- ftian revilings, at them who no other wayesoppofe him, and his Partie, but by dint of Argument. He doth p. 5, 6. Suppofe , The Antient Ministers of the Word to have been Bifliops with Apo~ Helical Authority, and telleth US, How in the Vritnitive times, they were oppojed, by men ch§fen by the VeopU, who calculate their Doffrine, to the fancies and humours cf the Multitude, and pro- flitnted the Gojfeel to promote error, and delufion, in flead of fcrving our bleffed Saviour , they became faves of the Veople, by whom they were original! y imployed - y and becanfe they were fo unhappily fttccefsfull , as to gratifie their Infls, they were therefore voted the mofl Edifying Te ackers. Whether this be to write a- Satyre, or to plead for Truth, to the conviction of them whom he dealleth with, wife men will judge. 1c is rather to be lamented, than denyed, that there are fuch Minifters in the Chriftkn, yea, in the Reformed Church : but I may confidently fay, they are not more zealoufly difliked among any partie of men, than among the Presbyterians in Scotland : Whom it is evident, that by all this Difcourfe, hedefigneth to defame $ We preach againft this Inclina- tion, even as it is in mens hearts : and we cenfureit, when it ap- peared] in their pra&ife, either to the promoting of Error, or dif— turbing the Peace of the Church. More of this he hath, p. . 7- of MiniBers reconciling the mora lis of the Gojpd to mens wicked pra&ifeS; and loefer theorms , and the fevere D/fcipl/pt'e of the Antient Church to all licence and luxurie , and true faith , that worketh by love, to airie notions and miliars. Whether thefe words afford us the lineaments of this mans temper, or of the Pres- byterian Minifters, I (hall leave to others to determine. I am fare, they who know the Scots Presbyterians, and do not fpitefully hate them, will not fay, that either their Doctrine, or their Exercife of Difcipline doth rend to promote Loofnefs and Luxurie, This Author is pleafed to reprefent them under a quite contrary Character when he findeth it for his purpofe. Whether the Presbyterian, or Prelatkfe- Sea. I. ( 6 ) §. 6, 7> Prelatick Church Difcipline, as they have been exercifed in Scot- land, come neareft to the fevere Difcipline of the Antient Church it's eafie to determine, by them who have leen the one, and can judge of both, without prejudice. § 6. I gladly would underftand whafhc meaneth by his AiTerti- on, p. 6. That the primitive Ministers of Religion, had their im- mediate commiffion from heaven, and accordingly they endeavoured to refiorc the image of God in Men : To whom he fetteth in oppositi- on thefe ill men above mentioned. If he mean the Apoftles, I (hall not contradict his Affertion , bucmuft look on it as mod im- pertinent : Seing the other, who he faith, had their Authority f jom Men, were diftinguilhed from, and cppoflte to,notonly the Apo« files, but the ordinary faithful Minifters of the Church, who were in, or after their dayes. Alio the Affertion, fo undcrftood, could make nothing for Prelacy, or againft Paritie, in the primitive Church which fcemeth to be the defign of this PaiTage. If he underftand it of Bifhops,who, hefancieth to have fucceeded to the Apoftles 5 this is a new opin?on,with a Witnefs^ and for any thing I know, himfelf firft hatched it: and we mall allow him the honour of this newdif- covery, that Bifhops have their Immediate Commiffion from Hea-* yen: I know no Opinions held by Presbyterians, fo new as this of one who undertaketh to refute their new Opinions. Sure, if it be fo, they muft then (hew their credentials from Heaven, and the figns of Apoftles wrought in them. As i Cor. 12. 12. And thefe -might fuperfede the Ring's Cengedehre, and their Confecration, and alfo, all the debate that is about their Prelation, and will excufcus from owning them, till we be fatisfied in this matter, wherein we promife not to be unreafonably incredulous. § 7. He proceedeth in his Keproaches, and unaccountable Ex- travagancy 3 while p. 7. Hefpeaketh oitht flawing of tbe foundati- ons of Ecclefia&icalZ)nitie, ( as if Unity were only found in the Prelatical way ) and trampling on Antient Conliitntions nith great Infolencci and Impiety. Suppofing ( without |any fcmblanccof Proof -J that then the hedge of true Religion is not only invaded ibut ,5e#. I. f 7 ) § 7- butdemolifhed, when Epifcopacy is laid afide, and that witheutt by the open blajphemies of Infidels--, and that the fir fi ( viz. the Presbyterians ) are altogether inaccejjlble by re of on, that they*pretend 'to extraordinary illuminations, and will not be infirvcfred, their Errors are made Wronger by their vanity. And much more is falf- ly and injurioufly faid to this purpofe. To which I have no other .Reply, but the words of Vfalms \i. 3, 4. T,-e Lord fiall cut off all flattering lips , and the tongue that fpeaketh proud, things, who have faid , with our tongue will roe prevail , our lips are our own, who is Lord over us, and Pfal. 12a, 5, 4. What fi all he given unto thee, or what ftdtt be done unto thee , fafte tongue. We can an(wer his Arguments, and are willing to be In-- ftru&ed by him, and attacked that way : But who can (land before this kind otTopicks? I have not met with any Peribn who is of Opinion that Presbyterians thinly to make their Calling and EleBion fure, only by Diuipon and Singularities fave this Author, p. B. Who feemeth to take the lame Liberty to himfelf, of fpeaking all the ill he can devife of Presbyterians, that the Author of pax vohis doth againft Proteftants of all forts. I am not at leafure to enquire how much he hath borrowed from that Author 5 But it is evi- dent that the ftrain of both is the fame : I (hall take little notice of his confident insinuation, p. 9. That Prelacy was revealed by our Savi- our, taught by his Apo files, and received by all Churches in the fir ft and beii Ages : For the truth of this is to be tryed in thefollowing De- bate 5 But I cannot overlook his fupofing, that we rejeU certain Wi- tualls and pra&ifes, which by the plainefl and mofi undenyable confe- quences are agreeable to the general R&ks of Scripture, and the uniform Belid Seft. L C 8 ) ff. 3, i Belief of a// Chriftians: If he can prove the Contravened Ceremo- nies to" be fuch, we (hall correft our Opinion about them. § 8. He layeth Tome Foundations, p. 10. and n. For hisfok lowing Difpute, which we cannot allow, as firft, that thefirjt Chri- ftians were agreed among themf elves about not only the great Articles of Religion $ but alfo about the General Rules of ^ Ecclefiajiick, Order \*nd Difcipli?ie--> under which Head, he plainly includes the Rituals of the Church. It is to be lamented, that even in Do&rine, there was not that Unitie, that was fit, in the Primitive times : we read of many H e reiles early broached :for Order, it was not the fame among all, there were fad Schifms, as well as Herefies : and for Ritnalls^ we find no General Rule they agreed in, for Ordering them, fave the Word of GOD, contained in the Scriptures. For General Coun- cils, that medled moft with thefe, were later than the times we fpeakof. And it is well known, what Fatal Contentions there were about fome of them 5 fuch as the time of obferving Eafler. Yea, the fir ft Churches had different RituaUs, about which they made no Divifions, but ufed Chriftian forbearance. Socrates hath a whole Chapter to prove this 5 which is, C. 21. of lib 5. of hi ft, Ecclefi, IrAmus reproving ViUor, for Excommunicating the Quarto Deci- mani, hath thefe words, **/ y\ Vi 7«$«dtk5 ttUiqs Into fiAWfieitifirtifa -ypf? ptLvw And at large (heweth,that thcPrimitive Chriftians did not cen- fure one another, for difference of Rites and Cuftoms obferved a- mongthem. Every one knoweth how fir the Churches of the firft Ages were, from uniformity in their Fafting\ Some abftaining from that which others did not Scruple to eat: in the frequency of Com- municating : about the time and manner of Baptifing : about the time and degrees of public^ penance, placing the Altar, or Communi- on Table, &c. It is evident then, that the firft Chriftians did not look on Ritu alls, as that about which Chriftian Concord mould be judged of : They minded things of higher moment, and greater neceiTityJ' § 9. Another Paradox that he Advanceth is, that by this unifor- mity in Docfrin? and Rituals, they (the "Primitive C hrijiians,) ftrcngh- ned Se&. I. ( 9 ) § 9 . mdthemfelvss againft Infidels ^^Hereticks. This Affertion with refpecl: to Rituals, is wild and abfurd ,• net only becaufe fuch Uniformity was * not found,, nor much regarded among them, as hath been fhewed ,• but aifo, becaufe this Uniformity in Matters fo extrinfick to Religion, could afford them no ftrength,* more than an Army is ■ the flronger, by ' all the Souldiers wearing Coats of the fame Fafiiion 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 an- other, in the different Practice of fuch Rituals as were not Inftituted by Chrift, in thefe as the Means, did their ftrength iy* Yet another, ftrange Pofition,- he fuppofeth the Conftitutions wherein he and we differ to have been received among all Cbrijfians, ( which never hath yet been proved ) and affirmeth, that defpifing theft cvenhroweth the Foun- dations of Reace and€haritj • and confequently : -we exclude our f elves from the vifible Fellowjhip of Chrift s Houfliold. and Family. His Suppofition ( which p. 11. and often elfe where, he confidently layeth as a Foun- dation of his whole Debate) is groundlefs^ as I hope, will appear in the Progrefs of this Difquifition. His Affertion is falfe and dangerous.:. For 1. There was Peace amongft the primitive Churches, where feve- ral of the Conftitutions he talketh of, were pra&ifed bv fome, and ne- gle&ed or defpifed by others ; as may be Inftanced in the Trims Immer- Jio 5 and many others. 2. Even about fome Truths and Ordinances of God, there were Debates in the primitive Churches, and fome differ- ed from that which was generally held, and yet they were not Excom- municated, but dealt with by more foft Means, and born with, till the Lord ihould enlighten their Mind, according to the Apoftles direction, Vhil. g. 15-, 16. ;. It is the way of the Antichriftian Church, but of few others, to unchurch all Sifter Churches who differ from them in any thing, even in Rituals : this is not the Spirit of the Gofpel. If he underfbnd that they only exclude themfelves from the Church, who differ from what all and every one hold who are Chrifiians, his Affer- tion cannot be contradi&ed ,• yet it may be Ridiculed, for that is im- poffible for any who is a Chriitian, to do : but if he fpeak of what is commonly received, this very Affertion doth Sap the foundation of all Peace and Unity in the Church: that all they wereto be Treated as Apoftats from the Church and Chriflianity, who have a lingular Sen- timent about any one Point of Dodrine, or Ceremony, even though they Diilent never fo modeftiy : and this will Authorize ail the Severi- B tie c Seel. I, ( io > $. io. ties of the Irtqutfitkn. Whether will mens furious Zeal for Humane De- vices carry them ? § io. What followeth, doth furmount all that we have heard* f. n. Whatever is uniformly determined by the wifefi and be ft of Chrijtians. ( their learnedit BiJIiopf and Vresbyters ) muB be received as the infallible Truth of God : elfe we have no certain Standard to diflinguijh the Qatholick Cht'rcb informer Ages, from the Ccmbinaticns of Hereticks. And a little below Ihe uniform Voice of Qhriflendcm in the firjt and puref Ages, it the be ft Key to the DoBrine and Vratlice of the Apoftles and their Succefors. I make here two Obferves, before I confider the thing that is thus boldly Afferted. The former is, that ( may be through overfight ) he giveth Presbyters a iharein Determining, or deciiive Power about what muft be received as the infallible Truth of God, together with the Bifhops : Ergo, Bi/hops have not the fole Authority in the Church ; but of this afterward. The other is, it is manifeft that he here fpeaketh not of the Apoftles, but of the ordinary and fixed Miniftersof the Church, who taught and ru- led the Church after the deceafe of the Apoftles, and after the Canon of Scripture was finimed. Now this Pofition containeth things worthy of our Obfervation. Firft, that this learned Author maintaineth an In- fallibility to be in the Guides of the Church, fo as they cannot erre « feeing what they Determine muft be received as the Infallible Truth of God. 2. That there muft be an Infallible Judge of Controversies in the Church, heiide the Scripture ; and without this, we have no Standard of Truth, but muft wander in the dark, the Scripture being unfit and infufficient to guide us in the way of Truth, and to difcover Herefie to us. ;. That this infallible Judge of Controverfies, is the Bimops and Presbyters agreeing together,and uniformly Determining what is Truth. .Kut here our Author leavethus at a lofs : What if fome of thefe Bifhops and Presbyters who meet to frame our Articles of Faith, or Canons for our Practice, be none of the Wifeff, Beft, nor Learnedit, yet have made a fhift to get into the Office of Bifhop or Presbyter ? Next, what if his wifeft and beft Chriftians, that is, the learnedftBitbops andPref- bytets, do not Determine uniformly about our Faith, or what concern- eth our Practice,' but fome few Difient, or are not ciear to go along with the reft ? Whether in that cafe, have we any Standard for our Re- ligion ? He would do well to give us Light in this, when he hath bet- ter digefted his Notions, and writeth his fecond thoughts on this Head. If fome other Perion had written at this rate, we Jhould quickly have had Sett. !♦ ( ii ) §. ii. X2, had a whole Book, or a long Preface to one. expofing his. Ignorance, lm« fudence, and other fuch qualities : but I (hall impute no more to this learned Dodor, but that he hath not well Confidered what he here faith. § ii. It may be it will have little weight with him,, if I affirm and make it appear, that this is plainly and directly the Do&rine of the Ro- man 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 diftinguifh thzCatbolicks from Hereticks, That this is their Do&rine, I might prove by whole Shoals of Citations j I mall (ingle out a few. Eccius, Enchirid: de conciliis. Tollatur Patrum & Conciliorum authoritas, omnia in Ecclejia erunt ambigua, dubia, pendentia, /«« certa* Melthior Canus, loc: Com: 7. C: ;» concluf: 5". In expofitione. facrarum Liter arum, communis omnium fanilorum Patrum intelligentia certiffi* mum Argumentum Iheologo prafiant,ad Theological Afiertiones corrohorandas ,° qttippe Sanctorum omnium fenfus Spiritm fanfli fenfus iffi fit. Quan^uam a\ Philofophis quidem rationem Pkilofophica conclufionis jure for fit an pofiulat 'is , in. facrarum antem literarum intelligentia s majoribm nofiris debes, nulla etiam ra- tione habita, credere , & yuas fententias de lege, de fide, de Keligione ah illie, accipifti defenders Greg: de valent: Analyf: fidei, lib: 8: c. 9. Quod Pa~ trc< unanimi conjenfu circa Religionem tradunt, infallibiliter 'verum efi. Bel- larrn: lib. 2. de Chrifto, cap. 2: & lib. 1: de Purgatorio, cap. 10. Patres nunejuam omnes fimul errant, etiamfi aliquis eorum inter dum erret, nam fimul emnes in uno errore con-venire non pofiunt. Here is a fweet Harmony, be- tween our Authors affertion, and the Doctrine of thefe learned men, from whom it feeros he hath borrowed it. But becaufe ( as Ifaid ) per- haps he will not be afhamed to own this, I (hall bring an Argument or two, againft thefe Principles that he afferteth, or are by juft confe- quences, drawn out of his words : referring the Reader for full fatisfa- &ion. to the learned Proteftant Writers ( whether Epifcopal or Presby- terian ) whu have defended the Reformation againft the Papifts ,• for I am fure, 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 Pra&ice, to be found among the Guides of the Church after the A- poftles j but that any of them, yea all of them, may in fome of thefe Points, erre: I prove 1. No fuch Infallibility is promifed to any, or all of the Guides of the Church, tu u Petrm : to am I with you 1 and fuch B 2 / like Se& I. ( I2 ) ^ *2. like Promifes, cannot bear the Weight of our Authors Opinion ; for tfce Church may be fafe from the gates of Hell,and may have Chrifts pi e- fence, even though her Guides be under feme Miftakes in letter Mat- ters. 2« This Infallibility is inconfi ft ent with Experience : the Guides of the Jewifi Church erred foully, when they condemned our Lord as a Deceiver : and yet that Church had the jPromife of Gods Teaching, Upholding, andPrefence, which was fulfilled upon the Remnant of true Believers that were among them. The Avian Church, and the Popijh Church 3 have foully erred, and yet both of them did overfpread the face of Chriftianity almoft wholly • but there was ftiil a Remnant according to the Promife. 5. The Fathers ( whom I fuppofe he meaneth by his wife, good, and learned Bifhops and Presbyters ) not only did each of them erre in fome things, ( which I hope he will not deny, and how then /hall Infallibility in all things, be found among them joyntly? ) but they difown this Infallibility to be in themfelves, or in others, as is clear from feveral Teftimonies which I have eked to this purpofe ,- Pref. to Cyprianic Bijhop examined, p: 2. To which I now add Clem: Akxand: Strom: lib: 7. fub finem : fctfrtP >«p *»>.!&$# iht AiJ\hx*?.W & c , wt have the Lord for the Y.ivciple of oar Doctrine, who hath taught us by the Vropbets and by the Apolilss- if any man thinks this Principle needs another "Principle, he doth not truly keep that Principle. And a little after, * tw *| 'Av&Da^etv avAuivouiv m&Jyw&'effle do not refi en the lefiimony of men hut 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 AJJertions of men, they muH mt only fay, but prove ; and that from the Scriptures. Bafil» Regula moralium 72. t«k**p»^t«i' &c. The Hearers -who are Infirucled in the Scri- pture s-f mufi examine the Doclrine of their Teachers, they mufi receive thefe things which are agreeable to Scriptire, and rejecl thefe that are contrary to it. Cyp.Ep.62. ad Casci'lium. Quod joins Chrifitts debet audiri &c 9 that Chrifi alone fliould be heard, the Father witnejjetb from Heaven. Non ergo at- tendere debemus, ejre. We mufi not then confidtr what others before us have thiught jhould be done • bat what Chrifi did, who is before all : for we mufi not follow tho Cufiome of men, but the Truth of God. Chri- foft. Homil. 1 3. in 2 Cor. tub finem. pnra r*< tuvvkkw bo^as & Ci j^ et M have the Scri- and the Rule ( x.*wc/.) leaving what this or that man thinketh about thefe things, enquire of all thefe -things from the Scripture* Here is another Standard than what our Sea. I. . , ( 1% ) t §. x\ our Author mehtiotieth. Or f gen Homil* m Jerm. It is necefiary that we call in the Teftimony of the Holy Scriptures; for oar Opinions and Difcourfes mak^sm Faith, without the fe Witneffes. Cyril, Catehef.4. fflhtoipi &c. Do not believe me faying thefe things, unlefs I have them out of the Scriptures. Ambrof, lib* 1. de fide, ad Gratianum. Nolo Argument noBro credos 3 &c. I -would not ye fhould believe our Reafoning ', let us ask the Scriptures, the Prophets, the Apojfles ; let us ask Chrijl. § 13. To fay that all this is to be underftood, of what one or a few- Fathers fay^ not of that wherein they all agree: This hath various abfur- dities in it; for 1. It isfalfly fuppoled ( as in the Progrefs of the De- bate will appear ) that the Fathers are agreed about the Prelacy our Author contended! for. 2. If every one of them may erre, why may they not all erre, feeing the Collective Body of them is made up only of infallible men? Chrifts promife of being in the midft of two or three gathered together in his Name, doth not free them from all Mi- ftakes. The Fathers together, and the fame men apart, are the fame perfons under different Notions ; and therefore t&ey cannot be both fallible and infallible, 3. The Teftimonies above brought, do not only make (ingle Fathers fallible, but whatever Combinations of them ye can imagine $ for they areftill men, and the Fathers above cited, make in- fallibility to be peculiar to Chrift fpeaking in his Word* Augufiine doth often and plainly bar this Diftin6tion : contra FauBum, lib. ti. c* 5-. id genus, &c. We mu(l read that kind of VVriting,not with necejjity of 8elieving,bnt with liberty of Judging. And Ep: 112: ad Paulinam, (^nod Divinarum $cri~ pturarum, ej? J c, 'That which is confirmed by the Authority of the Holy Scriptures^ it witheut doubt, to be believed; but for other Witneffes or Teftimonies ( whether fingle or Combined, he maketh no difference as to this ) ye may receive or rejed: them, as ye ihall judge they have more or leis weight. Alfo,Tcw.2"» Ept 19* Solus Scripturarum librk, &c» I have learned to give thi-i honour and reverence to the Rooks of Scripture only, to believe there is no err our in them : but I read others, however learned or Godly they be, ( fee how exaetiy he meeteth with our Authors notion, of afcribing Infalli- bility to what is Determined by the moft Wife, learned and Godly Bi- fhops and Presbyters ) Ifo read them, that I do, not believe any thing to be true becaufe they thought fo • but becaufe they prove it by the Scriptures , that it it jo. This forced a Confeffion from Occam C a Papiit of profound Learning, atLifcipie of our Country man Joannts Dms ) that A ■ gttiine here snaked* no deference amongft other Writers, befide the Prophets and Se&. !• ( 14 ) $ 14: and Apoftles ,• whether they be Popes or others,- whether they write in Council or out of it* I (hall refer the Reader to the Proteftant Writers, who have collected the Errours and Miftakes even of General, and aho more private Councils. §, 14. The fecond Propofition that may be drawn out of this Au- thors words, is, that an infallible Judge of Truth and Errour is necef- fary in the Church, befides the Scripture ,• for he telleth us, that without the uniform Determination of Truth, by the wife ft, beji and learnedft Bijhops and Presbyters, we have no Standard whereby to judge of the Cathoiick Church, from the Combination of Hereticks : this Principle falleth with the former,- for if there be no Infallibility but in the Scripture, fuch a Judge cannot be neceffary : for the Church doth defafio, fubfift without fuch a Judge. Again, the chief ground on which his Partizans the Pa- pifts, affertthe neceflity of fuch a Judge, is, becaufe the Scripture can- not hear Parties, nor can it pronounce a Sentence which the contend- ing Parties may hear, and be obliged by : I ask him, if bis wifefl, bejt y and mofi learned BijhofS and YresbyterS, can hear him and me, and audibly pronounce a Sentence for either of us, they being now all dead, as well as the Apoftles and Prophets, and nothing of them extant but their Writings, as are alfo the Sacred Writings ? The one is not a vifible Judge more than the other ; and if we Appeal to the Writings of the Fathers, why not rather to the Scripture it fell, which I have proved to be of more, yea, of the only infallible Authority » And indeed, there can be no vifible Judge but the prefent Church, to which therefore the Papifts flee. And even that cannot be fuch a Judge to all Chriftians ,• for they cannot all hear the Pope, or Council, pronouncing a Sentence, and therefore muft be content with their Writings, or Report of their Priefts, who pretend to no Infallibility s and it is ftrange, that more certainty fhould be expected from either of thefe, than from the Divinely Infpired Scriptures. A vifible Judge we own, to wit, the Guides of the Church lawfully conveened : an infallible Judge we alfo acknowledge,- vix.God fpeaking in his Word : but a Judge that is both infallible, and alfo now vifible to us, we cannot find. The Proteftants Arguments againft this Fo- pifh Errour I /hall not infift on ,- they are, 1. That the Spirit of God in Scripture, fendeth us not to men, but to the written Word of God, for Decifion in controverted, or doubtful Points, Ifa* 8. 20: Luh 27: 29; Mat: 22; 29: John j: 39. 2. Chrift and his Apoftles, did always ap- peal to Scripture, and to no other Judge, 3. All men may erre, as hath been Sea. H# .■'\^\£X'< r. & i. been (hewed* and therefore they cannot be an infallible JudgeJ 4, If there were fuch a judge, fure the Lord would have told us who he is and that there is fuch a one : but not one word of either of thefe in the Bible, f • Neither the Papifts, nor fuch as this Author,can tell us where we (hall find this infallible Judge : they are not agreed whether the Fope alone, or a general Council alone, or both concurring, mult be this Judge- He telleth us of the wifeji, bet}, and moji learned Bijlj&ps and Pref- byters, but leaveth us to guefs who thefe were : it is a hard cafe, if our certainty of Faith muft hang upon this Pin, who were the beft, the wifefi t . and mott learned 'among them who have Znftru&ed the Cherch. The third ^ropofition above mentioned, cannot ftand, the other two being taken away : it hath been made appear, that Scripture is the only Stan- dard,- and therefore not the learned and wife Bi&ops. Alfo that they have difowned fuch Infallibility and Authority to be in themfelves or any men ; Et collaffa rftunt fubdvclif tetla colttmnU. SECTION IL The Queftion fiated*. THe firft of the New Opinions with which this Author is pleafed to; charge Presbyterians? is that they are for the Government of the Qhttrch by Treibyters abiingin farity, and againft Prelacy, ortheju-*- rifdi&ion of a Bifliop over 1 resbyters. He is pleafed to examine fome of our Arguments* and pretendeth to anfwer them, c: 1, 2: and then cometh to prove his Opinion, c: 3. Thus ftating the Queftion p ioy, whether the KeSloral fower, and JLpifcopal JurifdiQion that the ApojlleS had o-ver fuh* trdinat Ticclefiafticks, wM afterward committed to, and exercifed by particular PerfonSy or to a Colledge of Presbyters aSing in perfeB Parity, and iiquality. I do not fancy this Method, that a Difpute. ihould be fo copioufly infifted Dn, and Arguments fo much toffed for the one fide, before we come to Rate the Queftion, and determine what we controvert about, Where- Fore, though I intend to leave nothing in his Book untouched that is material, I ftiall ufe another Method. 1. I ftiall ft ate the Queftion. z< Bring more and plainer Arguments for our Opinion, befides thefe which le is pleafed to take notice of. 3. Reinforce thefe our Arguments which le meddleth with. 4. Confider the ftrength of his Plea for BiOaops^ )n account of their Succeffion to the. Apoftles^ Se& II. (iO $ 22 § 2. In order to ftating the Quefton, we are to coiifider, that there are different Sentiments about the Government of the Church, even a- mong the Epifcopal Party themfelves, who talk fo highly of Unity, and condemn others who differ from them, ( I mean the Presbyterians ) as Schifmaticks ,• and fuch in whofe Communion people may not fafely a- bide, as this Author doth more than infinuatj />: n. The various O- pinions of our prelatical Brethren, I have taken notice of Rational def: of Nonconform: p: 15-9, 160, 161. I fhall not refume what'is there dif- courfed, but confider this Diverfity fomewhatmore extenfively. Some think that no one form of Government is held forth in Scripture, or was pra&ifed in the Apoftolick Chuiches : I have feen this queftion learnedly Debated in a Manuscript • if the Abetters of it mean, that fometimes the Apoftles acted by their own fole Authority ,♦ at other times they left the Management to the ordinary fixed Officers in the Church ,• and on other Occafions, deputed Evangelifts to Govern for them, for a time,* or that infome Circumftances of Government, they did not always obferve Uniformity « I think all this may be allowed ; but if it be meant, that the Subftantials of Government were not always the fame,as acted by the ordinarie fixed Officers,- but that fome Church- es were then Governed by Bilhops, others by a Colledge of Presbyters : 1 fee no ground for fuch a Debate, nor to think that there was anyfuch Variety in the Apoftoftolick Church. 2. 1 have fome where found it denyed, that Apoftles had Majority of Power or Jurifdicrion over Pref- byters: and Paul Bayn, diocej: Tryal, />: 73: Arg: $: and p: Jj+Concluf 5. is cited for this AlfoMr. Kutherf: Div: Right ofChurch Government, p: 2i. /need not Debate this. And I find Bayn faith no more, but that the Apoftles had not Majoritie of Directive or Corrective Power as Lords, but only as Chrifts Minifters ; and that no fuch Power is in the Church, fave in the Perfon of Chrift : but he exprefly allowech in them Minifterial Power, declarative and authoritative. Mr. Kutherf: I fup- pofe, meaneth no more. This indeed is the Opinion of many, and our Adverfaries cannot difprove it, that the Apoftles did not ufually make ufe of their Power in fettled Churches, further than to declare the Mind of Chi ift to them ,♦ but left the exercife of Church Power to the fettled Officers of thefe Churches. .3. Some are of Opinion, that though the Apoftles exeicifed Authority in Governing the Churches, and left Eccleliafticai Officers in the poifeflion ofit, to be exercikd by them, during the want of the Chriftian Magiftrat ? yet as foon as the Church ' had Sea. ii, ( 17 ) § 2. had a Civil Magiftrat owning the Faiths that all ruling Power devol- ved into his hand. This is no part of our prefent Debate ; though our Brethren in the late Reigns, allowed much more of the Exercife of Church power to the Magiftrate,than was warrantable. 4. We debate not now about the Popes Monarchical power over the whole GhrHHan Church, though many think that Monarchical power of Bifhops, over the Presbyters and People of a large Diftrict, now called a Diocefs, hath no more Warrand in Scripture, than this hath. Nor f. Do we now debate whether the Government of the Church be Democratital, and to be managed by the body of the people: or fo Ariitocratical^as to be managed by the Elders in every fingle Congregation, independent on fuperior Judicatures, to whom no Appeal may be from them, or who may call them to an account for their actings, and authoritative y Cenfure them. 6. Some hold that no one Form of Church Govern- ment is now neceffary, or of Divine right, but that the Church or Ma- . giftrat in feveral Churches, may Appoint what mall be found moft fit and futable to the people among whom it is to be exercifed. This Opi- nion was lately generally owned by our Epifcopalians, and afferted ftrongly by Do&or Snllingfteet, now Biihop of IVarcefier : ( that learned Author doth alfo prove, out of an antient Manufcript^ that this was the Opinion of Cranmer, and four other Biihops ) and it met withnoOp- pofition from that Party, fo far as we could hear of ,• nay, not by this our Author who is now fo highly become a Jure Divino man. It was then the way to Preferment, and futeable to the Oath of Supremacy 3 and more efpecially to the TeH. But it is one thing with fome men, to think that a Popim King may alter Church Government : and another thing to allow the fame Power to a Proteftant King. We are then agreed about the Jm Di-vinum diz. fiecies of Church Government, and the unalterablenefs of it: which maketh it feem ftrange, that this learn- ed Author mould make fuch Tragieal Outcrys againft our pleading a Divine Right, as if this were Unthufiafin, yea, much ivorfe than jfieculati've *Enthufiajm, p: 14: Vijiens and fancies , ibid : while he is as pontive for the Divine Right of what he holdeth : which we mall not call by fo ill names ,• but think, that who hath the worfe in matter of Argument, is in an brrour ; but fuch an Errour as is confiftent wkh Sobriety 3 and good fenfe. § 3. The Queftion is not 7. What fort of Church Government is beft, arid neareft to the Scripture Pattern ? for that may be nearer to € Sea. II. C iS ) 5 # it, which yet doth deviate from the Scripture* but left than another Form of Government doth : and though that Form of Government is- more commendable,' than another which cometh nearer! to the Pattern in all the Step's, of the Adminiftration of it ; and we are willing that' paritv and prelacy be thus compared in all that they can charge us with, or we can charge on them ,• ( which Comparifon I cannot now ftay to make in the Particulars in which it maybe ftated/yet they contend tnat Prelacy is exactly what <■ hrift wiileth to be exercifed in the Church : and we fay the Came of Parity-: and herein lyeth the Queftion. 8. It is to be noted that our Controverfie is not about the name, but the power ofaBifhop. The Parlors of the Church are called Biinops, ABs 20. 28: 1 Tim >-. 1. and elfe where : for the power of a Bimop, ( as this name is appropriated to one -»'resbyter. ) We deny not that very early in the primitive Church, the frajet in their Meeting for Difciplineand Government was fixed, and had that place during life, and due manage- ment of his Office : and he had a power of calling and ordering their Meetings, and was fubjecb to their Cenfures- But, our Brethren are not content with this ,• but affirm, that by Divine Inftituti on, and primitive Pra&ice, the Biihop had a majority of power both extenfively, that is over the Paitors and people, which other Presbyters had not : and that over the Haftors and people of many Congregations, which we call a Drocefs: and alio intensive, that is, that he hath power in fome things wherein the other Presbyters have no fuch-power : for they referve to him the fole power of Ordination and Jurifdietion. It is true, fome of them mun the word of fole power, and call it but a Majority of power: which is but to cover the nakednefs of their Opinion, and inconfiftent with their own practice : for they will not fay that the Presbyter is «i£- fumed by the Biihop in plenitudinem potefiatit, but only in partem jollicitu- Jinit : they make the Presbyters fubject to the BiJhop as a Rector, and as a judge, in that they can do no act. of power without his allowance ; and he by himfeif may cenfure them, and cannot be eenfured by them, even in their collective Capacity, yea, they maintain that it. is of the Eimops good will, not neceifitie, or obligation, that he taketh the ad- Vice of the p resbyters in any act of Government : that he is the, only Pallor of the Diocefs, and all the reft of the Clergy are his, Curats. It is true, fome are more modeft in expr effing their Sentiments in this mat- tery ,• but thefe tilings are held by many in -termini*, and particularly^ all this- mult be owned by- this Author, ( though he gir©th us no diltind- amount account of his Principles ) feing he rnaketh Bifliops SuccelTors to the Apoftles in their governing the Churchy and that in their Re&oral Power, which he defcribes p. 97. to Preach, Govern the Church } give Rules and Diredmts to their Sue cejjors, and to all fa If ordinate Eccle/iaBicks, to infliSl Cenfures, &c. This power Apoftolical, he contendeth to have, been communicated unto the Biihops, and not to all the Presbyters J. S. in his Principles of the Cyprianick age, taiketh high of this Power* Of 1 he Vifidps Majefiy, 'Monarchy, Jingular Prerogative), which I have eife where examined. § 4. It is to be confidered, 9. That there are diverfe Opinions a- mongft the Epifcopalians, whoafcribe this power to the Biihop, about the Foundation of it, or how he cometh by it : forne of them fay, that Chrift while he was on Earth, Inftituted this Authority in the perfons of Bifhops, and made this difference between them and Presbytcrs.This the Bifhop of Worce Her denyeth, while Iren: p: 197. heTaith, that Chrift gave equal power for ruling the Church, in aBu primo, to all Minifters ofthe-Gofpel : others make it to be of Apoftolick Inftitution ; affirming that the Apoftles after Ghrifts Afcenfion, did appoint it. About this we contend not; but acknowledge it to be of Divine Right anci unaltera- ble, if either of thefe can be proved « for what the Apoftles did in fet- tling Church Order, was by the infallible Guidance of the Spirit of God. Others again hold, that this power was not fettled till after the A- poftles time i and that it was brought in by Cuftume, which obtained in procefs of time, and by degrees : but being of fuch reverend Anti- quity, and pra&ifed by the Fathers, and all the primitive Churches, at may not be altered. There are alfo among them who fay, it is only Jurit EcclefiaHici, and was fettled by the Church, and may be by her Authority changed. Our Opinion is, it hath none of thefe Foundati- ons : that it was never fettled by Chrift, nor his Apoftles > but that they fettled theGovernment of the Churches, by Presbyters a&ing in parity : nor gave power to' the Church, or any man, or men, to alter this Conftitution : andfo that this Power is uuxrped and unlawful. § ?. Out of what hath been difcourfed,ourprefentControverfieturn- eth on this Hinge.- whether the Government of the Church, which by Divine appointment, -is to be ufed in all the ages and parts oftheChri- ftian Church, fliould be by one Prelate, managing-it by hisfole Autho- rity, and the counfel of Presbyters,, fo far as he thinketh fit to ask or take it J or by the Presbyters of the Church in theirfeveral Claffes or Combi- C 2 nations., Sea. n. (*o)< fibA nations, acting with parity of power * the former part of the Quefiion my Antagonift pleadeth for: 1 fraud for the latter part of it : lo that our Debate is not about the Accidentals or Circumstantials of Church Government ; nor about what is pra&ifed by this or that Party, ( for no doubt there are many things on both fides that wart to be reformed, and which we can pretend no Divine right for ) but it is about the Ef- fentials of it, Prelacy or Parity. § 6: Be' ore I proceed to the Arguments pro or ccn 3 I frail briefly exa- mine what my Antagoniftis pleafed topremife to his examining of our Arguments : which maypoflibly clear our v/ay in feme thirgs tot e af- ter debated. 1 firit notice an expreflionh© ufes in rep-efentingour Opi- nion - that we hold, that in all Meetings of the Church, Presbyters alt in ft fill parity : fo f. 12. I hope he wih fufter us to explain the meaning of that f xpreflicn, (if any haveufed it, which I do not remember j we petei dr.ot to fuch a parity as exciudeth the ordinary power of a tern} c a y Moderator, as hath been above expreffed: neither to exclude the rn; jo.ity of Power that preaching Presbyters have above them that rr> ojri'iy ruling ; nor pj both above Deacons : nor do we by perfect pa- rity, exclude that lni uerce that 01 eby hisReafon. may have on others who aie rot fo well gifted. Wherefore, we own a perfect parity, in no other ferfe, but that pleaching Presbyters are of the fame order with a I ifhop ,• 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 faith that fuch a Dcllrine ( the Divine right of parity ) wuflbe of dangerous conference ,• becaufe it it altogether new. What is to be thought of its noveltie, I have fnewed StB< 1 § 1, and a. As aifo, how weak the confequence is from its ncvehie ( fuch as I have acknowledged ) to its being falfe. The dangerous confequence of at is, in general aiierted ,• but he hath not told what hazard, in particu- lar, a iieth to the Church from this way of Government : many think that the greater! and moft eilential concernments of Rejigion, have been more promoted under Parity, than under Prelacy : if he wih prove his Allertion,making the contrary appear, we mall confider the Strength of his Reafons. § 7. He alferteth, that cur Opinion is not only different from the uniform Tefffmony of sntiquity, (which we deny, and fhall coniider his proofs in the iubieque: t.Lcbate ) but a If the fir si Presbyterians among cur fives; 'who declare , in their COftfefftou cf £aith, that aU Gkurcb Policy » vmablez k Se& It ( 21 > §7, 8. y^ /* *jt£ they from averting that indifftenfible Divine and unalterable Right of Parity. He addeth, that they anly pretended that it was aUovjable ,• and more to this purpofe. Let me a little examine this confident Affertion of matter of Fad. I fuppofe by the Confeffion of Faith of the firft Presby- terians, he meaneth that Summ of Dodrine which they appointed to be drawn up if 60, as that Doctrine that the Proteftants would maintain : there. Article 22, are tfeeie words: .Not that we think any Policy , and an order of Ceremonies can be appointed for all Ages, times 3 and places : for as Ce- remonies , fuch as men have devifed 3 are but temporary ; fo may and ought they to be changed , when they rather f oft er Supers 'i it ion 5 than edifie the Church ufing the fame. Here is not a word of Church Government : neither can theie words rationally be underitood of Ceremonies in a ftrick fenfe, as con- tradiitinguiihed from Civil Rites and natural Circum fiances in religious a&ings : for Ceremonies peculiar to Religion, the reformmg Protectants oi Scotland never owned, but fuch as were of Divine Inftitution. But that they did not hold the Government of the Church, by Prelacy or Pari- ty, to be indifferent, is evident, in that in the Book of Policy , or id. Book of Difcipline, they do own only four forts of ordinary and perpePual Offce bearers in the Church : to wit 3 Paftors 3 Dcclors 3 Elders , and Deacons 3 where the Bifhop is plainly excluded : nor did they ever look on Superintendents as perpetual Officers ,• but for the prefent neceflity of the Church, not yet conftituted. It is like this Debate may again occur: wherefore I now infift no further on it* § 8. He blindly throweth Darts at Presbyterians, which fometimes mils them, and wound his own party : asp- 13, he hath this Affertion, when a Society of men fet nf for Divine , abjolute, and infallible Kight 3 they ought to bring plain proofs for what they fay • elfe they muf needs be lockt on as, ImposJorSj or at leaflfelf conceited and dcfgning men ; and much to this pur- pofe Is it eafie to fubfume, but this Author and his Partizans fet up for Divine , abfolute and infallible right for Vrelacy ,• and yet they bring not plain proefs t or what they fay : therefore he and they are Impofiors 3 felf conceited and defigning men : they indeed pretend to plain proofs ,• and fo do we: let the Reader then judge whole proofs, are plaineft, and belt founded,' and who are to be judged Impoffors 3 by his Argument. . But in truth there is no confequence to a mans being an lmpoftor 3 from his own- ing a Divine Right, even though his Arguments be defective in plain= nefs, and inftrength : it only followeth that fuch do miiiake, and un* deiitand not the mind of God inthat matter,, fo well as theylhould j and thai- Sea. III. ( 22 ) ~$ r ; that their ftrength of Reafon doth not anfwer the confidence of their Affertion : 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 himfelf : as will appear in examining his Aflertions and Arguments. For felf con- ceit, the Reader will eafily fee where it may be obferved, if he confider the fupercilioufnefs- with which his Book is written. If Presbyterians be thedefigning men, they are great fools: for there are no Bijhopricks, nor Deanriei, nor very fat Benefices to be had in that way; which might be the Objects of fuch defigns. Who are the head (ircn^ men that Will knock ethers fin the. head, unlefytbey will jw ear they fee that "which indeed they cannot fee, may be judged by the Excommunications, and the Capi- as's and confequents of thefe, which many of late did endure for pure Nonconformity. I am not acquainted with thefe Presbyterians, who fay that none but wicked men will oppofe our Government : this is none of our Doctrine : it is rather his own who excludeth from the Church fuch as are for Presbytery, and affirmeth it to be dangerous to continue in the communion of fuch : 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 fuch a heavy Doom on the Prela- tifts who feparate from us a as J. S. doth on them who feparate from the l£pifcopal Church ' Principles of the Cyprianick Age, p: 19. His calling our Arguments a labyrinth of dark and mtricatConfequenceS, obfeure and perplexed Probabilities, Texts of Scripture Jadly wrefied and D'tflorted, p, 1 j. This I fay is a filly Artifice to foreftal the Readers mind before he hear the .Debate; which will take with few, even of his own party. We are not alhamed to produce our Arguments, for. all this infolent Contempt. SECTION IIL Some Arguments for Parity, not mentioned nor anfwer ed by the Enquirer. IN this Enquiry our Author pretendeth to anfwer our Arguments : and thinketh he hath done his work when he hath taken notice of . two Texts of Scripture, ( which yet he confelfeth that our ableft Writers, fuch as B«^and ^almafim, lay little weight on) one Argument -from the Homonymie of the names of Bilhop and Presbyter, and fome Citations of the Fathers. Here we deiiderate Ingenuity, both in his picking out our moft doubtful Arguments, while he doth not notice thefe which Sedv III* ( ij ) - £& which were harden 1 for him to anfwer : alfo reprefenting them in fuch a drefs as we do not fo make ufe of them, arid they may be eafieft for him to Debate. It had been fairer dealing if tie had represented our caufe in its full ftrength, and then anfwered what WGfay. Before I come td thefe Arguments which he is pleafed to name, I mall propofe fome o- thers which he, or fome others, may confider, when next they think fit to write. § 2. Our firft Argument mall be this : our Lord hath given power to Presbyters, not only to difpenfe the Word and Sacraments ,• but to rule the Church, and joyn in the exercife of the Difcipline of the Church : but he hath given no majority of power to one Presbyter over the reft^ nor made this. exercife of that power to depend on one of them ^ there- fore he hath not Inftituted Prelacy, but left the Government of the Church to be exercifed by Presbyters acting in paritie- The- firft f'ro- pofition many of the Episcopalians yield • yea, the Biihop of ' Worcejht Faith plainly, that Chrifi hath > given equal power to them all ° -which is the foundation of his Irenkum. But it maybe this Author will deny it; and therefore 1 {hall prove it : to wit, that- preaching Presbyters had power of Government and Difcipliner r. Preaching and ruling power are joyned, as given joyntly to the ordinary Paftorsof the Church, Heb'. 15-7. The fame perfons who -watch for the peoples fouls ( as all PaftofS ■ do ) rule alfo over the Church, ibid: v. 17. they are called in both pla- ces »>3f*«w, Leaders : the word is ufed to exprefs any kind of Authority, whether Civil, Military, or Ecclefiaftick : but 'Church Rulers only can" be here meant, viz,, who (peak the word of God to the people, and' watch for their Souls ^ and fuch as they had at that time,- feing they are bidden faiute them, v 24. To underftand this of Dyocejan Bifkops } as fome do, is moft abfurd : for the ground on which Obedience is here enjoyned is, Preaching and Watching, which are things not peculiar to" the Bifhop : wherefore not he only is to be obeyed i and thence it foi-' loweth, that not he only doth rule in the Church. 2. They; who are' fent to teach and baptize Authoritatively in the Name of the Lord, and' have power to command and require people ( by vertue of their Com-" million from Chrift ) to obey what they en joyn them, have alfo power* ©f Spiritual correction of them who ( profeffing fabjecxion to Chrift). do not obey; his Laws ; for we do not read that Chrift committed 3 ' td' fome the one of thefe powers, and the other- to others: neither Is 'there { te'leaft fouadatioala Scripmr§ lor that 'Fi&i6n,thatChrif£ irnpower- sea. lit ( *4 ) § *, ?: ed Paftors to teach people and gather Churches, over whom he would afterward fet fome more eminent Paftor to rule them • the ftrain of Scripture feemeth to run contrary: That the Apoftles gathered and fet- tled Churches, and then committed the feeding and ruling of them to men of an inferiour Or^er. Yea, it were ftrange, if this had been de- ilgned, that no hint is given about that more eminent £aftor,that fbould afterwards be fet over Paftors and people. Neither can it be imagined, that the Office of begetting of Souls to Ghrilt,can be feparated from a power of correcting, as fpiritual Fathers, or that Presbyters mould be Paftors without governing power. ;. 1 fet. y. i 3 2, 3, 4. It is com- mitted to the Elders that were in the Church, to feed the flock, and take the ever fight of thtm 3 ( i^K^o-nvnti ) and to beware of lording it ever them. which plainly faith that they had Authority ,- which they mould be- ware of abufing, or ftretching too far: now thefe Elders are told of their being accountable to Chi ift, but not a word of a fuperior Presby- ter, or Bilhop, to whom they muft be anfwerable : and this power is given to as many as were Feeders, or »of/*»w • which cannot be denyed to Presbyters. It is true, the word Elder may be applied to a Bilhop, yea to an Apoftle, and the Apoftle here deiigneth himfelf by it; thohe was more than an ordinary Elder : but that it cannot here be fo reftrict- ed, appeareth, becaufe the Injunction is to Paftors or Feeders in general, as hath been faid. § 3. Our fecond Propofition of this Argument I prove, becaufe all the grant of ruling that we meet with in Scripture,and all the Injuncti- ons that are given to any to rule in the Church, dorefpect the people as the Object of that work ,- we find no Commiflion to any man to rule over the Paftors of the Church : let our Adverfaries (new usfuch a Com- miflion given to any man, either directly and exprefly,or by good con- fequence. We read of feeding the Flock, iket. y. 2. and taking heed to themfelves (each of them) and to the flock, ever which the Holy Ghoft hath made them overfeers, Acts 20. 28. Here are Bifhops of the Flock, but no Bilhop of Bifhops, or of Paftors : they were to be corrected, not by one fet over them, but each by the Meeting of the whole. Again, if the power of the Paftors of the Church ( I mean them who difpenfe the Word and Sacraments to the people ) did depend on the BiiLop, is it imaginable that it mould not have been tOid us that Minifters may not preach, nor baptize, &c. without the Bilhops leave ? This was needful to clear the Confciences of Minifters : Chiilt hath charged them to preach Se& III. ( 2$ ) §2 J? , preach, and that diligently ; z Tim. 4, 1, 2. If the exercife of this power depend on the Bifhop, he may fuperfede this Charge • neither can the Presbyter preach if the Bifhop forbid him : now what Minifter of the Gofpel can fatisfie his Confcience in this Matter., unlefs he fee 3 clear warrand from the Scripture, that the Bifhop hath this power over them. Further,this is to make all the Minifters of a Diocefs to have their Com- miflton from the Bifhop, and to be in a proper fenfe his Curats : which ( tho I know fome of our Brethren own, yet ) hath this abfurdity fol- lowing on it, that it maketh the Minifters of the Gofpel contemptible in the eyes of the People, who depend on them ( not on the Bifhop, whom, may be, they fliall never fee, nor hear ) for the means of their Edification : this is not the way to put Minifters in a Capacity to edifie. the people, it is to make them the fervants of one Man, not Rulers in the houfe of God, under their Mafter Chrift. § 4. Our fecond Argument we take from the Apoftles enumeration of all the Officers that, by Divine appointment, are fet in the Church: whether extraordinary, which are now ceafed $ or ordinary, which are to continue to the end of the World, But among all thefe there is no Bifhop, with power over Presbyters ; ergoj no fuch Officer is appoin- ted by Chrift: but the Church muft be Governed by Presbyters acting in Parity, and without Subordination to fuch a fuperior Officer. That there is a full enumeration of all Church Officers that are of Divine ap- pointment made in the Scripture, is evident ,- for an enumeration of them is often made, as Rom. 12. 6, 7, 8. 1 Cor + 12. 28. EpMf. 4. it. This enumeration is either complete or defective : if complete, that is, what we defire : there can be no Church Officer owned, as Juris Divini, but what is in fome of thefe places to be found : if any fay that this enume- ration is Defective ,• not only in fome one of thefe places, but in them all s that is, that there is a Church Officer of Divine appointment that is found in none of them ,• he refleð a blame on the Holy Ghoft, which an ordinary Writer ( who pretendeth to any meafure of candor &c accuracy ) would be afhamed of. The defign of thefe Scriptures is to inftrucl: the Church, what officers Chrift hath appointed to be in his Church, that people may know from what fort of men they fhould re- ceive Gods Ordinances, to whom they fhould Submit, whom they ftiould hear and own. Now if there be fome Officers whom Chrift hath appointed to teach and rule his Church, who are not in fome of thefe Catalogues mentioned;, this is a lame inftru&ion in this matter; and we D arc Sed.IIL ( 26 ) §4- f. are ftill at a lots whom we fhould own as Chrifts Embaffadors to us, and what ihould be our carriage toward them. § <). 1 fuppofe the fecond propofition is t^at which our brethren will moft controvert with us t which if they do, they muft (hew us where they find a Diocefan Bijhop in any of thefe places, or in any other enumeration of Church officers ; if they know of anv more. Herefome of them have put their invention on the Tenter-hooks, to find my Lord Bidiop among all thefe Church officers. If he be found Rom, 12. It muft be v. 8 He that ruleth* ffoirSflow, I have met with none of them who infift on this place. The current of Interpreters either hold in the ge- neral : mentioning rulers. So Efiius, Tokt 3 Hamond : or underftand it of ruleing Elders, who were diitincl: from preaching Presbyters, as Ver- ftiusfiomarus$ez,a,VarrduS'. Grotius alio faith, they were ' *M€vTipoi,J e a, apply this Text to both forts of fupport. Aquinas in locum, maketh them to be, Mi qui ferebant opem Majoribm pralatis in univerfali regimine ficut Archi-Diaconi Epifcopis. But to expound it of diftributing the Churches Money, when it is rather to be underftood of giving of our own to the Poor, is a ftrange Glols. Further, if this meaning of the Text were admitted,and if a Biihop had a hand in the Diftributions to the Poor, is it imaginable that, when the Apoftle is about to inirruft the Church about Divine Warrand for the chief Officer in the Church, that he would give us no clearer light about fo important a Matter, and that the Government of the Church and the practice of all her Members is fo much concerned in, than by deligning him by one of the loweit pieces of his Work; and which is moft extrinlick to his Character ? A Notion fo abfurd and ill founded, could hardly have been expected from a perfon of Dobhr Ha- monds learning. If the Bilhopbehere known by the name of Help, or Supporter of the Poor by Alms : that is the meaneft ( if any ) part of his work : if by the defignation of Supporter of afflicted Souls, by fpiritual Advices and Directions, that is common to him with the Teacher, bd. -e mentioned in this Text ; and fo cannot be fit to diftinguifh him from other Church Officers. § 7. For Grotius's notion of 'farshi^ut^ I oppofe, firft, by the Argu- ment already brought from the Order of Dignity the Apoftle doth fo critically obierve in this enumeration of Church Officers. 2. By the force of the word : the native and genuine fignification of which is, to help, uphold, or fupport one who is in hazard to fall : which I am fure, 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 Biihop* That learned Critick faith, it fignifieth cur am alicuj us reigerere • and referreth to his Commen- tary on Luke 1 . 5-4. where I rind he maketh it to anfwer to the Hebrew PVpiT. which is to firengthen : and he faith it fignifieth alfo mantt ducere, becaufe the frventy tranflated it 'Am*«e£op»p.Here is a ftrange Argument, , to proceed from a man of fo profound Learning as is the great Grotim : for neither P 1 !^ nor'Aw^/Ww^** can be turned manu ducere. It is a ftranger Argument Jer. 31. 320 that Hebrew word is by the feventj turned •***«£»**' as* x f/ ? 05 : and Acts 23s 19. Heb: 8. 9. the fame phrafe is ufed for bringing the people of Ifrae I out of *s£gypt : for who knoweth not that ' Aj»tia»hWi'o/a«i. and ivi**p$*roptu have not the fame fiignification : Sea. in. ( 29 j f § 8. figniiication : neither is P^HO turned by tTrihm&ny^i } but when ft is conftru&ed with X il ?> the £#»- regerent, eadem poteHate quam Chriftus d Phre habiiit. I hope none will fay that this can be faid of Bi- fhops, or any ordinary and perpetual Officers in the Church. 2. It can- not Sea, III. ( ;o ) § 8, 9, not be elenyed, even by them who make theBifhops a kind of Apoftles., and allow a fort of Apoftolick power to them, but that they are ano- ther fort of Apoftles than the firft Apoftles were : none will fay that they are wholly the fame, more than the Paftors of the Church are the fame with the Prophets that were in the Apoftolick Church = they muft then diftinguim the Apoftles into extraordinary , who were fent imme- diacy by Chrift, to plant Churches ; and ordinary, who fucceed to thefe, and whofe work it is to rule the Churches that are already plant- ed. Now to fay that both thefe forts are meant in thefe Lifts, under the fame name of Apoftles, is toaccufe the Spirit of God of darknefs and confufion, in thefe Inftitutions where Light and Diftin&nefs might be moft expecied : for in thefe Enumerations, he is inftrufting the Church what Officers (he mould own as of Chrifts appointmentrbut by the word Apoftle flic could never know that there are two forts of Apoftles to be owned: one fort all do acknowledge to be here meant ; they who would have us believe that another fort of Apoftles is alfo here meant, muft give us fome better ground for believing this, than a Synonimous word : I do not know how many forts of Officers they may bring in under this name It they may be allowed to divide the Apoftolick Of- fice at pleafure, and call every one of them who have any part of Apo- ftolick work to do, a fort of Apoftles : this is to expound Scripture at pleafure, and indeed to make it fpeak what we fancy. I conclude then, that Bifnops have no Divine right for them, feing the Lord hath of pur- pofe told us what Officers he hath appointed to be in his Church, both at firft for planting of it, and afterward for managing her Affairs to the end of the World, and no Diocefan Biihop, name nor thing, is to be found among them. § 9. A third Argument for Parity, and againft Prelacy, I take from the Commandment that Chrift gives about the Adminiftration of Church Difcipline, Mat. 18: 17: that the offended Party (when other more private means of Redrefs do fail ) fhould lay the cafe before the Church : whence this Argument doth clearly refult,- that Power which is by Chrifts Appointment to be exercifed by many, is not Jure Divmo 3 lodged in one perfon,- but Church Jurifdi&ion is a Power that by Chrifts Appointment, is to be exercifed by many ; Ergo, it is not, Jure Divino^ in the hand of one perfon, to wit, a Prelate. The major cannot be called in queftion : fot if it were otherways, Chrift mould bid men a<5t contrary to his own Inftitution ; which to imagine, is moft abfurd. For the Se(5L II. ( 31 ) § 9, 10. the minor Propo/ition : Chrifts Injunction is, tell it to the Church; which word doth always fignifie a plurality of men met about fome common work ,• never a iingte perfon adtirg by himfelf. I need not here debate with EraHians 3 who by the Church underftand the Magifirate : nor with Independents , who hence argue for the peoples Church power: thefe my prefent Antagonifts condemn, as well as I do. But our Debate is with them who are for Church Monarchy, whether over the whole Churchy as Papifts ,- or over the feveral Diftrict-S in the Church, as Pre- latifts : both of them agree in this, that they place Church Jurifdic&on in a fingle perfon ; and by the Churchy muft here underftand fuch a per- fon. Againft this conceit many Arguments may be drawn from the Text it felf. Firft, the Gradation that Chrift here recommendeth, in dealing with Offenders for their Amendment : that the offended perfon muft firft deal with the Offender by himfelf alone: next ( that milling of its effed ) he muft take the Affiftance of two or three : if this prevail not, he muft bring the Matter to a greater number, to wit the Church, The learned Drufius } on this Text, citeth thePaffage out of PP 1c n"|2D which fheweth, that this Gradation was ufed in the Jewtjk Church, and that as their Difcipline, as the name of the Book importeth. After the Author hath enjoyned the firft and fecond Step ( as the Text doth) he addeth ; Si nee hoc modo quic^uam profecit, debet etim pudefacere coram multis, ejufque delictum publicare : which Iheweth, that the third Step of Reprehenfion among them, was not to tell the Crime to a fingle per- fon : wherefore when our Lords third Step is to tell it to the Church, it is not like he meant a fingle perfon, however of more Authority than the two or three. § jp. A fecond Proof of this is, the word Church hKxh 19: John 20.* 2;: This alluding to Jewiih Cuftomes, and expreffing New Teftament Difcipline by looking on fcandalous impenitent Sinners as Heathens and Publicans, is no Argument againft what I have faid } - this being frequent with Chrift and his Apo- ftles ; yea with the Prophets, long before, to exprefs Gofpel matters by Old Teftament terms. § 11. Argument 4. The Churches even in the time of the Apoftles, were governed by Presbyters acting joyntly, without a Bilhop fet over them ,• Ergo the government of the Church by a Biftiop fet over Presby- ters, is not of Divine Right : The Confequence cannot with any fhew of Reafonbe denyed : for the Apoftles were more vigilant and faithful, than to fufFer fuch encroachment to be made upon a Power that Chrift had given to his Servants. It is a moft irrational fancy, that the Apo- ftles in their own time, allowed Presbyters to govern the Church under their Jhfpe&ionj but after their death appointed BilChops to rule alone. For Sect. III. ( 33 ) § ix, i2« For firft, this had been to allow the exercife of a power in Presby ters_, that not only they had no right to, but which did belong to otheis by Divine Inftitution. 2. What ground is there to fay, that this ruling Power in Presbyters was but temporary, or that it ceafed at the death of the Apoftles ? Efpecially confidering that fome of the Apoftles diJ long outlive others of them ; how mould the expiring of that Power of Prei- byters be determined .• nor do we read of any ceafrng 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 rnuft prove by Inftances. S i2. And nrft the Church of Corinth was thus governed ; not only by the Apoftles connivance, but by his exprefs Direction and Approba- tion ; as in the cafe of the ineeftuom man, 1 Cor. $•. That a plurality of Church Rulers, and notafingle perfon, had power to cenfure that man, is proved firft ; the Apoftle, v. 2. reproveth their Negligence in that they had notcaftout this man from among them by Excommunication ; they were not duely affected with the Crime, and did not mourn for it^ neither did fet about cenfuring of it : both thefe were the effects of theii not being fo fenfible of the evil of it,as they ought to have been: In this fenfe Atnbrofe underftands this place : for on this occafion he faith, Siau- tem quis poteBatem non habet, qui fcit reum abjicere, vel probare non valet 5 immunk eft. So dftoChryfoftom, on the place «* \yK«,KZt%7i**iHh.cia&v * non accufat quod non ei fignificartt ; fed quod non deplorarent ut toiler etur '. oftendens quod etiam fine mmitore id fieri opportuit, propter peccati evident iam. What can be more plain, than that thefe Fathers lookt on a Communi- ty of Church Rulers in Gorint h 3 as having the power of Church Cen- fures ? Yea, that the Apoftle thought fo too ; otherways he could not have charged them with neglecting this Matter. 2. The Apoftle give th his Opinion, that this fcandalous perfon (hould be Excommunicated ( delivered to Satan ) by them affembled together ,• ( not by one Bilhop among them, and of this their aflembling for this end, "he faith two things ; which imply their power : that his Spirit mould be with them 5 that is his good Wifties, Approbation, and hearty Concurrance ) Menoch: in locum ; congregate vobti quibus ego adfum prtfens Spiritu, affeclu, & Salli- citudine. Next, that this was to be done by them in the Name and Au- thority of Chrift, and with his Power, or Vertue, by which he would blefs this his own Ordinance,and make it effectual : none of thefe could be faid of this Act, if it were done by a Company of men who had no E power Se£. III. ( |4 ) $i?. power from Divine Inftitution. ?• The Apoftle faith exprefly v» 12. that f jfoy f not thou Bifliop, but ye ) judged them who •were within ; that is the Church Members. 4. The Apoftle fpeaking of this Excommu- nication when it was paft, faith, that it was the rebuke of 'many , 2 Cor. 1. 6. not of one Biihop. j. He after diredeth the Church Rulers to take off this Sentence,the man being now truly penitent, 2 CV.2*.7.which is an k£x of Church Authority, and they could not take off the Sen- tence if they had not power to lay it on. § 13. Our Adverfaries make fome Exceptions againft this Argument. Firft, that tbe Apoftle doth not en joy n the Corinthian Elders to Ex- communicate the man ,• becaufe he faith, *«*pix«, I ha § Ty . § 1 y. To this I oppofe, for Strengthening our Argument ,• i. This reading of the Text is contrarie to the Current of the Greek Interpre- ters ,• fiLcurnenius, TheophylaEi, ¥>ajilius 3 Ephrem Cyrus, all cited. Altar \ Damajc\ p* 201. Yea though Efiius cite lome who are for that reading, yet appro veth our reading in thefe words ,• Si yuu non aujcultat pracepto meo, quod per banc TLpiflolam fignifice 1 he alfo, and Menoch/us, make the deiign of this Noteing to be ut vitetur ah omnibus • which could not pro- perly, nor immediatly refult from their Complaint and Information fent to the Apoftle : of which more after. The Syriack Verfion, as alfo the Arabick, doth read this place as we do- 2. The Greek c^ai^H- cannot bear this Interpretation : for it fignifieth to fet a Mark on a per- fen, or thing; not to give Notice which is the fignification of cnyniva. Scapula rendereth the firft word ( which is the word of the Text ) in* fignio, noto: and he ci teth for it Gragor: r&> awd'ua > iy, Tha they may all be reduced to three Heads. Firft, Soa.iv. ( w ) § h 2. Firfl, either they fret end that ih it "Parity of "Presbyters is exfre(ly commanded hy our Saviour. Or 2, Ihey endeavour to fuffort it by Conferences from fe- ver al texts of Serif ture* Or 3 , from fome leflimonies of the ancient Writers of the Church. The latter two forts of Arguments we do indeed ufe,but who ever pretended to the firft, I know not I confefs, I no where read in Scripture Paritie of Presbyters named, nor fuch words as thefe 3 that the Church fhall be in all ages governed communi Presbyterorum con- flio, nor that it hath been Phto* faidj, there fhall be no Prelacy among Presbyters : and I am fure, the Scriptures that he mentioneth as con- taining our Arguments of this fort, were never faid by any of us, to be an exprefs Command for Faritie ; though we hold it to be a full and plain Command implyed, and which may be drawn out of the words by good Coniequence. He faith f* 1 6. the Scots Presbyterians do more frequently in/iff en this ( arguing from exprefs command in Scripture ) than any of the forraign Presbyterians •> which appeareth to be an injurious Imputation,from what hath been faid: for many of the forraign Presby- terians do affert the Divine Right of Presbytrie as fullyas we do, though 1 cannot reckon the frequency of either their,or our infrfting on it, that 2 may compare them, I amilire many more of them have written for it, than have defended it fo in Print, in Scotland ( /mean the Parity of Presbyters, which is the car do eontrovtrfia $ whatever difference may be between fome of them and us, in feme other things ) Calvin, in fit. lib. 4.c.n.§ 6. & alibi. Beza,de triplici Efifcofatu contra Sara r u.Var^Ui J (xpijfme. Gerf. Bucer. difer. de gub: Ecclef blendell- apologia, Salmafiw, Turretin, foe. 1 8 qutttiom 29. Leideck, de fiatu Ecclef. Ajfric- Voet. paflim.Vitringa, de fyn. Vet. and many others. Likewife Smccltym. & jus div: regim: were not written by Sects Presbyterians : alfo Paul Bayn Diocef. Tryal. § 2. The Argument from exprefs command in Scripture which hein- fifteth on, is Mat. 20. 25-, 26, 27, 28. and Mark 10. 42, 43, 44, 45-. and Luke 22. 25-. We think here is a ftrongand concludent Argument againft Prelacy and for Parity • though we did not call it an exprefs Command- As a foundation for our Argument from this Scripture, let it be considered, that this Difcourfe of Chriftis immediatly and direct- ly to the Apoftles, to whom he was then fpeaking •. and by confe- quence, it may be applyed to all other Orders of Church Officers, ordi«< nary and extraordinay. It is a good confequence, Chrifl here forbid- deth Prelacy among the Apoftles j Ergo* among the ordinary Paftors of die Church likewife. And ergo, among the Elders, whofe. work it is to rule. Sed. IV. ( 4® -) § 2. rule. And ergo, among the Deacons : our Lord is not here faying that there fliall be no diverfity of Degrees, or Orders of Officers, in the Church j- for he hath plainly Initkuted the contrary, i Cor. 12. 28.But among the Apoftles there {hall be no Sovereignty, nor Subje6tion, nei- ther among other Officers who are of the fame Order, and whofe work is the fame. 2. Let it be alfo noted, that our Lord doth not here mention the Tyranny, or abufe of power, that was exercifed among the Heathen Magiftrats, over them who were fubordinate to them ; but only Dominion and Authority, which they might lawfully exercife: fo that what heaimethatis, that there was Subjection and Superiority among the Heathen Rulers ,• butnofuch thing fhouldbe among Church Rulers. ;. Though we deny not that there are, by Chrifts Appoint- ment, divers Orders of Church Rulers ; yet we fee no ground to think that one of thefe Orders is fubjecft to another, or is to be commanded by it: we hold that Minifters have no Jurifdidion over the ruling El- ders ,• but they are co-ordinate in the Government of the Church. Be- fore I ftate our Argument from this Text, I obferve how groundlefly he bringeth this as the chief Topick that we ufe, and ( overlooking all of our iide who have learnedly and fully pleaded that Caufe ) he only eiteth as pleading from this Scripture, Mr. David Dickfon on Matthew ; who toucheth it very tranfientiy, and on occafion of his commenting on that Text : and my Book againft Stillingsfleets Jrenicum, where it is faid exprefly p. 98. I confefs there be other places more unquestionable to our pur- poje : nor do I there ufe that place as an Argument, further than to clear it from the Exceptions of my Antagonift ,• which is here alfo my work. I now draw this Argument from the words cited. That Dominion and Authority that Civil Magiftrats in their feveral Jurifdidions did, and might, exercife over thefe Under-rulers, is not to be allowed in the Church ,• but the jurifdi&ion of Bilhops over Presbyters is fuch a Domi- nion and Authority, fthat is, the one is real Jurifdi&ion as well as the other ) Ergo it ihould not be exercifed in the Church. §3.1 fhall now examine his Anfwers to this Argument. Firft, he faith that Christ here Juppofes Degrees oj Subordination among hit own Dijci- pies, as well as other Societies • and therefore, he faith, this Text reftneth to the Methods of attaining Preferment ,♦ that it muft not be by force, violence, and other Arts that are fo fa(l)ionable in fecular Courts: thus he p t ij, and p. 19. he commandeth them that they Jhould not exercife their Jurijdiclion as the Lords of the Gentiles, by a fyirit of Pride and Domination. This and what follow- Sea. iv. "^ c 41 ) § ? ; followeth he feemeth to have borrowed from Grotim, deimp.fummar potes. circa facra. f e 339. who yet was as little for the Divine Right of Prelacy; as of Parity. To all this I oppone firft, That Chrift fuppo- feth here Subordination among hisDifciples is gratis diclum. I deny not that there is Subordination among them ( taking his Difciples for all Chriftians ; but taking the word for the Apoftles alone we deny it ) and that both in refped of Degree and Authority. The people are fub-= je& to the Rulers ,• one fort of Church Officers is inferior to another ; which they may be, without being fubjed to their Authority : but there as no ground for inferring this Subordination from what is here faid : for mens yjmbition prompts them tc make fuperior Offices in the Churchy that themfelves may enjoy them ,• as well as to afpire to thefe Prefer- ments that are extant and allowed. Again, Chrift faith not, there fhall be no Superiority in the Church ,• but among them 3 the Apoftles. This is evident from the occafion of this Difcourfe ; which was the ambiti- ous addrefs of James and John prefented to Chrift by their Mother; that they might be preferred to the reft of the ^poftles^in that worldly king- dom that they imagined Chrift was to have on Earth : they aimed at fuch Authority as Civil Magiftrats have, the Superior over the Inferior : our Lord telleth them his Kingdom was not of that nam re,- neither was there any fuch Subordinations to be among his Apoftles. 3. That Chrift here recommendeth Humility, and condemneth Ambition and Pride 3 cannot be denyed ; the occafion given for this Difcourfe led him to it: but that this is the only Scope of his Difcourfe, is faid without all Warrant : for he forbiddeth that Dominion and Authority that was among Civil Ru- lers, to have place among them ; which yet might be exercifed by humble men. 4. That hit fcofe it to forbid the exercife of their Apofiolick or Epifcopal Jurisdiction by a @>irit of Pride and Domination , is alfo laid with- out Book ; That this he condemneth, we acknowledge : but that he only condemneth this, and not Monarchical Jurifdi&ion it felf, is a groundlefs fancy, and contrary to the words of the Text, which men- tion the one_, but not the other. He telleth them alfo, Mat. 2;. 8. that they were all brethren : where Qamero obferveth that Damnat rem titu- li$ 'vizAmagifierium &■ authoritatem. j.It cannot be faid, that all the Ru- lers among the Gentiles, were proud and tyrannical ,• though not a few were fuch : but here Chrift forbiddeth that Domination that was among the Heathen ( yea it may extend to Chriftian ) Magiftrats, whether they obtain it ambifiouily, and exercife it tyrannically, or not. Jrjball F not Seft.IV* ( 4* ) § ?, 4. »ef ky« ( as in the Civil State where Dominion and Authority is exer- cifed ) among you. The two Brethren fought an Authority which they fancied would be in Chrifts Kingdom ; not which he intended or inlti- tuted : and our Lord not only told them that no fuch thing was to be expected by any perlbn in his Kingdom, that one Apoftle Jrouid be a- bove another, or one of the ordinary Paftorsof the Church /hould have Jurifdi&ion over another ,• and fo of the other Orders of Church Ru- lers : but he alfo reproveth their Ambition in fo feeking fuch prefer- ment, if any fuch thing were to be in the Church. § 4. His fecond Exception sgainft our Argument is, p. 18. The Jpo- ftles exercifedjuch Jurifditiion over infer i--r Ecclefiafiicks 3 therefore they did not fo understand Q^hrifis words 3 at forbidding all Prclation in the Church, This is furrjcientiy obviated by what is already faid : they did not underftand it as forbidding all Prelation in the Church ,• but among themfelves. : It [ball not be Jo among you. Yea, they did not underftand it as forbid- ding Superiority of Degree or Order.; but Jurifdiclionover Church Ru- lers ,* fuch as is in the Civil State, over inferior State Rulers. His third Exception, which he faith dot-h baffe and expofe this Argument to all Intents and Purpofes(b'ig words^as his manner is, when the Matter is very improportionate ) that he ( our Lord ) did that himfelf among them, which now he commanded them to do to one another ,• avd therefore the doing of that toward one another ', in obedience to the Command, jhould not infer a Parity •, unlefs they blajfhemoufly infer, that Qhrift and hit Apojtles were equal. This is far more eafily baffled, and more expofed; if what hath been faid be duely confidered. But further that our Lord fetteth before them an Ex- ample of Humility., and being far from ambitious Afpiring, doth no ways infer their Paritie with him ; unlefs he were here only difcharging Paritie among the Apoftles ; which we do not fay, but have aliened the contrary. He is alfo condemning the Ambition and Pride that ap- peared in fames and John, and which he well knew would be found in Church men afterwards 3 \ and with refpeel; to that, he fetteth his own Example of Modeiiy and Humility before them. Hence it appeareth that there is no Infatuation in owning the Scheme of Parity ( as he fancieth jp» 19. ) but rather that drawing fuch a Confequence from that Scheme, defervcth that Reproach* That the Apoftie Paul, and the Fathers of the Church, carried as Servants under the Apoitoiical or Epifcopal Dig- nity, prove ch nothing againft us: befide that we own no Epifcopal Dignity in the Fathers ,• but ihall controvert it with him when he will. If Sear. IV. ( 4; ) § 4, f, \{Walo Mefjalinm ( as he faith />♦ 20+ j /» 22, &c falleth on another of our Arguments, which ( he faith ) is taken from the Homonymie of Bijliop and Tresbyter, and the Dichotomizing of the Clergy into Wijhops and 'Deacons, in the New Tefiamentl and he referreth us to Coteh in Ep: Clement: who faith, that in thefe Epiftles, Solide demenfiratur s argumentum d ccnfujicne nominum ne^uaquam jurisdiclionem & autoritatem Epifcoporum fupra Tresbyteros labefaffare pojje. Had he produced to us thefe folid Demonftrations, we fhould have confidered them : my work is to anfwer his Book, not all the Books that he thinketh fit to refer us to, or that he hath found cited, and re- commended by fome Author that he hath feen or heard of. Before I ccme to examine what he bringeth to weaken this Argument, I mult obfeivehow unfavourably • yea how unfairly he reprefenteth it. In order to this the Reader may know, that Presbyterians do not argue from the confufion of Names, nor from the Dichotomy of Church Offi- cers alone. We know there are few or none of them who do not fome- times interchange Names : an Apoftle is called &idxom, alfo Vrcsbyten, as any Embaffador of Chrift ( yea of the Churches ) is called Jpoftk : all ruling Officers are called Bijhops. Likeways Diochotomys are ufed where one of the divident Members may be fub-divided. Our Author had dealt more candidly, if he had represented our Argument in its full ftrength : efpecially confidering that the Authors whom he citeth as u- fing this Argument, do not fo ftate it as he doth. Smettymx argueth from the fame Names, and the fame Offices, given to Bifhop and Pres- D3'ter, f: 17: Altar: Damafr: p: 204: argueth from the perpetual confu- fion of thefe Names, and that the Scripture never difringuifheth them. Mr. Durham, on Revel, p. 224. edit. Lend* 164811 mentioneth frequent and univerfal confounding of them. The other Authors whom he ci- teth 1 have not at hand, nor need I call for them : what is faid being enough to Ihew how hemurdereth our Argument fecretly, left it be too hard for him if he deal fairly with it- He fhould alfo have confidered that this Argument is not brought only by the latter Presbyterians ,• but by the Fathers alfo, as Mr* Durham mewethp: 224: & fef. But I mail not now infift on their Teftimonies, they may after fall to be brought in. § 6 This being premifed, our Argument is this. In Scripture the names Bifhop and l^resbyter are always ufed for the fame Church Offi- cer,- neither are two forts of Officers ever diftinguifhed by thefe names,- nor are did in& Offices, or forts of Work, implyed by thefe names ,• nor when Se&. IV. ( 4f ) § 6, 7; when Church Officers are dichotomifed into Bifhops and Deacons, do any other Scriptures give ground to think that fome of thefe Bifhops had Jurifdi&ion over others ? Ergo, there were no Diocefan Bijh'ops, Ju- re Divino- Or,our Argument may be framed thus '•> where the Scripture ufes neither diftincl: Names, nor maketh difrind Offices, nor giveth dif- ferent Rules, or Injunctions, about their Work, or Qualifications ; there it doth not acknowledge diftind Officers.one ruling over another: but thus it is with Bifhops and Presbyters, Ergo If my Antagonift can bring fufficient ground from Scripture, that Bifhop and Presbyter are found diftind, either name or thing ,* not only this Argument, buc all that we have brought, or that can be brought, muft fall to the ground,- for Scripture cannot be contradicted, neither by Reafon, nor by itfejf Bellarmi de cleri lib: 11: c: i^: § 6, y» could not anfwer this Argument otherways, than by faying, thefe Names -were confounded in the Apoftks days $ but the Church did afterward difiinguijh them : So alfo horinus, in dels 20: faith, they "were then one, OH the word PopewxH firfi afplyedto all Church menofnotei and indeed the Prelacy of a Bifhop over Presbyters, and of a Pope over Bifhops, had the fame Original, though the one was fome latter than the other. A notable Confirmation or this Argument may be drawn from the Syriack Tranllation ( the oldeft and neareft to the Greek, as Walton demonftrateth Apparat: ad Bjkk Polyglot: p: 90; which never ufeth the word Bijhop at all, but only "$ ®ij. Presbyter, or Senior, .from $t?j^ confenuit : and tn-ittKBJj3 Vresbyteratm. §7. I come to examine what my Antagonift bringeth againft this Argument* He aifaults it briskly, calling it Childijh, and Sopbiftical, p: 22. which he might the better do, becaufe he had put it in his own drefs, and had concealed itsftrength from his Reader and himfelf He faitt^ it is not material whether we own a Bijhop to be of the fame, or a diffe- rent order fr&m a Presbyter: This I take for a Conceflion : he faith, in or- der to the PrieBhoed, and with refyeBto fub ordinate Chunk : Officers, they are of the fame order : But when Authority and JurifdiBion is named, the Biflwp (with regard to his Dignity and*Power) is always reckoned above a Presbyter* I know not well how to reconcile this DiftinCtion with his denying this Queftion to be material : for what he here afferteth is fo material, that it containeth the main thing in debate between Frelatifts and- Presby- terians* Far lefs do I underftand how it appeareth, that in Scripture ( for of that we now debate, whether Bifhop and Presbyter are iookt on as the fame in Sacred Writings ) a Bifhop is always reckoned above a Presbyter, Sed. IVi ( 46 ) § 7 . Presbyter,, where Authority andjurifdi&ion is mentioned. I confefs I am unacquainted with fuch Paflages of Scripture ; I wiih he had named fome of them for our Inftruction We bring to the contrary aQs 20: 28: Hilt 1: u zTimx %: 1: ail which himfeif mentioneth. The firft thing that he oppofeth to our Argument is, that />• 23: he proveth at great length, that the Jews, both in the fir ft ages o[ -that Church, and alfo afterward, did dichotomife their Clergy into ?rieHs and Levites • though there was a High VrieH above the other briefs } who alfo had their Subordinations. And therefore ( faith he ) the Apotfles and Apoflolick men made ufe of the current Vhrafeology : thus he ft 25-. I Ihall not contradid: him in this AfTertion s nor be much concerned what refpeft the Apoftles had to the Phraieolo- gy ufed by the Jews. But nothing of this meeteth with our Argument ; unlets he will affirm, and prove, that this Dichotomy was fo ufed as that no Diftin&ion was ever made, either by Name, or any other Cha- racter, of the High Prieft from the reit • or of the Heads of thefeveral Orders of Priefts : David, by the Spirit of God, diitinguilhed them from thefe Priefts that were under their Charge. If he prove not this, he faith nothing to the purpofe . and this he will not, 1 hope, attempt, the Scripture being fo full and plain to the contrary ,• and that in all the ages of the Jewilri Church, from Aaron to Chrifi. If he will let us foe thefe fpecial Mafieries and Jurijditlions whereby Bijhops were in the New Tejtament, difiinguijhedfrcm Vre>byttrs, as he COnfelieth p 26. T>e High Prieit was diftinguiihed from the other Priefts, even in thefe times when he faith the diftin&ion of Names was leaft noticed, we Jhall pafs from this Argument as inconcludent : but this he can never do ; neither hath he attempted it s wherefore our Argument is not y et touched by him. I Jhall not adventure to lift my felf among his Ignoramus's, whom he fetteth that mark on, that think he pleadeth that there ought to be a Bijhop above Presbyters, becaufe there was a High Vrieft among the Jews ,• though fome of his Brethren ufe this Plea, and himfeif in the very next words feemeth not to be very far from it, while he faith, but rather thus ( I plead ) that tht Hierarchy that obtained in the Patriarchal and Jewifh es£co- nomie, was never abrogated in the new. If it be not abrogated, fure it ftandeth in force, and is of Divine Right to this day : and if fo, we muft have Jure Divino, not only a Bilhop over the Presbyters of every Province, but a Pope over all thefe, for fo it was in the J e with /Econo- my, §8. He Sea. L - ( 47 ) , S 8. § 8. He faith p. 28. that thefirfi Presbyter, or npc««^ in the ApoBotick are, he that was veBed with a Proftafia, was as much above the fubordinate fresbyters, & the High Vrieft among the Jews 7vas above other friefts. This is boldly afferted ; but we fee no proof for it. We deny not that in their Meetings there was one who prefided ; but that there was one diftinguifhed from the other Presbyters who had this for his Work con- ftantly, we find not : alfo that the frafes in thefe Meetings, had the fame power ( either Extenfive or Intenhve ) with the High /'rieft among, the Jews, is an abfurdand unproved Affertion. The Conceffion made by Salmaftu maketh nothing againir us ; viz. that there was a f rsefes : but that that learned Author held, that in the Apoftolick age there was one perfon to whom the p r otocathedria was conftantly due, we deny • though we yield that in after ages this ufage was brought in ; yet with- out Superiority of Power. He faith p. 29. that there arefuch manifefi and palpable Evidences of this peculiar Honour and Jurifdiclion due to one of the Ec~ clefiaftical Senate, in the ApoBolick age, that the learned Sticlersfor Paritie can- not deny it. His proof of this he bringeth from the Apocalyptick Angeh, from Timothy and Titus, and from the Succejjion ofl&ijhops gathered about the middle of thefecond Century : and this proof he will have to be be-- yond all contradiction. Here were a large Field for Obfervations, if one were in the humour toexpofe this Difcourfe. I ihall take no further no- tice of his grefs Miftakes, than the Vindication of Truth maketh necef- fary. Firft, whoever they be thatftickle for paritie, and yet acknow- ledge a Jurifdi&ion due to fome of the Ecclefiaftical Senat • either in the Apoftolick, or the next following Ages, they are not only not the learnedft men ; but they cannot be reckoned men of a common meafure of Underftanding : what man of Senfe will ftickle for an Opinion, and yet exprefly yield it to his Adverfary : I deny not but fome Presbyteri- ; ans yield, that early in the primitive times there was a peculiar Honour given to the UfoWa ^ but that any of them do carry itfo high as the A- poftolick age, is more than I know : I wifh he had named them, and ! pointed to the places where thefe Concefltons are found in their Wri- ; tings : far lefs do I know any that owneth a peculiar Jurifdi&ion • for that were indeed to yield the Caufe : for the main thing in Difpute is, (whether one of the fresbyters hath Jurisdiction over the reft. 2. it had been more futeable to thedefign and high pretenfes exprefted in his Book, I to confound us, and rout our Caufe, with thefe manifeft and palpable Evidences 3 - than to tell us of them in general : Jprofefs /have hitherto 5eft. IV. ( 4M ^' § 8,9. feen no fuch Evidences in any of their Writings. %. The Evidences that he mentioned!, the Angels in the Revelation, &c are neither pal- pable nor manifeft Proofs of fuch Jurifdi&ion : he knoweth that all that hath by his Party been brought from thcfe Topicks hath been Difouted, and has, I judge, been abundantly anfwered : and that Sticklersfor Pa- ritie, both the learnedft and the lefs learned, have reje&ed thefe Evi- dences,- and denyed the Conclufion they were brought for ; and I in- tend to debate them with him as they fhall fall in. 4. That the Cata- logues of Bifhops gathered in the rnidle of the fecond Centurie, mould be a manifeit and palpable Evidence for their peculiar Jurifdi&ion in the Apoltolick age, is beyond my Comprehenfion : for the Catalogues do not determine what was their power ,• and thefe who made thefe Col- lections, are not fo infallible that their AiTertion mould be a manifeft and palpable Evidence of the Truth of what they faid. § 9. That nothing was ever done in Ecclejiafiical Meetings, Ganonically 3 without the Bijlwps particular Advice 3 and Authority • ( as heargueth p» 29.) is of no force :becaufe fir ft,we know not what he will call Canonical!? done: if he think nothing was canonically 'done without a DiocefanBiJhop: this is to beg the Queftion,and not to argue for his Conclufion.2. 7f he mean that nothing was done in their Meetings without a Moderator, who prefided among them, and did, with the reft, authoritatively Confult and De- termine ,- this we grant: but it maketh nothing for him. 3. What he meaneth by the Bifhops particular Advice and Authoritie, /cannot well guefs. If he mean that he Advifed and Determined with the reft • that is what we hold. If, that he had a negative Vote,* fo that all the reft could do nothing without his confent, he ought not to call for Froof from us againft that $ the Probation is to be expected from him, who af- firmeth ic If, that he determined by himfelf, and the reft were but his Council, this we deny alfo, and he muft prove it. It is enough, that we prove that others with the Bi&op, Moderator, or Vrafes 3 did ma- nage the Affairs of the Church : for which the Arguments above brought may be thought fufficient. What followeth in feveral pages, is to prove, that the jews and Grecians did fometimes Dichotomize their Clergy ,• yet at other times they mentioned the Diftindtions of the High Priea from other PriePcs .* fo of the Biihops from the Presbyters. This would indeed weaken our Argument, if it had no more force than he giveth it; if we had argued fimply from the Church Officers being fometimes divided into Bifhops and Deacons, without diftinguifliing Bifhops, or Presbyters Sea. IV. ( 49 ) § % 10. Presbyters among themfelves. But our Argument being taken not only From this indiftin&ion of Presbyters in fome, but in all places where they are mentioned ; and alfo from the Scripture not diftinguiftiing them by their Offices, Work, Qualifications, or the Injunctions that are given them about their Work : thefe Diftin&ions of Presbyters thatfome of the Ancients ufe., make nothing againft our Argument : unlefs he can prove that when they mean Bifhops as diftincl from ?resbyters,they afcribe alfo a fuperior power to them, which he often afferteth, but ne- ver proveth. We confefs that after the Apoftles age, the name hijhop began foon to be appropriated to the frafes in the Presbyterie ,• but in the three firft Centuries the Billiop did not rule alone, nor had fuperior power to the reft. I have lately defended againft another of our Epif- copal Brethren : and (hall alfo endeavour it againft the Affaults of this Author, when he mall pleafe to attempt this proof. Mean while I am not concerned further to Anfwerwhat he infifteth on to p. 39. ( where he engageth with another of our Arguments ) than to examine fome few Hints that feem to be intended as argumentative, wherewith his Dif- courfe is interfperfe.d. § 10. .Hetelleth us ^ %n that Cyprian ajfertS the Jurifdiclion and Prero- gative »f the Epifcopal power , upon all occajions, with great Courage and Kfju- rance. What my laft Antagonift brought for this end, out of the Wri- ting of that holy Martyr, 1 have endeavoured to Anfwer: with what fuc- ccfs, it is not mine to judge ,• if this Author will either re-inforce the fame Citations, or bring new ones, I /hall not decline the Debate with him. That Polycarpt ( as he hath it, p . %z.) difinguijheth him/elf from the fubordinate Presbyters, while he infcribeth hit Eptflle, polycarp, and the Presbyters that are with him. Who ( faith our Author ) if he had Hood on a Tucvel with thefe Presbyters , would never have diftinguifoed himjelf from the Community of hit Brethren. This reafoning ( I fay ) is fo remote from Concludencie, that our Author hath not consulted his own Credite in ufing it. For firft, whatever prioritie of Dignity may be hence infer- red, as Volycarp being an older man than the reft, or Vrafes in the Meeting ; it is ridiculous to infer from this, either Superiority, or fo- litude of power. 2. Volycarp might be the Author of the Epiftie, and the reft Aiienters to it ,• that might give occafion to his bemg named. 3. Will any fay, that when a Letter is thus dire&ed to a Presbyterie, for N Moderator s and the reH of the Brethren, of the Vresbyttrie 0] £, that this inferreth Epifcopal Jurisdiction in the perfon of him who is fo named? G Such Sea. IV. fp ) 5 *o.' Such ftuffis not worth refuteing. P. 33. He telleth us that Her mas re- proveth fome who slrove for the firfi Dignity and Preferment : and if there wot no fuch Precedency then in the Church, there was no ground for hit Repre- henJJon. Afage nugas. have not fome ftriven for unlawful Prefeimer ts, as James and John did for a Dominion in the Church, like that of the Lords among the Gentiles ? Yea, we deny not all prefeiment in the Church : m ly. not fome ambitioufly ftsive to be a Miniiter, or an El- der, yea, or a Deacon ? All which are Preferments, if compared with the people : and may not a Presbyterian Minilter ltrive to be Modera- tor, without defigning Epifcopal Jurifdiftion. That Blondel, Salmafim, and Dally, laboured to fupport this Argument, as our Author reprefents it, is faily aiierted, p. % $-. As is alio, that this Opinion ( about Parity ) was never heard of before the days of Aerius. If he would attempt to prove all that he confidently afierteth, his Book would fwell to a great Bulke. Sir Thomas Craig ( whofe Memory is venerable in the learned World ) mult here alfo be laihed, as ignorant of Divinity , and of the Fathers., becaufe he was prebyterianly inch ed 1 rind nothing more that is obfervable, or that can derogate from the ftrength of our Argument, as Hated by us, in this his Difcourfe * only his unmannerly, as well as falfe, Affer- tion, p. 58. thatffo Ecckfiafikal Levellers ( fo in reproach and contempt he calieth the Presbyterians ) flee to this Argument as their firfi and lasi Refuge • and yet nothing is more frivolous and trifling. He may fee, 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 foiide An* fwer to this Argument, reprefented in its full Strength. SECTION V, Teftimonies from Antiquity which my Antagonifi pretendeth to wreH from us Vindicated, E mentioneth thele p. 9. as our third Argument for Parity. Where- as if he had thought fit to read what hath been written on our fide ; he might have found thrice as many more, and of more ftrength than any thing that he maketh us to fay. But this, and the two Arguments above debated with him,are all that he will allow us to have on our fide His Introdu&ion to this piece of his Work fmells rank of fuch a temper of mind as I am not willing to name ,• while he cal- ieth Bed. V. ( ft ) § | leth them who poffeffed the Government, and Revenues of the Church, Atheifts and Enthufiafis ,• and that without exception or Limitation. Thus are all the Presbyterian and Congregational Minifters of England ( as well as others ) charactered by him. We will not retaliate ,• but the learned and religious world had, and have another Efteem of not a few who then were in the Miniftry ; and judge that Atheifm, and other finful Evils, have beendiffufed into the Church after that time,* though we deny not that then it was too manifeft among fome. He faith that Blondel employed all hit Skill to make the Antients contradict them/elves, and all contemporary Records, This I pafs as a piece of his ufual and ground- lefs Confidence. He faith, when Blonde? i Book appeared, the Presbyteri- ans concluded ( before ever they read it ) that it was all pire and undenyable Demonstration. And that his Cottntreymen ( the Sects Presbyterians)' think they need no other Anfwer to what is written againji them, but - to fay that Epifcopacy, and all that can be found for k 3 U quite ruined by Blonde I y andSalmafm : and yet that few of them read them. It is not manly fo to defpife an Adverfary whom one undertaketh to refute ; neither is it Wifdom to fpend fo many hours, as he hath done, to argue the Cafe with them who are fo defpicable : nor is it Chriftian fo to undervalue others whofe Praifes are in the Gofpel ,• which I am fure may be faid of fome eminent Presbyterian Writers ; who now having ferved then- Generation, enjoy their Reward : but it is his way thus to fupply what is wanting in the ftrength of his Arguments. I wonder who - told him that the Presbyterians did fo extoll BlondePs Book before they read it ; or that few of them have read him, and Salmafim. Who of us ever laid, that faying Blondel and Salmafim had ruined Epifcopacy, was a fufficient Refutation of it ? May not we, without fuch blame, commend the Works of thefe learned Men, as well as he p. 40. telle th us that every Line of them is fuffciently expofed 5 and frequently ,• and for this cryeth up the Bijhop of Chefter. He faith, wejhut our eyes again ft the clearest Evidences : that we think that Blondel'* Book may barre all Dictation on that Headi that we refufe to enter into clofs Engagement with them. Thefe are a par- cel of Words in which there is no Truth <* and if we ftiould Retort eve- ry Syllable of them on himfelf ( I fay not on his whole Party, among whom, I know, there are learned Men, who would be aJhamed of this manner of pleading their Caufe) how ihould this Conteit be decided '? Some who have fpent more of their Years in Reading, than this Author hath "done •- and aifo have given better proof of it ; have not fo infult- Q 2 ed Se&. v. ( $-2 ) s i, ed over their Adverfaries, as men of no Reading. There is alfo little ground given for his infilling on this,as one of our main Arguments^for tho the Presbyterians will not part with the Suffrage of the Fathers, while the Controverfieis about paritie of Church power, and the Jurif- di&ion of one Presbyter over the reft ,• yet they ufe oftner toad: the de- fenfive' part, with refped: to Antiquity, that is latter than the Canon of the Scripture : and which is of more weight, they never laid the ftrefs of their Caufe on Humane Teftimony ; but build their Opinion on the Sacred Writings. But feing he is pleafed to lead us in this way, we are willing to engage with him ( as clcjly as he will ) on this Head : and to debate both on whofe fide the Fathers are, his or ours ,• and whether their Teftimony be fo convincing as he pretendeth it to be. § 2. Although I do much diflike my Antagonifts rude Treatment of fo great a man as Blondel was, faying that he fiudyed to pleafe the Indepen- dents, rather than the Presbeterians } becauje they were then more potent and numerous ; C fo p. 42. J and calling his Arguments c^ildifh Reafonings : p. 4;. Yet I do not undertake to make it appear, that every Teftimo- ny he bringeth from the Fathers is fully concludent, by it ielf. ] ob- ferve alfo, that this Author, though he profefleth to anfwer the Citati- ons brought by Blondel, yet medleth but with a few of them, and thefe none of the moft evident ,• except what Blondel bringeth out of lerom : The firft Teftimony that he mentioneth is, the Infcription of Clements Epiftle to the Corinthians, written from Rome ,• which is, » «*«Aw07/y.The Queftion is not how the word Deacon may be ufed in fome cafes, & on fome occafions,* but what Clement here underftandeth by it : I affirm, that it is abfurd to underftandit here in that Latitude that our Author fancicth. For firit, his meaning fhould be, the Apoftles appointed in the Churches that they fettled, Apoftles, Bifhops, Presbyters, and Attendents ©n Ta- bles : fo that every Church in every Village, mull have its Apoftle, andBiihop too ,• befide inferior Officers. 2. If Clement had fo meant, it was fuperfluous to mention Bifhops and Deacons too : it had been e- nough to tell the Corinthians, that the Apoftles fettled Deacons ,- that is, Officers in Churches ,- feing all forts are fignified by Deacons. 3: To fay that Presbyters are to be underftood by Deacons, rather than by Bi- Ihops, is without .all imaginable ground : the woid Presbyter is as largely ufed in Scripture, as that of Deacon-, if we thus, at pleafure, expound Names, or rather Words, we may maintain what we will. 4. This Dichotomy being ufed onfuch a deiign, as to inform the people what were the ordinary Officers in the Church, by Apoftoiick Warrand, that they were to have regard to ,• it would not anfwer it^ end, if there were Bi- fhops whom they and the Presbyters mult obey : for either they were to underftand that the Presbyters were comprehended under the word Bi(hops • but then they had no Inftrudion about the Ruling Bifhop, and the Teaching Biihop, as diftin&, and how they Jhouid regard each of them : or under the word Deacon ; and then thuy were at as great a lofs lofsj what fort of Deacons he meant ; whether the Rulers or Servants of the Church. 5". Though the word Deaccn 3 be often apply ed to any who ferve God in publick Office in his Church, ( yea., or in the State) yet that ever the R*lers, or Teachers of the Church are fignified by it when it is ufed diftinclively from fome other fort of Church Officers fas it is here ) is more than I know. § 4 Another Anfwer he bringeth to this Paffage of Clement , p 46. that Clement jfteaketh not of Ecclefafical Policy D as it was at las't perfected by the Apofoles ; but of the prsl beginnings of the Cbrifiian Church, immediatly after the KefurretUon of Chrift. Reply, If it be granted, that atfirft t s, e A* poftles fettled Churches to be ruled by Presbyters, and ferved by Dea- conSj as this Anfwer feemeth to yield ,• they muft let us know the Grounds on which they believe that the Apoitles did alter this Policy, and fetBilhopsover the Churches that they had once thus fettled * we find no Warrand in Scripture for this Conceit ; though I know that fome of our Prelatick Brethren affirm, that the Churches were govern- ed by Presbyters, under the Inflection of the Apoitles while they li- ved ,• but after their Death, Bi(hop& were appointed to rule over them. We may rationally expedfc that they fhould give us good affurance for this Change 3 « which yet I have not feen : if they will bring Arguments for it, we mall confider them. A 4th Anfwer he bringeth p. 47, that Qlemenfs words cannot bear fuch Parity as Presbyterians plead for ,* becaufe he doth alfo Dichotomife the yewijh clergy : among vhom ?vere the High *PrieJl 3 Chief Pries!}, Priesls, andLevites. Reply* l£ Chment, when he fo di- vides the Jewiih Clergy., were on purpofe inftrudting us how, and by whom the Affairs of the Jewifti Church were managed, this Anfwer were pertinent •' but if this Diftin&ion be ufed occafionly, without this, defign, it is not at all to the purpefe ; in the one cafe Diftinciion is required ; in the other cafe, it is enough to exprefs the thing in gene- *al, and undiftinguiflbed terms. He bringeth yet a $th Anfwer, p 47, ).8.That Clement exhorting the % Qorinthians to Order and Harmony Jet teth before hem the beautiful Subordinations under th'e Temple Service ,• a?id immediatly. •ecommends tothem, that every one jhould continue* w vo ihQTa,y}j.&.rt, in~ hit- rum order. Kejdy. If this Reafoning be at all figniticant, it will conclude, here mutt be a Pope, as well as Bi&ops,. in the Chriftian Church : as here was a High Prieft overall the Prieils, and other Jews. We muft hen underfrand Clement, that there mult be Order in the Chriftian vhurchj as well -as in the Jewifa Church 3 - and every one muft keep with* in Se6t. V« ( $6 ) § 4, j. in the Station that God hath fet him ins but it noways hence follow- ed^ that there muft be the fame Degrees of Church Officers in the one that was in the other. What he citeth out of Jerome, Ep. ad Ewagr: admitteth of the fame Expofition ,• and is plain to be the whole that Je- rome intendeth by thefe words, quod Aaron & filii ejus atque Lcvita in Templo f iterant, hoc fibi Epifcopi & Presbyteri vendicent in Ecclefia : viz , Thar, as in the Temple, there was a Subordination of the Levites to* Aaron and his Sons, lb fhould the Deacon be to the Presbyter, whom Jerome, through that whole Epiftle, proveth, to be the fame with the Biftiop. But it is like we may afterward hear more of this from our Au- thor. A 6th Anfwer is p. 48, 49. ( for this Citation galleth him fore, and makethhim look on all hands for Relief) Clement himjelf difiinguifh- eth the nytywru from the *pi , § i,6. and Patron ) and he pleadeth that fucbU had well done the work of a B#- (hop Jhould not be turned out, for the holy Vresbyters "who have finifoed their Courfe, need fear no Change. And after flieweth, how abfurd it was that the mofi ancient Church of 'Corinth (it had then ftood, as it is thought,about 2C years ) fhould move Sedition againft her Vresbyters : fome turbulent Spi- rits among them withftood, not a iingle Biihop(of whom not a word in all this Difcourfe ) but the Presbyters of the Church : and he advi- feth the Seditious rather to depart, that the Flock of Chrift might en- joy Peace, P i7 * 7e *v KnSimnivav TwCvrif a v * with the Vresbyters that were fettled in it : it feems he did not name the Bimop, nor provided againft Sedition againft him ,- becaufe he knew no fuch perfon at Corinth. And again he biddeth them be Jubjetl to the Vresbyters. Now all this infill- ed on by Blondel, he paffeth by (which was his wifdom ) and infirteth only on the Dichotomie of the Clergy ; which hath far lefs weight than thele Paffages have. § 6. He next taketh to Task what Blondel citeth out of Poly carp; which is, that writing to the Church of Philippi, he taketh no notice cf their Bijhop : that he biddeth them be fubjecl to the Presbyters and Deacons, not mentioning the Bijhop, but a plurality of Presbyters which was in that one Church. His Anfwer to all this is, firft, that Blondel himf elf taketh notice that Poly carp difiinguifheth himfelf from the refi of the Vresbyters, while he faith, Polycarp and the Presbyters that are with him to the Church in Philippi : and that by this he affumes a kind of V relation above the refi of the Presbyters at Smyrna. He fancieth that this is mighty un- eafie to blondel : but it had been more ingenious to tell us that Blondel brings this as an Objection againft himfelf and anfwereth it fully and eafily. calling it nuda Conjeftura, and giving feveral Reafons for Poly- carp's naming himfelf * from his being the older man, and the older Mini- fter. And being ordained by an Apojlle ( which was a Dignity, though it gave no Superiority of Power ) as being-better known to the Philippians : and WWe/ bringeth abundance of parallel l^affages, where no Superio- rity of Power can be imported. Ail this our Author paffeth over in fi- lence, Next he faith, this is Bill the Bipartite divifon of the Clergie, which. is a miftake^ for here is Subjection required to Presbyters in Commune,- which could not all be Diocefans : and their Head, the Bifhop, is not noticed : and his Dichotomic here is Argumentative,- be- caufe ( as was above fhewed of Clement ) he is telling them what Church Officers they fhould refped : where the Bifhop was chiefly to be mentioned, if fuch a perfon had been in that Church.He will prove, H d. $% Sea V. ( 58 ) 6,7. ^.'f'i: that this can be no Argument for Parity. Becaufe firft, henaus refutes the Herejies of the Valentians, from the unanimous Doclrine preferred among the Jingle Succefors 0/Polycarp ,• which could be no Argument , if the Ecclefiafiical Tower of the Church of Smyrna had been equally lodged in the Colkdge of Presbyters, I ask him, how doth the Parity of Church power weaken this Argument ? Do net Miniftersin any Church., fucceedone to another, as well as Bifhops ? And if they be faithful, they will con- tinue the true Do&rine, and hand it down to their Succeitors, as well as Bifhops would do. Neither hath it any force, that fingle Succeilbrs are mentioned ; for if there were more Flocks and Pallors \n Smyrna, there was one Moderator in the Presbyterie ,• who is mentioned as more eminent, though having but equal power. If there was but one Paftor and many ruling Presbyters ,• he and his Succelibrs did preferve the Truth by faithful Doctrine, not by Epifcopal power. His other proof is, the Epi files of Ignatius are z,ealoufly recommendtd in that Epifile of PoXy- carp; in which Epifcop\:l Jurifdiclion is aferted : of which cur t. uthor will fpeak in due time. When he (hall pleafe to fpeak of Ignatius, we {hall confider what he faith ; and hope to find, that all the proof he can thence bring is infurricient. Mean while it is an odd way of arguing ^ an Author commenderh a Book, Ergo, he approveth all that is in it. If he had laid Poly carp commendeth Ignathts's Epiftles, in that they affert Prelacy, that had been to the purpofe ; otherways his Inference is without all force* § 7. The next Father cited by Blonde! is Hernias, in his Book called Vajlor: on whom he lay eth very little ftrefs, as is evident to any who will read Blondel, without prejudice : and I think Blondel needed not to have mentioned him : both becaufe he is of little Authority,- it being moft uncertain what Hermas was the Author of that Book ,• whether he mentioned Rom, 16. 14. or the brother of Pius : Blondel bringeth not a few Authors on both fides. AlfO this Hermas faith little either for or a- gainft Parity. . I obferve feveral things of my Antagonifts conduct with refpec~t to Hermas. 1. Hepretendeth to bring two palpable Evidences from him, that Epifcopacy was the Ecclefiafical Government when that T$ook was . written : which he laboureth to prove p. y* becaufe the fending circular Letters u insinuated to be the peculiar priviledge of Clement, then Bijhop of Rome. Anfwer. .This Evidence ( and the other will be found to be- like it ) is fo far from being palpable, that it is not intelligible, how this ( to a Proteftant ) mould be an Evidence for Epifcopacy : forfirft, if it prove any thing to his purpofe, it will prove the Papacy : viz. that Clement Se&* V. ( $9 ) § 7 3 8.- Clement Bifhop of U«w« 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 reiided in the Im- perial City, which had Correfpondence with all places in the Empire, The 2d palpable Evidence is, that Herman reproveth fane who were ambitious to exalt themfel f ues i & primam Cathedram habere : whence he wifely in- ferreth ,• If there be no Power, there can be no abufe of it. To which I anfwer, I wiih there were no Ambition but among the Prelatifts, May not one who is a Presbyterian in his Prof effion, ftrive to kt up Epifco- pacy, that he may be a Biihop ? Was there Epifcopacy in the Church of Scotland anno 1660, and 61, when ambitious Men laboured, and pre- vailed to make a prima Cathedra, that themfelves might poilefs it ? And might there not be fuch in the days of Hermu • as there appeared to be afterward, and as was in the Apoilles times, when Diotrephes was mark- ed as a ftkvjrpbrivw 2. There is a prima Cathedra even among the Pref- byteriansj the Moderator's Chair,and there may be Ambition in feek- ing after even that pettie Preferment. The ?rincipatw that he after inentioneth, may have the fame fignification : it doth not always figni- fie Authority ; but often a Superior Dignity. The next thing 1 obferve is, he negleð ( as is cuftomary with him )that which feemeth to have the moft itrength,among the Paiiages cited by Blondel out of Hermai^viz. which laft words blondel tranila ted, tu ante renunciabu Yresbytens Eccle- Jite. JSiblieth: Patrum, hath it thus, T« aittem leges in hie Civ it ate cum Presbyter U qui prafunt Ecclefiifhdp,if he had been alive,is faid without ground •• if he had been abfent they might have done it : as I have elfe where ihewed, that the Presbyters at Carthage did in Cyfrians retirement. If he could be with them it was irregular to ad without him, as being their Tr&fes ,• though having no majority of power. Be- fore I pafs from this Argument, I obferve a greater ftrength in it, than Blondel hath mentioned, or my Antagonift hath attempted to anfwer: for clearing which, we muft refledon the Hiftory from which the Ar- gument is drawn : which is Marcion, the Son of a Biihop in V C ntm^ for a- lewd Ad that he had committed ( ob Matum per fummum nefas Virgim fiuprum ) was driven away from the Communion of the Church, by his own Father,* on which occafion 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 Difturbance. Now the Argument that we draw from this Paffage is, noronly that the Presbyterie didnot rejed his Petition as being incompetent Judges in that Cafe ; but their Anfwer implyeth a Recognition of their power in this Matter: for they tell him, ° T ' * Avw^s-J*; we cannot do it without the permifjion of thy worthy Father ( nor this becaufe of his Fathers Epifcopal power, but ) becaufe there is one Faith , and one Agreement ; thel$ond of V- nity between Rome and that Church in fontm ( I think its Name was Sinofe ) and was that which they gave as the reafon of their Refufal * feing he was caft out of one Ghurch,it was not reafonable that he mould be received into another without her confent. Romes HeadiMp was not then known. But what followethis yet ftronger /or our Caufe ,• $ * &wa.>Ai$A iv&YTic&nv*t 7w HetAffl at/K\UT>ifya T«Tf/ this is the way of fome when they are moil at a lofs. This Condud will not take with wife and confidering Men. He telieth of the unconquerable- nefs of Prejudice ( in the Presbyterians no doubt; becaufe they will not yield to his Didats,and what he lookethon as an Argument) and of their miferable Condition in reading the Ancient s, with no other defign than to difiort their words. Before he taxeth us for not reading them, now we read them, but with an ill defign. I mult tell him, it is too much for him either to judge how we are employed in our Clofets, and what Books we read., or what inward defigns we have in our reading. We think he diitorteth the words of the Ancients ( we judge not his defigns in read- ing them ) he thinketh we diftort them, let the Reader judge. Next he reprefenteth us as having Jold our [elves to the Interefl of little Parties- and jhut our Eyes aga'mfi the exprefs Testimonies of thefe Fathers, who/e broken Sen- Unces we torture and abufe, to fupprt Novelties, and more of this Stuff 4 , which it is not fit to anfwer, becaufe of the Wife Man's Advice^ Provi 26- .4. § 10. Now he will p- 62. have the Reader to make an Eftimate of the Presbyterian Candor from two Inftances* The firft is, Blondel citeth the Gallican Church fending Iren^eus to Rome, and calling him a Presby- ter, when he was Biihop o£ Lyons*. Our Author contendeth that he was not then Bithop^ and that Photinus his Predeceffor, was not then dead, This piece of Chronology;' though maintained by; Eufebius, and Jerome, blondel difproveth, by many Au then tick Records^ as he think- eth. And now where is the want of Candor in this cafe ? Is every man who after diligent fearch into Hiftory, doth miftake in Chronolo- gy^ about a Matter of Fad fo difingenious ,- and that to fucha Degree as this Author's Clamour would reprefent. This I fay, fuppofing that Blondel doth miftake in this Matter. - I think it not worth the while to examine the large Difcourfe he hath 5 and the manifold Citations to confirm his Opinion, finding that Debate fomewhat Intricate ( whe- ther Phot'mm was then alive or not^when Ineneus was fent to Rome > and Se&.V. ( 64 ) § fo, ir. called a Presbyter ) and the Matter of it is of no great Confequence. It feems our Author hath been at as little pains as I am at leafure now to take, about this Debate, but referreth you to Dr. Pearfon for fatisfa&i- oji ; and yet he hath the confidence to charge fo great a man as Wondel was, with perplexed Conjectures, and ajfetled Adifiakes : we think it nei- ther Chriftian, nor Manly, norSchoiar like, fo to treat the learned Men of his oppofite Party. The other Inftance, whereby he thinketh to pove want of Candor ', yea Impudence, in the Presbyterians, is p. 63. that we fometimes cite Cyprian on our fide ; and can name nothing plaufibly, but that wretched Quible of the bipartite Divifion of the Clergy, He thinks it needle fi to bringTefrimonies again fl us out of Cyprian, there are fo many : he calleth us alio Scbifmaticks, and fuppofeth that we have not read Cy- prian. Who can ftand before fuch potent Ratiocinations?He referreth the Vindicator of the Kirk to a Book then expedred. I fuppofe he meaneth J. S. his Principles of the Cyprianick age ; which I faw long before I faw 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 fatis- faction about Cyprian's Opinion in the point of Church Government, to the Anfwer to that Book under the Title of the Cyprianick Bifhop exa- mined. In which Book I mall take this occafion to confefs a Chronolo- gical Miftake, ( this Author would have the Charity to call it the want of Candor, or what eife he pleafeth to impute to his AdverfaryJ it is p. 20, near the end, Bafd, and Optatus, are faid to live in the fame Age with Cyprian ,• whereas they lived in the next Century : this was occaii- oned by an over hafty Glance into the Chronological Tables : I hope the Reader will pardon this DigrefTion. Thus my Antagonift leaveth Blondel in quiet poffeflion of the far greateft part, and moft evident Te- ftimonies, that he bringeth out of the Fathers for Parity : fome will think he had better nor begun this Work, than thus leave it imperfed ,• if others have anfwered all blondel's Citations, what he hath done was needlefs, if not, he doth his Work but by halves. § 1 1. I fhall add fome other Teftimonies out of the Fathers ,• which our Author, at his leifure, may coniider ChryfoB: on 1 Tim. 3. asketh the Queftion, why the Aposlle pafiethfrom giving 'D hellions in, and about , the Qualification f offtijhops, immediatly to Deacons , omitting Presbyters : and giveth this Anfwer, that there is almosi no difference between a Bijhop and a Presbyter : and the care of the Church u committed aljo to Presbyters, (which maketh it evident that Chryjoft: did not think that Bifhops ruled alone ) only Sea. V, (6s) SirJ only he maketh the difference to be in Ordination • which he is fo far from looking on as of Divine Inftitution,that he maintaineth,faith Dur- ham, that, in the ApoBles time, Presbyters ordained Bifhops. This fame Au- thor on Tit. r. Homil. 2. by the Elders whom Titus was toordain in every City, underftandeth Bifhops ; becaufe ( faith he ) he would not fet one over the whole I(land: and after ,• for a Teacher jhould not he diverted by the Go- vernment of many Churches ,• but Jhould be taken up in ruling one ' where he maketh the Teacher and Ruler to be the fame perfon : alfo affigneth but the Government of one Church to one man : both which are incon- fiftentwith Diocefan Epifcopacy.A^ro/: in Tim: %. 9. hath this Paffage ; - qui tanta cur a Di aeon 05 eligendos pracepit, quos confiat effe minislros Sacerdo- tum ; quales vult efie Epijcopos, nifi, ficut ipfe ait, irrepraher.fibiles : where he plainly fuppofeth all the Church Officers, who are not Deacons, to be Bi/hops ; and a little after, Pofl Epifcopum tamen Diaconatus ordinatic- nem fubjecit , quare ? nifi quia Epifcopi & Presbyteri una crdinatio efi ,• uter- que enim Sacerdos eft • Epifcopus tamen primus efi ,• ut cmnis Epifcopus Presbyter Jtt, non tamen omn'a ?resbyter Epifcopus > hie enim efi Epijcopus, qui inter Tresbyteroi primus efi : Denique limotheum Presbyterum ordinatum fignificat ; fed quia ante je prior em non habebat, Epifcopus erat. All this feemeth tobe a Defcription of a Presbyterian Moderator : for he giveth the Bifnop no Prelation but that of Precedency, or Priority, to a Presbyter •• and that, not by a new Ordination, which fliouldgive him a fuperior power^ but a Seniority, or Priority of Ordination, which was the way of a Moderator's being fet up at firft ,• but was after changed into Election^ when it was found, that fometimes, the oldeft man was not the fittelt man for that Work. From all this, it is clear, that in the time of Am- brof. ( which was in the fourth Century ) Majority of Power in a Bi- fliop above a Presbyter, was notlookton as fur it Divini; nor that a Bifhop muft have ( after he is ordained a Presbyter ) a new Ordinati- on, or Confecration ,• whereby he getteth Jurifdi&ion over his fellow Presbyters, and their Flocks : I do not deny but that Ambrofe doth, in fome things, miftake the primitive Order of the Church .* and mifun- derftandthe Scripture account that is given of it, wherefore he ingeni- oufly confeffeth on EphefianS 4. 11. thus, ideo non per omnia conveniimi fcripta Aposlolica ordinationi qu* nunc efi in Ecclefia : yet he giveth ground to think, that even then, the Diftinclion between Bifhop and Presby- ter was not arrived at a Majority of Power, orfole Jurifdiciion, I ob- ferve here alfo, obiter, that ordinatio, in the primitive times, did not al- I way s Se&V. (66) fir. ways fignifie authoritative fetting apart one for a Church Office^ which our Author clfe where doth with much zeal plead. If the Reader pleafe to add to thefe, all the TefKmonies cited by Blondel ( which our Author thought not fit to medic with ) he may fee abundant caufe to think, that our Opinion about Paritie is not fo Novel 3 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 efpeciaily, in the Point of Church Government : yet coniideringj that they owned the Reman Hierarchy, a Teftimony from them, or other Papifts, feem- erh to be a Confeflion of an Adverfary, extorted by the force of Truth. Lombard; lik 4: SenPentiar: difi: 4: after he had afferted feven Orders of the Clergy, when he cometh to fpeak of Presbyters, p; 45-1. *Edit; Lo- --, C faith he ) & nomen Epifcopi etf tra&um : and then he citeth Joh. Ep~ 2. and 3, where that Apoftle callethhim- felf Presbyter, or Elder. After all this, the words that thzEnqui- rer citeth, do follow. Quod autem poll ea unus ek&us eft qui ce- teris pr&potwetur^ in Schijmatis remedittm facfuw eft, ne unufquifque Ecclefiam Sed. VL , ( 7% J § 3. Eeclefiam adfetrahns, Chrim Eeclefiam rumperet. Nam & Alex- andras a Marco Evangeliffa, nfque ad Heracleam, & Dionyfium Epifcopos, Presbyter? femper unum ex fe ek&im, in excelfior? gra- du iollatum, Epifcopum nominal ant. Quomodo fi exercitus impe- ratorem faciat^aut Diaconi eligant de fe quern induftrium noverint & Archi-Diaconum voceni* £&?d eum facit Epfcopus, txeepta ordina- tione, quod Presbyter non facit : nee altera Roman* nrbts Ejcclefia, altera totius crbk dtftimanda eji & Gallia , C^ Britannia, & Ori- ens 7 & Perfis, & Judaa, omnes barbara nationcs, unum Chrifium a dor ant, unam obfervant rcgulam veritatfs : Si author it as qusritm, or bis -major eft urbe. ubicunque fuerit Epifc opus five Roma, five Eugubii, five Coniiantinopoli, five Rhcgii, five Alexandria? five Thanis, ejnfdem mcriti ell, cjufdemque Sacerdotii : polentia divi- tiarum & paupertatis humilitas, velfuperio r em vet inferiorem Epif- c'pitm non facit. Caterum omnes Apolioli fuccejforcs funt. After this he propofeth an Objection againft himfelf, from the practice that then was at Rome, that a Presbyter ordinabaturad teftimonium Diaconi : which feemeth to make for the preference of a Deacon before a Presbyter: which, is that he oppofeth through that whole Epiftle; and having anfwered that Objection, and condemned that Practice, he proceeded! thus, fcta-nt quare conHituti Diaconi 5 legant a&a Apojlolorum : recordentur conditionis fid Presbyter & E- pifcopus : ah ud at at is, aliud dignitatis nomen eft r unde ad Tit.& ad Ti7i?: de ordinatione Epifcopi & Diaconi dicitur, de- Presbyterk omn'tno reticein^, quia in Epifcopo & Presbyter coniinetur. ^jii premovtiur de minori, ad majo'em prove hi fur. Aut igitur exPres- bytero ordmetvr Diaconus, vt ( not ant as our Author faith ) Pref- byter minor Diacono comprobetnr,in quern crefcat ex parvo : ant fi ex Diacono ordinetur Presbyter \n over it fe luoris tninorem facer doito ejfe majorem, Et nt fciamus traditicnes Ayojhliras fumpias de veteri TeUamentOy quod Aaron & filii ejus, (j? Levit A- f iterant in Tem- pi o, hoc fibi Epifcopi & Presbyter? & Diaconi v en die en t in ■ Eceiefia. There is yet another place of Jerome which this, Author hath not mentioned ( I (lull not lay he hath not read Jerome, though he cite him y. Sea. VI. ( li ) « ;, 4. which he imputeth to thefe on our fide, on lefs occafion given ) it is "Ep: ad Iitliedor: TraH'.^.tertia fartk 5 fol- (mihi) 284, 285-. This perfon being Jerome's intimate Friend, it feems was ave/fe from an Eremetical Lifej and defired rather to be in the Miriiftry. Jerome taketh much '? pains in this Epiftle, to perfwadehim to go to the Defers and there ierve Chriit,* and having occafion tofpeak of the Clergy, he faith of them, without Diftind;ion ; abjit autem ut quicquam de bU Jrniftrum lo- quar $ qui Apojlolico gradi/ii (uccedentes^ Chrifii corpus jacro ore conficiunt : per (jucj £? nos c hrifiiam futnui : qui claves regni ccelorum habentes ) qtiodammodo judicii diem indicant. Qui JJ/ on jam Dei fobria capitate conjervant. And a litre after, mihi ante Vresbyterum federe non licet ( it feems neither he nor Heliodorus were then ordained, though they both were afterward ) IB Ji peccavcrOj licet trader e me Sat anae , in inter it um carnis i ut fpirituJ falvus Jit in die Dcmini Jefu. § 4. Let us now fee how my Antagonift anfwereth what he thought fit to cite out of Jerome. To which I premiie that our prefent Debate is not whether what Jertme writeth be true orfalfe,found or unfound,* but what was Jerome's Opinion in the Matter now controverted ,• and confequently whether Jerome be on our fide, or on the oppofite fide. I obierve alfo that our Author denyeth not that Jerome thought there was a time when the Church was governed communi Preibyterorum conditio. But he thinketh Jerome miftook in this, and in that Period ( which he taketh to be in the Apoities time, before Bifhops were fetled in the Churches ) the Apoities governed the Churches which they had plant- ed, by their perfonal and Apoftolical Authoritie I mult examine this before I proceed it is not to be denyed, that when the Apoftles, by their preaching, had converted a Company of people to Chriftianity, while they were not formed into Societies,and had no Officers to teach and govern them, they managed the Affairs of thefe people, by their own Authority ,• and it could not be otherwife. But here are three sniitakes. 1. That the Apoftles firft fetled Teaching Presbyters in thefe newly converted Churches, who might teach thern, but not rule them; and afterward fet Biihops over them to rule them : this is a groundiels Fancie, nor can any' lhadow of Authoritie be given from Scripture for it : if ire ihall offer any thing as a proof of this, we (hall conlider it.We think that the Apoftles fetled Presbyters among the new converted So- cieties, both for teaching them, and ruling them ; and that the Apoftles gave thefe Elders Direction, by the infallible Spirit, both what the JhouK d Sea. VJ. ( 7? ) § 4 , {hould teach, and how they fhould govern : the latter needeth no proof; the former we prove from ABs 14. 2;. Tit. r« 5-. where we read of or- daining Elders *«*• Uxa^i^, and **™ cro^p ? . and the other Scriptures above cited SeB. 3. § 12, 14., by which it is made appear, that thefe Elders ruled the Church, as well as inftru&ed her, as at Corinth, and at Thejjalonica, and elfe where. Another miftake is, that the Apoftles by themf elves governed any particular Churches that were fetled, and had Presbyters among them. The contrary is evident from what hath been proved of the Eiders governing the Churches : and from this, that our Adverfaries can produce no fuch Inftance. 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, perfo- nally : his care was that they might be v/ell taught and well ruled, by theai who were appointed to that Work ,• over all whom he, and every one of the Apoftles, had a Superintendent •■ A third miftake is, that the Apoftles in their time, made a change of the Government that they had fetled in the Church ,• by fetting up BiJhops, where formerly they had fetled Teaching Presbyters, and had ruled the Churches themfelves : and particularly that at Gorinth upon the Divifions mentioned 1. Ef. Ch. %> a Biftiop was fet up there, as this Author hinteth, p. 69, Can he, or any man elfe, give any thing that lcoketh like a Warrant for this Imagi- nation? Surely if fuch a Change had been made by the Apoftles, we /hould have had fomehint of it in their Writings, or in the Hiftory of their A&s. § y. This Author hath an other obferve, in the fame page, as wilde, and wide from the Truth : that Jerome thought that the Superintendency of Bilhops above Presbyters, was occafioned by the Contentions at Co- rinth ; fo he thought that this Remedy of Schifm, was appointed by the Apoftles themfelvesjandthatit was not the Invention of after Ages :but the Apoftles by their own experiance immediatly found the Tnconveni- ency of Paritie ,• and therefore appointed, that unus prsponeretur ceteris* This is ftrange Confldence,and little Evidence of that Candor which he fo much defiderateth in Blondel 3 and other Presbyterians. Can he produce any Word,or Paffage in Jerome, from which this may be inferred? Yes, he pretendeth to prove it : after he hath ftated this as the prefent De- bate, whether it was Jerome'* Opinion that the yipoftles thcmjel-ves fet up Epi/copacy as the Remedy of Schifm ,• or that Parity continued fmetime after the ApoHks ; and the Church in after Ages fet up Prelacy, hecaufe Parity was K apt- Sea. VI. ( 74 ) . § j, 6, apt te breed Schiftn. The former he maintained^ we hold the latter* That Blondel faw, that Jercme thought that the Apoftles turned the Go* vernment from Paritie to Prelacy, is a ftrange Aiiertion, when the great defign of his Book was to prove the contrary. And the proof of it is yet ftranger,*. Blvndel ehtereth a Caveat, that nom flwuld think that the Apofiks the??? [elves appointed the Remedy of Schifm mentioned by Jerome. Is it not a good Confequence? This is an abfurd Thought, {dkh 1'lcndel, er- go, I believe it was Jerome's Opinion. Blcndcl maintained^, and fo do I, that not only it is not true that the Apoftles in their time appointed the Remedie,* but that )erome was not of that Opinion. § 6.. His firft proof, that fuch was Jerome's Opinion, is p. j. Jerome thought that the otcafion of the change that was introduced into the Ecclefiaftical Government, were the Difputes in the Church of Corinth ,• and therefore the change made mvft needs be Apoflolical'. they only had power to erebl the Eccle- (iaflick Fabrick, and they were zealous to prevent Ccnfufons. No ether De- cree could he meant by Jerome'j toto Orbe decretum eft, for no other Veer e could oblige all, nor would have been Jo tiniverjally received : % tit her was there any Council that hadfo decreed. .This Apojhlical Conjlituticn Jerome calleth in his Commentaries on Titus, COniuetudo Ecclefia: • which he dijtinguifieth from dilpoiitio Divina: veritatis, meaning that the Vrelacy of one Vriejt above, many, was introduced rather by Apoflolical frdMice, than the ferfonal mandate of our Bk fed Saviour. Such Difcourfe from a Presbyterian., would be expofed by this Author, with great fcorn : but I mall mew the abfurdi- - tie of it by Reafon. i. That Jerome did not fay, nor mean, that the. Apoftles made this change in Church Government, is manifeft. For i. He faith it was done pa'/'atim; whereas apud vttcresfidem fueratPresbytc- rl qui & Epifcopi: foon Phil. i. as we cited § 2, Thefe veterej cannot, be the Apoftles ,• but they who lived in the firft Ages after the Apoftles are fo called,- but whatever he in. that ,• an Apoftolick Decree for Bi- shops, and bringing them in, faulatim, do not well agree. Jt is hence plain, that Jerome thought, in the firft * ges after the Apoftles, the Church was governed communi Tresbyterorum cenflio : but Schifm ariiing in proeefs of time, like that in Corinth, while the Apoftles lived ,- that Paritie was by degrees and firft in fome Churches, after in others, turn- ed into a Prelacy. Certainly if the Apoftles in their Life-time, had made a Decree for Prelacy, all the Churches would prefentiy have fetup that way, in its due Height, and not brought it in paulatim. 2* The very delignof Jerome, m the places cited, which he laboriously profecuteth, is Sea. VI. ( 7f > y&M % is to prove, by Teftimonies of the Apofties, that Biftiop and Presbyter are one : how is this confident with his thinking that the Apofties de- creed the contrary ? this were to make the learned Jerome to fpeak, yea to think, the moft palpable contradictions* 3- Is it imaginable, iffc- rome had thought that the Apofties nrftfor a time fetled Faritiej and then by degrees ( or otherwife } changed it into Prelacy, that he would be at lb much pains to tell us where the Apofties did the former, as in all the places he citeth : and yet not point to one place in all their Wri- tings, where this Decree for a Change fhould be found ? He may believe what he will, who can be perfwaded of this I If Jerome had thought that the Apofties then decreed Prelacy when the Debates arofe at Ce- r'mth ; and that it was done on occafion of thefe Debates, and as a Re- medie of them, he had been very abfurd, and pleafed himfelf with a groundlefs Fancy : for when the Apoftle was reproving thefe Schjfms, and labouring to cure them, and prevent the like among Chriftians, he hath not one word of Prelacy as a remedie of them : but on the contra- ry, reproveth the Presbyters "of that Church, for being defective in the exercife of their Church power, cap. $"• of that fame Epiftle ,• and cap; I2.28»telleth them what Officers were to continue in theGofpel Church., and no mention of Birtiops among them. § 7. Another thing in this Anfwer is moft abfurd ; that he calleth this Apoftolical Decree, confuetudo Ecckfa: a Decree and a Cuftome are two different things : nor was it ever heard of ( till this new Matter of words arofe ) that a Decree wasfo called: Cuftome may follow on a Decree ,• and the fame thing may be decreed which hath antecedently obtained by a Cuftome,- but to fay a thing ( exi gra: the fetting up of Bifhops as the remedie of Schifm ) had its Original from Cuftome, and to mean it had its Rife from a Decree, is to fpeak non fenfi : which no wife man will impute to that learned Father. Wherefore it is evident that ]erome 3 by confuetudo Ecclefi*, meaneth the practice of the Church after the Apofties ( for to fay it was the practice in their time, is incon- fiftent with what he confeffeth to be Jerome's Opinion, that the Church was then governed by Presbyters ) which came in by degrees, pmlatim. 3. It is an unaccountable Abfurditie, to make an Apoftolical Decree, or Practice, fooppofite to difyofitio Dominica veritatk,, as are Parity and Pre- lacy. ^ Were not the Apofties guided by the'Spirit of Cmitt ? Is it then imaginable, that He appointed Parity, or did not appoint Prelacy « and the Apofties finding Parity inconvenient, would appoint Prelacy. Nei- K 1 2 ther Wb VI. ( 76 ) § 7, 8. ther could Jerome mean, that Biihops were not appointed by any Com- mand given out perfonally by Chrift while he was on earthy but by the Apoftles after his Afcenfion : for that had been impertinent; and nothing to his purpofe. For what different influence could that have on Biihops, to keep them from undue exalting themfelves above the Presbyters ( which is manifeftly Jerome's Scope in thefe words) whether they were inftituted by a perfonal Command of Chrift ,- or by his Apoftles guided by his infallible Spirit ; for the Senfe would be, BiJhops are not above Presbyters by Chrift's appointment ; but they are above them by the Apoftles appointment : which either fets thefe two Appointments inop- pofition the one to the other, ormaketh the words to be ridiculous and abfurd. 4. That the Apoftles only had power to erecl the Ecclefiaftick Fa- brick, and that there was no other obliging Decree at that timers tpcue; but it doth not hence follow, that Jerome's toto orbe decrttum eft, is meant of fuch an Apoftolick Decree. It is rathermeant of a Refolution ( decre- tum eft doth not always fignifie an authoritative Sentence pafled)through thefeveral Churches, in moft parts of the World ( fo toto orbe may well be reftri&ed ) to fet up a conftant Vrtfes, whom they particularly cal- led the Bifhop. The Phrafe toto orbe decretum eft, cannot be underftood of a Decree made in one place ( as that of the Apoftles muft be ) though for the whole World } but of what was done in the feveral places of the World. § 8. That Jerome only alludeth to the Divifions at Corinth, and did not look on them as the immediate occafion of the Change that was made, I further prove. 1 . The Schifms that Jerome ipeaketh of, as introducing the Change, were made by the Presbyters,- who had bap- tized the people, and every one fet up a Fadtion with thefe whom he had baptized : his words are plain ,• poftquam autem unufauifque quos bap- tizaverat fuos puta'vit efte, non Chrisli, toto crbe decretum eft, &c. Now the Divifions at Corinth were among the people, not among the Paftors: I hope he will not fay that Paul, ApoUos, and Cephas, fell out about di- viding the people among them, as their Followers difagreed. Where- fore Jerome could not mean this Schifm, though he allude to it- 2. It is not to be imputed to the Apoftles that they would fetle one Church Or- der^, and fo quickly change it into another, as they muft have donej if the change were on occafion of the Schifm at Corinth, which fell out foon after the fetling of that Church ; and while other Churches were not yet fetled. They no doubt foreiaw the Divifions that would be^and did 3 Se&.VL ( 77 ) §8,9' did, at the firft fetlement of Churches, provide what Remediethe Ho- ly Ghoft thought fit for that Church difeafe. Efpecial.ly, is it imagi- nable, that after they had found how ill Paritie fucceeded at Corinth, they would fetle other Churches on that Lubrick Foundation, which muft quickly be razed, and a new one laid. Ihe Apoftle wrote his E- piftle to Corinth, wherein he reproveth their Schifm, from Ephefus, in the year of Chrift yi« as is commonly thought: and about that time f for he Itayed at Ephefus two years ) he was fetiing that Church in Paritie ( for, We find many Bifhops or Presbyters in that one City.; as Jtrome obferveth : calling them that were called from Ephefus to Miletumby the Apoftle > Vresbyteros Ecclefix ejufdem ) now can any man think that he would have thusfetled the Church of Ephe/us, and not pre- fently fetled a Biihop in it, if at the fame time he had found the want of a Biftiop to be thecaufe of the Tumults at Corinth ; and a Bifhop to be the proper Remedy of them. §9. The next Attempt that my Adverfarie maketh on Jerome, is to prove that he held Epifcopacy to be as old as the Apoftles days, from his words, Epiftola ad Euagrium ' Nam in Alexandria, a Marco Ez>angelifia 3 ufcjue ad Heracleam, & Dionyfium Epifcopos, Presbjteri unum ex fe eleclum, ejrc. Here he faitlx, Salmafim leaveth Jerome, and doubteth of the Truth of this Hiftory : which he need not think ftrange ; feing him- felf alfo chargeth Jerome with a Miftake, />•■ 69. And 1 think none of us ever judged Jerome to have had an unerring Spirit to guide him in all that he wrote. But I mall not queftion the Truth of what he rela- teth ,• it may be the peculiar Name of Biftiop to the Moderator, or pri- mus Vresbyter, began at Alexandria, as the Name of ' Chrijfian did 2X Anti- ^h. And no more but that can be gathered from Jerome's words, What- »/er may be faid of the Evangelift Mark, who founded the Church of Alexandria, and it is like, by his extraordinary power, ruled it at firft by himfelf,* and that but for a fmall time ,< for he left Alexandria, and preached and planted Churches in Lybia, Marmcrica, and many parts of Egypt, as Beronius fheweth. That Jerome did not include Mark (as Dounam abfurdly faith ) among the Bifhops fo chofen at Alexandria, is evident : for how could the Presbyters chufe him to be their Head,who had an extraordinary Commiffion, and had been thelnftrument of con- verting them, and who by Ins extraordinary power, had fetled them in a Presbyterie, for the reft, if our Author will draw any thing from Jeromes words for his purpofe, he muft make him flatly contradict all that $e&. VI. C 7 8 ) § % io. that h'g had faid, and laborioufly proved, concerning the equality of Bifhop and Presbyters : wherefore, they who came after Mark, and were chofen by the Presbyterie, were only fet in excelfiori gradu, they had the w^ToxetSity*, were Moderators, and had the Name of Bifnops given them ufually, whereas the reft were called Presbyters : but that they had, fo early as Marcl tempore, Jurifdiftion over their 8rethren,the Presbyters who chufed them, Jerome doth not fay, nor can it be ga- thered from any of his words. And I do notqueftion, but that in other Churches, as well as Alexandria, the Presbyters chofe a Moderator, and rriay be.» he continued during Life ; only Jerome thinketh that the Di- frindion was more taken notice of there than elfewhere ; or foonerhad the Note of a peculiar Name given to the Vrafes. If this Senfe, that, our Author dreameth of, were put on Jerome's words, they muft either contradict the whole of his Epiitle, which is to prove that Biftiop and Presbyter were one, tillMinifters contended among themfelves, and a Superiority came in paulatim, upon that ,• or it maketh Jerome to fay, that Parity was obferved in all other Churches till thefe DifTenfions a- rofe ,• but at Alexandria was Prelacy : which we cannot impute to J*-, rome, without making him abfurdly contradict all Antiquity,* which doth reprefent Uniformity in the Church in this Matter ; and not fuch Difcord. I r t ; h further evident, that Jerome did not mean, that there was a Prelate, with fole, or fuperior Jurifdi&ion, fet up at Alexandria • in that he, was'ehofen by the Presbyters from among themfelves,- and ordained alFo"by them : he had no Prelation above them, but whatthey gave him : whereas a Biftop muft be ordained by other Bi/hops : again this is not fpokcn of by Jerome as a thing that the Presbyters muft do, as being of Divine Inftitution^ but what themfelves chuled. § io. He hath another Exception againft our Argument from Jeromes Authority, p. 74. that he aiTerteth that the Apoflolical Traditions -were ta- ken from the Old Teftament. Where faith he, two things are averted, j. That the Hierarchy of the Chriflian Church u founded upon Apoflolical Tradi- tion. This is an abfurd Inference. Jerome did indeed think that the Government of the Church at firft, was founded on Apoftolical Tradi- tion, contained in the Scripture ; but he- is fo far from making it to be a Hierarchy ( in the Prelatical Senfe ) that he oppofeth that, andplead- eth for Parity. The fecond thing he obferveth is, that the Apostles had the Model of the Temple in their view, when they erecled thu Flat-Form and Polity in the Church ; the Bifhop wM the fame with the High friefi in the Temple 5 SecSfc. VL ; ( 79 ) t ' S 10. Temple .* and our Saviour made no Change but what wM done did neceffarly re- fult from the Evangelical fiLconomy ivhich he ■Was to ftablifo in the room of he- vitical worship. Hence the Ancients fc often reafon from the J-ew-ifli Prece- dents t-o regulate the praclice of the Christian Church. Here are diverfe things to be examined, i . Flow far Chrift and his Apoftles had refped to the Jewifli Model, when they framed the Government of the Go. fpel Church, I mall not now determine. I fuppofe they did as a man doth when he pulleth down an oldHoufe, to build a new one : he doth not tye himfelf to the Dimenfions, the Form, nor number of Stories, or Rooms : yet what was in the old Houfe that was for his defign in the new, he will readily obferve. We arefure the Gofpel Builders neither intended .to reform, or patch, the old Jewilh Church .Fabrick- Such methods in Building, ufe to impare the Beauty, as well as uiefulnefs, of the Fabrick. It is certain that they did wholly demolifh the Fabrick to the Foundation ,• (I meah,as to what was inftituted,and not of the Law of Nature ) as the Apoftie rneweth Heb. 7. 12. where he telleth us of the change of the VrieSihoed, and alfo of the Laiv. And it is certain that the ufe of Pried s, and of Levites to ( whofe Work was to ierve the Prieftsin their Sacrifices ) ceafed^ as fbon as Chrift offered up his Sacri- fice once for all. Wherefore, as there was a new Priefthood (to {peak in his Dialed; ) to be let up ,• which had another fort of Work to do ,• to offer- up fpiritual Sacrifices 1 So our Lord and his Apoftles accommo- dated their Inftitution to what was needful, and convenient for that defign ,• and had no further regard to what had been in the Jewiili Church. Hence if he can mew that there is the fame ufe of Biinops under the New Teftament, that thero was of i the High 1 Prieft un- der the Old Teftament, he gaineth this Argument : but this, I hope, lie will not .attempt. The High Prieft was a Type of Chrift, as He is the Head of the Church, and as He offered up that one Sacrifice, which all the inferior Priefts under the High Prieft's Condud: and Authority, were efpecialiy employed in. Muft we therefore have a multitude of Bifoopsin the Chriftian Churchy to reprefent a Saviour for every Djo- cefs, under whom the Presbyters offer up fpiritual Sacrifices ? 2. That the Bijhop it the fame with the High Friefi, is not only faid without all Scripture Warrant • but is moft ahfurd : for the High Prieft was one in the whole Church of God 5 but the Biihops are many, in the Gofpel Church of Chrift. And indeed this way of Reafoning will either eita- blifh the Pope as Head of the Univerfal Church, or it is wholly infig- aificantc 5. That our Saviour introduced no Change but what was ne- ceffary Sea. VI. ( 80 ) $10) lr . ceflary for the Evangelical ^Lconomie, is firft faid without Book he ufed his Libertie, nor did he tye himfelf to the old Pattern. Next, the new /Economie did require this change that there jhould be no High Prieft : becaufe one man could not fo manage the Affairs of the whole Chriftian Church, as he could do of the Jewiih Church. 4. Jerome doth not here infer a t'reiacy among Presbyters, from the Subordination ofPriefts in the Temple : his whole purpofe is to Ikw that Deacons, the Servants of the Church, were inferior to Presbyters, the Rulers of it,- and this he fetteth forth by the Similitude (not binding Pattern) oftheLevites being inferior to the Priefts, whom they ferved in the offering of Sacri- fices .* wherefore he doth not tell us that the Bifhops were what the' High Prieft was • and the Presbyters what Aarons Sons were, and the Deacons what the Levites were,- but he lets Aarcn and his Sons on the one fide, and compareth them with the Biinops or Presbyters ( whom he had been proving to be the fame ) and the Levites on the other fide, i to whom he compareth the Deacons, y. If he can mew us that any of the Ancients do io reafon fiom the Jewifh,to a Chriftian Hierarchie, as! to infer that they mould be alike, or that they infer any more from it than diveifitie of Degrees of Church Officers, we mall confider what they fay. § 1 j. A further Effort he maketh againft what we bring out of Je- rome 1 he taketh notice p: 74, 75-. That, Jerome citeth the genuine Eptfiles 0/" Ignatius ,- in which the Divine Original, and Infiitution, of Epifcopal Emi- nence and j itrijdicTicn above Presbyters, it frequently and plainly exprejjed. And after, when we find him citing the Epifles of Saint Ignatius as the ge- nuine words of that holy Martyr ,it mufi be acknowledged that he never dream- ed of any Interval, after the Apoflles, in which the Church was governed by a Parity of Presbyters, This is a ftrange way of reafoning : jercme faith that Ignatius wrote fuch and fuch Epiftles, Ergo, though he teacheth Do6hine flatly contradictory to what they contain, yet he taketh for certain Truth all that is faid in them .* neither will this follow from Jerome's believing that Jgnatim was a good man, and a holy Martyr ,• good Men may have different Apprehenfions of things, and yet own the Writings of one another to be genuine. All that Jerome faith is, that Ig- natius wrote an Epiftle to the Ephefians, another to the Magnejians, &c„ He doth not cite one word out of them for Epifcopacy, nor can any man affure us that thefe Epiftles now Extant are the lame that Ignatius wrote, and that Jerome mentioned! ; or that they are not vitiated. I ] will ; SeA* VI. ( 81 J S ii. will not digrefs to debate about Ignatim's Epiftles, whether they be fpu- rious or legitimate ; whether they were by Ignatim the Martyr, or by an other of that Name,long after:but I much queftion what our Author confidently afferteth, that the 'Divine Original and Injiitution of Epifccpal Eminence or J urifdiffion above Vreibytcrs, #■, in them, frequently and plainly exprejjed. When he /hall think fit to produce the places where this is done, we fhall confider 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 & Apofioli per fingulas Pro- vincial EpifcepoS & VresbyteroS ordinantes* I do not find that Commen- tarie among Jerome's Works, and therefore cannot judge by the Threed of his Difcourfe, of what he defigned by that Exprelfion : but the words contain no Argument ,• for bare mentioning of Bifhop and Pres- byter doth not prove them to be diftinft ,• efpecially out of the mouth of one who had taken fo much pains to prove them to be the fame. Jerome might well fay, in the Dialed: of his Age that the Apoftles ordained Church Rulers,, whom we now diftinguim by thefe Names. What he bringeth next is wholly againft Senfe and Reafon ,• that this Constitution ( fetting Bifhops over Presbyters ) followed immediatly upon the Confujions and Schifms that arofe in the ApoHolical Church • becaule ]erome in Epifola ad Titum 3 faith, priufquam vero unufquifque eos quos bapti&averat fuos puta- vit ejfe } non Cbrifii, in toto orbe decretum efl, ut unu$ 3 &e. The abfurdity of this Fancy I have above (hewed : if he would prove what he defign- eth from this Teftimony ; he muft affert that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas^ 1 Cor. 2. thought that they whom they baptized were theirSjiiot Chrifts; and that they were the Authors of the Schifm at Corinth . which I hope he will not fay : It is evident that Jerome ipeaketh of a Schifm made by ambitious and felfifh Church men : and after that Schifm Bifhops were fet up ,• which no man will fay was in the Apoftles time. He hath yet another proof of Jerome being for Prelacy: p. 78, 79. out of his Cata- Ugm Jcriptorum 'EcclefiaJlicorum,wh.QrQ he giveth account of feveral Bifhops ordained and fixed in places, by the Apoftles themfelves. The Anfwer is plain and eafie : the Apoftles did indeed fix Bifhops in Churches^ that is Minifters., who were to teach and rule them : but that thefe Biihops ( who are alfo called Presbyters ) had Jurifdi&ion over other Pjresbyters, is the queftion, and is not determined by this Argument. § I2» He next citeth Jerom# } Epificla qd Nepotium. Efio fubjeBws poniifici tuo> & luafi animtf parentem fufcipe ; quod Aaron & flips ejus, hsc. Epifco- Sea, vl ( 82 > s 12 . fum & VreshyteroS eft novtrimus. This Citation is lame : between the two Sentences which our Author conjoined there is, befides other things, this PaiTage ; fed Epifcopi Sacerdotes fefciant ejje 3 non Dominos: hi- mrent Ckricos quafi cm-Clcricos : Vt & jp/is a Cleric it quafi Epsfcopii honor defer atur : fcltum efi Mud oratork Domitii, cur ego ( injuit ) te habeam ut Principem, c*m tu me non habetf ut Senatorem- Then follow eth, quod Aaron, &c. And he addeth, unus Deus, unum Templum, vnum etiant Jit 'Minifierium : and he citeth to this purpofe, 1 Pet. y: 2, 3. and addeth, fefjinta confuetudinit efi quibufdam Ecckjiit tacere Presbyttros 3 & frafentibus Epifcopis non loqui $ quaji aut invideant, aut non dignentur audire. It is evi- dent that Jerome is here fpeaking of what was the way and practice in his time, and not of what, was the Apoftles pra&ice, or what was Di- vine Inftitution : and therefore nothing here faid can ferve my Adver- faries purpofe: for our prefer) t Debate is, whether Jerome thought that Epifcopacy was of Divine Inftitution. Next, it is alfo manifeft, that Jerome is here reproving the height that fome Church men were then afpiring to ^ not approving the way of that time. We deny not that in that Age, theparitie of Presbyters had begun to be encroached up- on ^ in fome places more, and in fome lefs i though we fee no caufe to think, that Church Domination had then arrived at the height that my Antagonift pleadeth for. %. It appeareth by a ftrid and unbyafled View of all that Jerome here faith, that no further Prelation is here hinted at, than that of any Minifterof the Gofpel, or of the Moderator of a Pres- byterie : for every Miniller may be called Pontifex, and Parens anima, ( as the Dialed: -then was ) and may clame Subjection from the people m the Lord. What is faid of Aaron and his Sons, importeth no more but that all Minifters have Authority, as all the Prieftshad : it is a Si- militude,and it muft not be ftretched to an exad agreement in all things. 4» . That Jerome maketh a Diftinction between Epifcopos & Ckricos , can be drawn to no more but this ,• that in his time, there was an obferva- ble Prelation in matter of Dignity ,• it no way proveth a Superiority of Jurifdi&ion ,• though I deny not but that fome were then aiming at it. His Citation out of Ep. 54, tiieron. I find not, he hath not told us to whom that Epiftle was written. Itfeems thefe. Eoiftles are not the fame way ranked in my Edition and in his. That he faith there, Epifcopi a- pud nos tenent locum Apofiolorum 3 * cannot prove his point : for the lame may be faid of all Presbyters ^ and Jerome faith fo exprefly of them, Ep. Ad Occam as I cited § 3; they fucceed to the Apoftles in that part 'of Church Se&VI, ( 8; ) § 12i 1 1, Church power that is competent to them : and he cannot prove thai Bifliops fucceed to them in all the power they had ( but the Difpute a- bout this will fall in afterward. That Jerome fpeaketh about an Eccle* Jtafiieal "Prince, or Governor, is alfo inconcludent : for the Fathers fome- times fpeak as big words of Presbyters. He citeth alfo kp. ad Taulinum $ TRpjfcoH ( faith he ) & Vresbyteri habeant in exemplum Apofiolos & ApoBo- licos viros, quorum honorem poffidentes habere nitantur & meritum. All that he can draw from this is, that there was fuch a Diftindion in Jenme% time; which is not denyed : but Jerome doth not here define what power the one of thefe had above the other. He had been telling P*#- linus, how Men of other Prof eflions laboured to imitate them who had excelled in their way ; and inftanceth the Roman Captains , fhilofophersy Vocts, Orators ; and this he applieth to Church men ,• that they alfo mould follow the beft Examples : it were ridiculous to flxain it to this fenfe,that Biihops mould imitate the Apoftles, and Presbyters the Apoftolick men: efpecially feing our Author will fay that many of thefe were Bifhops, His exors & ab omnibus eminens potefiat, he mentioneth by fo indiftind a Citation, that I know not where to find it ,• and therefore mall fay no- thing of it. To his Recapitulation of all that he had faid on Jerome p. 79, 80. loppofe the AnfwersI have given to the feveral things he there mentioneth; which duely confidered, let the Reader judge what ground there is for his Triumph that he concludeth this Difcourfe with. §1;. Our Author proceedethf. 80, & feqi to vindicate Auguftinc, that he w0i no Presbyterian. And, pray, who ever faid he was one? That way was paft its Meridian in the World a little before his time : only we bring his Authority to prove, that fome great Lights of the Church did not look on Epifcopacy as of Divine Right ; or to have been in the Church from the Apoftolick Age. He prefaceth this Differtation with a Digreffion ( as himfelf calleth it ) containing infolent Contempt ©f,and Reproach againft the Presbyterians; calling all that have written, be- fide Blondel and Salmafius, the little Bouffoons of the Party : he muft here underftand the London Minifters, the five eminent Men under the name of SmcftymnuS, Rutherford, Didoclavius, Gerfom Bucer, and many others. If Presbyterians did incline to ad the part of Bouffoons, this Book, and many others like it, might furnifii them plentiful Matter. He char- geth them with Impiety, p:Sz 9 calleth them factious and unmortified Men ; their Opinions, Dreams : faith, they have nothing more in their view than to gratife their Rcveitge } and otkerVaJfions • imputeth Impudence avd Irreligion L2 t9 $e&. VI. < (84) §i ?} 14. to them, on account of this their Opinion* And his Confidence fwelieth fo high as to tell us, how a/lcnijlring it is that Jo much is written for Parity : If we believe the Ecclejiafiical Records, there remaineth no Debate that Epifce- facy is Divine, ApoHohcal, received without Interruption, and that by the U- niverfal Church. That Scepticifm will ( by natural Conjcquexce ) pull down things more [acred, than the outward Hedge of Government : If his Argu- ments prove to bear any Proportion to his big Words, there can be no ft anding before him. He had been wifer if he had afferted lefs, and proved more : and if he had managed this Controverfie with a more fe- date Mind, it may be his fuccefs had been no lefs. I will not conteft with him in Railling, nor huffie and bold aiferting what is in contro- verfie : but am willing to reafon the Matter fairly and calmly* The Paffage out of Auguftine which Hlondel and Salmajius bring is., Ep. 19. Which is ad Hiercnymum: yuanquam fecundum honorumvocabula qua jam Ec- clejix ufus obtinuit, Epifcofus Vresbytero major Jit, tamen in mult is rebus Au- gufiinus Hieronymo minor efi. I freely yield to my Antagonift, that the dejign of that EpijHe is to invite Jerome to ufe all freedom in their Epijlolary Conversation : and I add that this was needful, confidering the higher Character ( in the common eftiniationof that A^) that Augufiine fu- ftained, above Jerome, a Presbyter ; and therefore I lay not the ftrefs of our Argument on his owning Jerome tobeinfome things above hiffij nor do I think that Augufiine lookt on himfelf and Jerome as ftanding on a Level, in refpecl: of Dignity, as then it was efteemed : but I place the force of our Argument on thefe two,* the one is, Augufiine iniinuateth no Prelation that he had above }erome, even according to the Sentiment of that Age, but what was fecundum hor.orum vocabula •• he had a higher Title, hegiveth no hint of a Superior jurifdi&ion, that he, a Bifhop, had above Jerome, a Presbyter .- which had been much more pertinent, and full as confiftent with the Modefty and Humility that he expreffeth. The other is, that even that fuperior Honour, he doth not derive from Divine Inftitution, or Apoftolical Tradition, or conftant Practice from the beginning ,• but from the Cuftome of the Church that then ( that is in that Age) prevailed. § 14. After fetting down at length this Teftimony from Augufiine,he undertaketh to fhew that the latter Sectaries. ( fobeis pleafed to dignifie the Presbyterians ) miftake bx meaning, and that Auguftine never thought that Parity obtained in the Chriftian Church. He endeavoureth then to prove, that by ufus Ecckfue, Auguftine meant no other thing, than the uni~ verfal Se&. VI. ( 8j ) § 14. verfal Practice of the Christian Church from the beginning : and that this Nation it very familiar to him, that Catholick, and univerjal CuBomes had their Rife from Apeiiolick authority. Before I confider what he faith on this Head, I fhall fuggeft one Confideration that will make it wholly unferviceable to his Defign : tvixi, that our Argument is not built fimply upon the Phrafe ufus Ecclefa ■ but partly in his diftinguifhing Bifhops from Presbyters in refped of Dignity, not J urifdidion,- partly on his mentioning ufus Ecclefioe not which Jemper obtinv.it, fed which jam cbtinu- it. Hq fpeaketh not of univerfal Pradice, nor of perpetual Pradice ; but for a Pradrice that in his time had become common. I fliall now attend to what he pretendeth to bring for his Opinion about Auftines meaning: he telleth us p» 85". that this Father complained that many \Jfa- ges had crept into the Church that were burdenfome and uneafie, of which they knew the Original • but for fvtch Cuftomes and Co??fiitutions as were received univerfally, in all Churches, from the very firft preaching of the Gofbel, thefe he always confidcred as Sacred, and inviolable, and of Jpojiolick. Authority : and of this fort, he faith, Auftine thought Epifcopacy to be: and he bringeth in Augufiine reafoning thus • that what was confrmed by univerfal Cu^ome in the Chrijiian Churc'c y could have no beginning latter than the ApofUes'. his words are, quod univerfa ten e t Ecclefa, nee conciliis infiitutum, Jed femper retentum, non nifi authoritate Apoftolorum traditum reclijfime credimus,. He telleth us again p 87. to make his Affertion furer, as much as repeal- ing it can do,* that ufus 'Ecclefa in Auttine's Language, (ignifeth nothing elje than the univerfal fraclice of the Chrifiian Church, which obtained in all Ages, and in all places, and therefore muB needs faring from m lower Origi- nal than Apoflolick authority. And hence he pleadeth, that unlefs we can fliew what Council, Provincial or ELcumenick, introduced Epifcopacy , it mujt be purely Divine. To all this I oppofe a few Confederations. Hrftjthat upftait Cuftomes of whofe Original we can give account and thefe that are immemorial, are not only to be diftinguifhed, but differently regard- ed, I think it is very reafonable : and this learned Father did wifely ob- ferve it j but that lo much weight is to be laid on this Diftindion, that every thing is to be accounted Divine, the firlt Rife of which we can- not account for, I cannot aflent to that ,• nor do I find thki'-Auftirie was of that Opinion. There were Cuftomes, even in the Apoftolick Churchy which he will not fay were of Divine Inftitution, and yet he cannot ^tell when and by whom they began : fuch as the Love-Fealis ; to which I may add the ofculumpacis, which though the manner of it was en- joyned sea. vi. ( H ) $ *r joyned by the Apoftle, that it mould be done holily, without Hypocri- fie or Latcivioufnefs ,• yet I think few will fay, the thing was enjoyned; for then all the Churches mould fin in neglecting it. And if there were fuch Cuftomes that then crept in, why might it not be fo afterward ? § 1 5". I obferve 2. From his Difcourfe, that there is no ground to think that Augufiine thought every Cuftome Apoftolical, of which the Original, or time of beginning, could not be mewed : becaufe that were to make Cuftome, and not Scripture the Rule of our Faith and Practice: and it would likewife infer the Infallibility of the Church, not only in her Decrees, but in her Cuftomes : which is a ftretch beyond the Pa- pifts themfelves. If this Doctrine be true, no Cuftome of the Church can be contrary to, yea, nor without Warrand from Apoftolick Tra- dition : it is not to be thought that Aujiine thought fo, who every where pleadeth for having Recourfe to the written Word of God, where there is any Controverfie about our Faith or Practice. The words cited cannot be fo far ftretched ,• but are to be underftood, in Subordination to the Scripture ; where a Cuftome hath always, and univerfally ob- tained ,• and it is not inconfiftent with the Scripture Rule ; that may be indeed lookt on as of Divine Original, if it be in a Matter that Religi- on is nearly concerned in. If we mould yield this Doctrine about the Influence of Cuftomes, as a Rule of Faith and Practice • yet it mull: be underftood to comprehend the Cuftome of the Apoftolick Age, together with that of after times : for to lay that after the deceafe of the Apoftles no Cuftome could creep in which was not Divine, is a bold Affertion. If while the Apoftles watched over the Church,fome Weeds might grow,* much more after their deceafe, while men (Iept 3 it might be fo. 4. If his Doctrine about Cuftomes in general, were never fo unexceptiona- ble ; how will he prove that Epifcopacy is fuch a Cuftome, or that A»- fujiine lookt on it as fuch? Herein lyeth our prefent Debate,- and he ancieth Aujiine is on his fide, becaufe he extolleth Cuftome • if he can prove that Attjline thought that uniyerfa Ecclefia femper tenuit, that a Bi- Jhop hath Jurifdiction over Presbyters, we mall part with this argu- ment, and lean no more to Auftincs Authority. This he hath not at- tempted, and we are fure he can never perform it. y. We are not ob- liged to tell what Council introduced Epifcopacy. But we can prove, firft ,• that it might come in an other way, as the Tares grew when Men flept ; he might with as good Reafon, when we fee Tares growing a- mong Wheat, prove that thefe Tares are good Wheat, becaufe we can- not s&a. vi. < 8 7 ) § i f . not tell when, or by what particular Hand, they were fowen. Did not our Lord foretell that Corruptions would inlenfibly creep into the Church, by this Parable of the Tares ? Sure Decifions of Councils are not the only way of corrupting the Church. 2, If we prove that Epif- copacy is contrary to Apoftolick practice, and to Scripture rule, it muft needs be evil^ though it have come in by no Council : if we find a Thief in the Houfe, or aDifeafe in the Body, we may look on them as fuch, though we cannot tell how the one got into the Houfe, nor give account of the procatartick Caufe of the other : now as to what we con- teft about, if we do not prove that it is not the way that Scripture com- mendcth, or that the Apoftles allowed, we mull yield the Caufe. Be- fore I proceed to what he further offereth, I muft take notice of a word that he feemeth tofmother, and yet it looketh like an Argument, f* 86. about the middle he faith, Auftine intended no more, but that now under the Go feel, by the conHant and early practice of the Church, from the days of the Apoftles, the Character and Dignity of a Bj(hop, was above that of a tresbyter. He putteth, now, in a different Chara&er, and expoundeth it by , the days of the Gojpell This Interpretation is a doing Violence to the Text ,• for if now be fo underftood, he muft tell us when the time Was, that the Diftindion ofthefe honor urn vecabula, Epifcopatm & Pres- byter'tum, were not in ufe. Were they one and the fame under theLaw? Or is it imaginable that Auftine would after 400 years, or there about^ fpeak fo of that Diftin&ion, if it were no newer? Heciteth alfo 1 Cor. 11. i6» We have no fuch Cuftome, nor the Churches ofChrift : doth he think this Scripture (o clear and exprefsan Affertion of his Conclufion,that he faith not one word for bringing it to his purpofe ; the Apoftle is there fpeaking of things wherein Cuftome is indeed tiie Rulc 3 as having the Head bare, or covered,wearing long or fhortHair : it doth not thence follow ( if the Apoftle did there make it the Rule ) that it muft alfo be the Rule in other things, p. 88. he pretendeth to convince us further, that Auftine diftinguijhed the Cuftome of the Univerfal Church, from the Cu- ftome of particular places, and he maketh the one mutable, the other not fo. He needed not be at pains to convince us of that Diftindion. I know no body that doubteth of it, nor that reject the Cuftomes that are truly 0- niverfal, unlefs they clam with Scripture. But he ihould rather have tryed his Skill in convincing us, that Epifcopacy hath been fo ufed in the Church, or that Aufim meant fuch aUfage, by his ufus Ec cleft*. Se#. VI. ( 88 ) § 16. § 1 6. Another thing our Author undertaketh, for vindicating^/^ is, to prove that he doth festively afert that the Succeffion of Bijhops in the See of KomZy did begin at Peter ; and thence argueth againfi the Donatifis ,• that their Error wm a Noveltie, becaufe in all thu Succejjion of Bijhops there 'Wits no Donatift : if ( faith my Antagonift ) there -was a Period in the Chri- fiian Church after the days of the Apoftles ■ in which the Church was governed without Bijhops, by a Paritie of Ecclefiajiical Officers, the Donatijis might e- fite that Argument, by denying fuch a Succejfion. This is One of the hllieft of all Arguments i it is captio ab homonymia : there was a Succeflion of faithful Men, who taught and ruled the Church of Rome for fo long a time, among whom was no Donatift : it followeth indeed that the Opi- nion o£Donati(ts was a Noveltie ; but doth it follow that in all that In- tel val, that Church was governed by Prelates, with Jurifdi&ion over Presbyters ? unlefs he can prove that every one named in that Succefli- on ruled the Church by himfelf, without the joint Authority of the Presbyters, he faith nothing to the Purpofe in hand. He cannot be ig- norant, that the word Bijhop , fignihed in the Scripture Dialed, and in the Age that followed, any Church Ruler : and therefore that thefe men are called Bijhops, cannot prove their ible, nor fuperior Jurifdi&i- on. dttfiines Argument from this Succeflion, is equally ftrong againft the Donati'sis, whether thefe called Bifiops, were fuch as do we now di- itinguifh by that Name from other Presbyters, or were the Miniftersof the Church of Rome • or were Moderators of the Presbyterie there. If he had taken his Argument from AujYmes naming but one Bifhop in Rome atone time, it would have feemed to have more of fenfe. But e- venfo, it would not be fo concludent^ for naming of one who might be the oldeir, the raoft eminent, or the primus Preibyter or Prafts in the Meeting, doth no ways infer that he had Jurifdidtion over the reii. From this our Author inferreth, ?• 90. that ufus Ecclefa, in Auftines fenfe, is the practice of the Church from the days of Peter. I think none eife can fee this Confequence -, for in the one place he is diflin- guifhing Biihops and Presbyters ,• in the other place ( and they are dif- ferent Books J he hath no occalion to take notice of that DiltinCtion: nor is there any Affinity between the one PalTage and the other. He further argueth, that Auftine reckoneth Aerius an Heretick, on account of his Opinion about the Identitie of Bilhop and Presbyter. This 1 1 have taken notice of above, § u It is no way to our preient purpofe, Aujijne difliked the Opinion of Atrius, as contrary to the Sentiments that then Seft.VI. I 89 ) S 16. then prevailed, Ecclefi* ufu 1 doth it thence follow that he thought E- pifcopacy was Juris Divini ? Whether his unfecmly Refle&Ion on Mr, Andrew Mellvil, be a better proof of our Authors Chriftian Tempered Veracity., or of his Skill in clofe reafoning, I leave it to the Reader to judge. His repeating the Argument from Succeflton of Bifhops, p. 9 r. doth not make it ftronger. When he can fay no more that looketh like Argument, he ( according to his laudable Cuftome ) concludeth this part of the Debate., with Railling and abufive Rcfle&ions ,- and confi- dently afferting his Conclufion, ad naufeam ufque. Few of the Scots Pres- byterians read any of the Ancients : they consult Blondel and SalmafiuSj and go no further than Sme&ymnus : he telleth us of their incurahk Peeviflmejsi they think to understand the Fathers by broken Sentences, torn from their neigh- hour places, when they have neither the Patience, nor good nature, to confider what the fame Author faith elfe where 1 he calleth thern, battling People, and their way Confujton, and aquality. It is not only new but ahfurd y fupported by Dreams and Vifionary Conferences : their Dodlrines contradict the common Senfe of Mankind, as weU as the univerfal and uninterrupted Teftimony of all Chriftian Antiquity. Thus he bantcreth hisAdverfarics, when he cannot beat them out of their Principles,, by the force of Argument, in this way of Debating I am refolved he mall have the laftword : which ufes to be a pleafant Victory to Men., or Women,, who fight with this Wea- pon. SECTION VIL [ The Authors Arguments examined, which pretend to prove the Succejfion of Bi- Jhops to the Apoftles. Y Adveriarie hath hitherto acted defenfively. In his fecond Chap- ter p. 94. & feq. he beginneth to affault us with his Arguments for Epifcopacy. He placeth his main ftrength in this 5 that the ®iJhops were SucceJfbrS to the Apo files • and that when the Apofiles went off the Stage, they left Diocefan Bilhops to rule over the Presbyters and Peo- ple, as themfelves had done. And now he pretendeth to fix the true ftate of the Controverfy : which he ihould have done before he had fo large- ly debated it : we might for him been fighting in the Dark all this time : and neither underftood againft whom,, nor about what we contend. He iheweth his wonted Benignitie^ and good Temper., in his Preamble to M his Sea. VII. > ( 90 ) $ 1,2. his ftating of the Queftion ; when he faith, /k£ Chrift having bred them to that Work by their Converfe with Him, forfome time t in neither of thefe Degrees, had they any Church Power, except that of Preaching, and Baptizing 1 they were no Church Rulers ,• for there was as yet, no Gofpel Church to be ruled, but they were ftill fubjecl: to the Govern- ment that was exercifed in the Jewifli Church s at lalt our Lord, after his Refurre<5Hon, gave them their Apoftolick Commiftion ,• by which they were clothed with the Authority that belonged to that Office ,• and I M 2 fent Sea. VIL ( 92 ) % %, 4. fent them out, both with Authority to Teach, gather, and fetle, and to govern Churches ; and their complete Ordination, or folemn letting them apart for that Office, by which alfo, they were furni&ed for the Bifcharge of it, above what they had been before, was when the Spi^ rit was poured out on thenij on the day of Pentecoft : they got their Corn* miffion Mat. 28. 18, 10, 20. but the pouring out of the Spirit on that day, was as it were putting the Broad Seal ofHeaven to their Commif- fion ,• as may be gathered from Aft: 1: 4, 5-. Luk. 24. 44. It is true, o- thers, befide the Twelve, got fome Drops of that heavenly Shower, but they had not the fame Commiflion with them, and therefore the Mea* fure that they got did neither authorize them, nor fit them for Apofto- lick Work. Another thing that I here obferve is, that though the Name Apoftle be given to others in Scripture, yet there were fome to whom that Name was given in a peculiar manner ,• though the Word is fome- time ufed at large, yet it is applyed to them, fo as by it they are diftin- guiihed from other Church Officers •• hence the Apoitle not only taketh that Designation to himfelf, in the Jhfcriptions of his Epiities, but taketh pains to prove that he was an Apoftle 2. Cor 9. 1, 2. Now our enqui- ry is, wherein conmteth the nature of that Office that they had, who by way of Eminence were called Apoftles ; or what are the Characters that they may be diftinguifhed by from other Church Officers? If we can arrive at any Light in this, it will help us fo underftand whedier the Bi- ihops be Apoftles, as fome plead, or their Succelfors, as others imagine. § 4. I begin with the learned Biihop of IVorcefler Iren. p 209. where he difcourfeth of the common ufe of the Word, but p. 210. he telleth US, that the twelve were called Apofrles, from their immediat Commiffion that they had from Qhrifr, and that our Lord made ufe of the word Sending ( at af- filed to them ) in the proper and peculiar fenfe. And he is fo far from ma- king Apoftles and Bilnops to be the fame, that he maintaineth, that no Argument can be drawn for the Form of Church Government from Qhrifls Acli- ens towards his Difcipks. Whitaker, againft Bellarm: de Vontif. Romano ( who hath the fame Notion of the Power given to Peter, that our Au- thor hath of that given to the Apoftles, andmaketh the Fope to fucceed to Peter, not in his extraordinary, but his ordinary Power ,- exactly as this Author faith of the Bifhops, compared with the Apoltles) Whitah, I fay, bringeth his Proofs againft the Popes being an Apoftle,from thefe Chandlers of an Apoftle: and this he borroweth from the Apoftle him- fclf, proving his own Apoftleftiip .' that he wm ntt celled by men, G*U 1. 1. Now Se&, Vlh ( 9? ) § 4. Now faith he^ the Vope is called by men ; fb fay we of Biftops ; that be bad lis Doctrine, not by mens teaching, but by Revelation, Gal. 1. 2. Eph' 3. ;. Tais agreeth neither to the Pope,nor Biftiops : that he bad feenChrift; 1 Co-,. 9. 10. That the Apoftles were Witneffes of ChriftsRefurreB/on, htls 1. ^^> You fee then how our Writers maintain the Proteftant Caufe a- gainft Papifts: that they give other Characters of an Apoftle, which they make effential to him : and that this Enquirer hath the fame Noti- ons of this Matter that the Papifts have* Calvin: Inftit: lib: 4: cap ;.§ 4, giveth thefe Chara&ers of an Apoftle : his univerfal Charge, and not U- ingtyed to a particular Church : and for this citeth Mark 16.15. and Row. 1$. 19, 2.0. where he obferveth, that there was no bounds fet to their La- bours, but the whole world was given them to labour in : and that when Paul would prove his ipofiolate, be doth net tell us of his gaining one City to Chriftl but how be had travelled through a great part of the World, preaching the Go- Jj>el. He mentioneth alfo another Character, that the Apoffoliwere tan~ auam primi Ecclefia Architect*, c\ui ejus fundament a in toto orbejacerent. They were the fir ft Planters of Churches, of which afterward. If it be objected, that thefe things belonged to the firft, and extraordinary Apoftles, not to thefe that are fecondary, and permanent, or ordinary Apoftles. This is to fuppofe what is in Queftion : the Scripture giveth us the Cham- bers of the Apoftles that were the firft Founders of the Church ,• but giveth no account of other Apoftles,-. therefore thefe other are not A- poftles, except in the general Notion, as they are fent to do Church work; GerJom'Bucer: dijjirt: de guberr.: Ecclefi Epifceps: Jo. p. 269. pro- vethj that the Apoftolate was a diftincT: Office from all other Church Of- ficers, from 1 Cor: 12. 29* are all Apoftles X io that it cannot be con- founded, with the Epifcopal Office, nor differ from it only in thefe ac- cidental things that this Author fpeaketh of : and Epifceps 98. p. 38;. he citeth both Wbitaker and Polanus, making the Apoftles fuch a diftind Office, to which there was no Succeflion in refped: of their Degree,, and making this a diftinguiftiing Mark of that Office, that their Calling was a^wor^ immediate. The fame hath Paul Bayn, Dyocef: tryal, ^.52. Didoclavx altan Damafcen: C. 4. p. 141. citeth Wbitaker, and Junius, to this purpofe ; and even Tilenm, who was no friend to Presbyterie, Pe- trum C faith he, ) unius loci aut urbis Epifcopum facere, eft Apoftolicam dig- nitatem ei detrahere. de 'Pont'if: lib: 2: C. 4. Not: 6. and lib. 1. C: 2 5. Not. 7. he hath thefe words, neque earn Apoftolus ullus uni civitati, tanquamgle- bai, afcriptus fnit^uod Gregarii eft Epijcopi 3 non Apoftoli, Alfo lib, 2. C. 12, Mr; SeA. VII. ( 94 ) . H,J> JVitf. 13: Petri autem, ft 'cut & reli quorum Apoftolorum munusfuit extracrdina- rium 3 adeoque tern tier avium non perpetuum : O* Not. 20. hpofiolatus, ftricle Jumptm 3 eft-extraor dinar im, 3 in quo lecumnen habet fuccejfio. Et lib* 4. c. 25". Not. 3. propria Apoftolorum ywpfopATcL fmit, primo, immediataa Christo 1/0- cdtf*#. 2. Immediataab eodem inftitutioin doclrina, %. ivA^ttfrnoi* in doflri- na. 4. */&r««* *» univerfam Ecclefiam : he did not think that their Gifts only, but their Office alfo was extraordinary. What is alledged con- cerning James being rixed to Jerusalem, maketh nothing againft this: for he had the peculiar Infpe&ion of all the Churches of Judea : where were many Biihops, in our Brethrens Opinion * Alfo/>. 185, he citeth Caufabon : who exercit'* 14. p. 314. hath thefe words, quart a Apoftelatm not a eft, pot eft as longe major & ^u^uftior quam ulla unquam alii funbtioni (pi- rituali fuit attributa, folk enim Apoftolis dictum eft, ficut mijit me pater, & ego mitte vos. J oh. 2. 2i» Et Chryfoftom: in 1 Cor. 12. 24. Dicit hpoftclatum inter ffirituales poteftates ejje, ZtrcLiav imvixctTtKav- {. e. Supra omnes alias funbliones ffirituales fie eminere, ut fupra omnes ci'viles magi fir atus eminet po~ teftasconfularU : and he citeth AvguFtine, lib: 2» de baptijmo: c- 1. in thefe words, Quit nefcit ilium Aposiolatm principatum cuilibet Epifcopatui prafe- rendum. I fhali add the learned and induftrious Mr* Pool, in his quo warranto- p. iof. proving that Chrifts twelve Difciples were not Apo- ftles till after Chrifts Refurre&ion, he ufeth this Argument, they wanted univerfal Jurijdiciion • which was the confiant Char abler of an Apofile. Corn. d lapid: in t ch 1. 22. Apostolus ergo eft idem quod teftis Re fur re& ion is Do- mini. % f. I have feen a Manufcript of a learned Minifrer of this Church, now deceafed, which, by an accident,hath ftuck in the Birth, ( I mean the Prefs ) for fome time : the defign of which is to prove ( and I think he doth it foiidly ) that the proper diftinguilhing Character of an Apoftle is, he was cemmijjioned by Jefus Chrift in an immediate way, to gather and to plant Churches > and to injiitutc all Chrifts Ordinances, in them: to teach them to objerve all that he bath commanded. So he, p' 61. That Apoftles were appointed for the erecting and building of the Church, as ordina- ry Officers are for theconftant care of it, and adminiftring the Ordi- nances of it. And p. 64: he maketh the Power of the flpoirles, to be inftituting the Ordinances of the Church, Ministerially, under Chrift ; whereas the Power of all other Officers lyeth in executing what is by them inftituted i the Apoftles Power cf Executing thefe Inftitutionsa- rofe from this, that every iuperior Chinch Officer hath the Power of all inferior Sell. VIE ( 95 ) §f, 6. inferior Officers. He further fneweth, that the Office of an Apoftle differed from all the extraordinary Offices that were in the Churchy in the beginning of the Gofpel, particularly, the Evangelifis (whofe Of- fice had the moft Refemblance of the Apoftolate ) in that i e They had not the fame Million with the Apoftles ( the one was immediatly from Chrift, the other was from Him, by the Apoftles : though their Gifts were fometimes immediate, and extraordinary. ) 2 * They were not under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, as the Apoftles were,- but were directed and ordered by the Apoftles. 3. They had not their par- ticular Inftrudions from Chrift immediatly^, as the Apoftles, as appear- ed! from the Epiji to Tim: and litm 4 They had not the Power of conferring the Gifts of the Holy Ghoft by laying on of Hands, as the Apoftles had. My defign in all this is to (hew, that we have little rea- fonto take this our Authors Do&rine about the nature of the #pofto- lick Office, how ever confidently afferted by him, on his bare word ,• feingfo many of all forts of Proteftants are againft him in this : for his talk of the uniform Teftimony of Antiquity for what he faith, we look on it as a groundlefs Fancie ,• that he can never make out. I find in- deed that fome of the Ancients call Biftiops, and fome of them call Pres- byters, Apojlles } in alargefenfe^ that is Ghrifts Ambailadors : but that fome of them think, or fay, that the Office of them who now rule the Churches, is the fame with that of them who at firft planted them, I find not : when he fhall pleafe to produce fome of thefe Teftimonies that he pretendeth to be uniform, they (hall be confidered. § 6 I cannot pafs over without correction, an Argument he hath p* 99. to prove that it was not neceffary to make up an Apoftle, that he be immediately called to the Apoftolate by our Saviour ,• for Matthias -wM not immediatly ordained by our Saviour } but by the Apofiles • who had power to continue that Succeffion to the end of the World. A. It is moft ab- furdly faid, that Matthias was ordained by the Apoftles ; for if they had had power to ordain an Apoftle, why made they uie of Lots ? They did not fointhe Election or Ordination of any other Church Officer. I think Lightfoots Opinion will find moe to ailent to it, his words are, Jlpofloli non poterant Apoflolum ordinare impofitione manuum 3 prout fresbyteros erdinabant 3 Jed ferte utuntur, quae erat veluti immediata manuum Chrijli im- pofitio in eum. Nor doth it make againft this^that it is faid ♦ 100. That the word Apoftle never fgnifieth a Mtfeng r fent by men to men, but always one fent by God to men • is evident from job. 1 3.16, Neither » he that is Jent, ATriroAor^ greater than him that fent him • where the word is taken at large, for any one that is fent by another* And N the ScA. VII. (9«; - $% the Verb whence it is derived, is often ufed for a Mans fending ; as Mat. 2. 16. and 2 1. 3: and 27: 19: -2.Tim\^\ 12-' & paffim. § 7. He took notice,, it feems, that his Adverfaries make Univerfali- ty of Apoftolkk Jurifdittion to be one diftinguifhing Mark of their Office, which Biftiops cannot pretend to • and therefore Bifhops have not the Subftance of the Apoftolick Office. Hence he laboureth to take this Scruple out of the way, p* iqi, 102, 10;, 104. And 1. He telleth us the narrownefs of the Limits ofthefe Provinces affiled to the fecondary dpo- files ( he meaneth the Bifhops ) did not alter the nature of their Office, from that of the twelve Apo Hies ,• more than the Kings of Juda loft the Honour of fitting on theThrcne of David, after the Revolt of the ten Tribes. Here is a grofs Miftake of the Queftion, which is not, whether the largenefs or narrownefs of the Charge that a Church Ruler hath, do alter the na- ture of his Office - 3 but whether a limited and particular Charge do not fo differ from that which is univerfal and extended to the whole Church of Chrift, as that he who hath the one Charge and he that hath the o- ther is not in the fame Office. "Will any Papift fay, that the Univerfal Bilnop who fitteth at Rome, hath the fame Office in tLe Chuich, and no higher than any poor Bifhop in Italy or efewhere ? The Similitude brought from the Kings ofjuda is impertinent to this purpofe : if one had the Empire of the whole World, ahdlorl that, and got the Crown of One particular Kingdom ,• I think his ''Cffice is not what it was. Be- fide, if we mould yield all that he here aliedges, it were no lofs to our caufe : for we do not make univerfal Jurijd>tn:K the only Character of an Apoftle ; but that complexly, and in conjunction with others : as is above mewed. Another Connderation that he hath, is, the Apoftles them- f elves had not equal Bounds and Provinces for their Injfetiicn, but jome travel- led further than others ; yet thu did not change their recJoral Power , or Jurif- dielion : no more did the confining Bifhofs in the exercife of their Vower, to nar- rower Limites, make their Power to differ from what the Apo files had: that Reftritlion not being by the nature of the Tower it felf ,• but from the various Ne- ceffities and Circumftances vf the Church, the Rules of Order, and the multi- tude of Converts, which obliged them afterwards to more ferjonal Kefdence. I reply to this, 1. IUiq is a wide Door left for hu Hetinefs of Rome to en- ter into the Church by : and it is obfervable, how naturally, and fre- quently, this learned Author, and fome others of his Gang, do /hew their By als to that iide. If nothing but Order, and Circumftances, and not Divine Inftitution, do conhne Bifhops to their Sees,whether larger, or Sea. VII f 99 ) S 7, 8. or lefs extended ,• and every one of them have, aBu pritno ( as may be deduced from this Dodrine ) univerfal Jurifdidion ; why may not the exercife of it be committed to one of them ; and the reft be fubjed to him ? Some think that this belongeth to good Order, ( though ordina- ry Paftors be related aBu frimo, to the Univerfal Church ,• yet they have not that Jurifdidion that the Apoftles had, who needed no more but their in tiinfick Power to warrant its Exercife in any particular place.) 2. It is without all warrant to fuppofe that every Biihop hath univerfal Power over the Church of Chrift, as every Apoftle had : they have not that Commitlion, go teach all Nations : this was the peculiar work of A- poftles, to travel and plant Churches * the work of Bilhops ( if fuch an Office be in the Church ) is to ftay at home, and feed that part of Chrifts Flock which is committed to them. ;. It is falfly fuppofed that the Apoftles had fo their feveral Provinces as that they were confined to thefe: the World was the Province of each of them ,• though by mutual Confent, or by the immediat Condud of the Holy Ghoft, who guided their Motions, ( as may be gathered from A&s 17. 7, 9, 10. J they went into feveral places of the World ; yet fo as they obferved not that Divifion very critieaily ,• for we find them meeting fometimes ,• and though Peter was the Apoftle of the Circumcifion,yet Pattl often preach- ed to the Jews 4. The confinement of the ordinary Paftors to their fe- veral Charges is not the effed of Prudence, and Agreement of them a- mong themlelves, alone ,* but it is Gods Appointment, ( though the fet- ting of the Bounds of their feveral Diftrids in particular, be a work of men ) for Chrift hath not only fet Paftors in the Church, but he hath fet them over their particular Flocks, Ads 20. % 8. fo as they have the charge of them, and muft give account of them ,• and not of the Souls in allChurches. § 8. Flis Notion, p. 103. that t he Afo files divided the World among them- [elves by Lot, I know is to be found in E»febim 3 Dorotheas, and Nice- fhorm, and fome ethers of the ncients ,• and fome latter Writers have taken it on truft from them, as this Author doth : neither ftiall I be at pains to difprove it ; it is done learnedly and fully by Dr.StiMingfleer ,lren: f, 2; 2. & feq. by eight Arguments, that this Author will not eafily an- fwer : and particularly he iheweth s that Acls 1. 2f. KA»pi>* Ax'erohik, can- not be underftood of a Diftrid appointed at firft for Judas, and he fal- ling from it was alioted to Matihias : which our Author taketh for an uncontefted Truth, p. 103. Another thing I obferve is, j>. 104* that he N 2 faith, Se 1. The Apoftles had. their Power both as to its being, and extent, and that toward perfons and things or actions, by an immediat Call : The Lord by himfeif, without any ad of the Church Sfnterveening, pitched on the perfons, made them Church (Sheers, and told them their work, and fee the bounds of their Power.. Now if any pretend Sea. vii. ( 102 ) s 9 , I0 . pretend to fucceed to them in the plenitude of this Power, they muft inftrud the fame immediat Call, or mew that the Lord hath left Dire- ctions in his Word, for clothing lome perfons with all that Authority : but this neither the Bifhops, nor none elfe can pretend to. Not to an immediat Call ,• for then they muft fhew their Credentials. Nor to Scri- pture Warrant for all the Power of the Apoitles ,• where is their War- rant for going through the World, in their own perfonal and intrinfick Authority, to order Affairs in all Churches where they come, or for in- itituting Gofpel Ordinances,- and appointing new Officers in the Church, that were not in it before : or even for ruling over their Brethren ? This laft I know they claim : and we mall debate it with them ; but thefe others alfo belonged to the plenitude of an Apoftolick Power. We have indeed fufneient warrant in the Word, for Men to Teach and Rule the Church ,• and thefe things are neceliary to be, and a Power for doing that was needful to continue in the Church to the end of the World j but for other Powers that the Apoftles had, they were only needful for planting the Gofpel ,- not for Churches planted: neither have we Di- rections about propogating fuch a Power in the Church. S io. Another Argument. The Apoftles in their own time, di- vided their Power and Work among feveral forts of Church Officers : they appointed Eiders, fome for Teaching and Ruling, as hath been pro- ved ,• fome for Ruling only, i Tim. j. 17. They appointed alfo Dea- cons, to have a care of the Poor ,• which was alfo apart of their Power: but they appointed none to fucceed in the whole of their Power. This Conduct they could not have ufed, if they had been to have fuch Suc- cefTors. If they made diverfe forts of Church Officers to fucceed them, every one in his mare of that work that is alloted to him. All which was done by the Apoftles: and if they have not toid the Church, that every one of thefe Officers muft act in dependency on one, who is over them, as the Apofties were over all : how can we imagine that there is one Officer in the Church I by divine or Apoftolick appointment) who hath all the Power that they had, and 10 whom aiimuit befubje&as to them, ;. The Fathers do not only make Bilhops to be Succelfors to the Apoitles, but they fay the fame of all Church Officers, Ergo 3 they did not think that any perfon fucceded to them in the plenitude of their lower. The confequence is evident, for parcelling out their Succeflion, and one enjoying it in {olidum, are inconliftent ,• the Ant* I prove by feveral Teftimonies. Jgnatitu Ep ad Trslli Fresbjteros vocat conjunftionem Sea. viL ' f m J . «*>, ". conjun&ionem ApofioloWm Chip : & jubet i ut eos fequamur tanquam CbrisJi Apo&olos. Ep\ adSmyrneni and£/>: ad Magnet, he faith exprefly />:;$. «&: Voffi, that the Presbyters fucceeded & **»" *rikU A»6r x♦ 112. which is both faife,- he had power to oidain when any of the Apoftles fent him about that Work : and Timothy and Titus had it not otherwife. (For the power of Confirmation, we know none had it : there being no fuch Ordinance, in our Authors fenfe, in the Apoftolick Church ) It is alfo wide from this purpofe, for the Apo- ftles might fend the Evangelifts clothed with what power they thought fit to impart to them. Paul might fend Titus to Crete to ordain Elders and Philip might be fent elfe where, on another £rrand ,• and yet both be £vangeliits* That moft of the Primitive Bilhops were Evange- lifts, is true, in the large fenfe, as before: but not in the ftrick fenfe: neither is this to our prefent purpofe: for he faith nothing unlefs he can alfo make it appear that all thefvangelifts, in the Primitive Times, were Bilhops* But what folioweth is wholly faife : that any BU fhop or Presbyter, who now adays convert eth any Jew or Pagan, are as proper- ly Evangel! sis as any of them who were fo called in the Primitive limes. If it were fo, every fuch Minifter Jhould be a Church Officer of a diftincl: fort from all other Church Officers ; for there were whom the Scrip- ture Se&.VIL ( in ) $ 16. ture doth particularly call Evangelifts, zph. 4. 11, as fo diftinguiiLed. § 16. That we may more fully and diftin&ly take off what our Ad- yerfaries pretend to bring for timothy and Titus being Bilhops ; and not £vangelifts; I fhal ihew what is the true Notion of an £vangelift; whence it will appear plainly, that Timothy and Titus were fuch : and that there is no ground from what is faid of them in Scripture to think, that they were ordinary Officers in the Churchy or Dlocefan Bilhops, I deny not that the word £vangelift is fometimes taken for any Preacher of the Gof pel, who bringeth the good News of Salvation to Mens Ears. Yet it is often taken efesrpsTa^ for, 1. One who wrote the Hiftory of the Life and Death of Chrift ; and that by the infallible Guidence of the Spirit; and fo Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called £vange- lifts. 2. For an extraordinary Officer who was imployed by the Apo- ftles for planting Churches, and propagating the Gofpel. That there was fuch an Officer diftind: from all others., both extraordinary, @r temporary, and ordinal y, or permanent, is evident from that place al- ready cited, Eph. 4. 1 1. Our work is then to enquire what is thedirtin- guiihing Charader of this Church Officer, from all others. Alfo that fome are called £vangelifts peculiarly, and by way of Diftin^b'on from other Officers of the Church, as Vhilip 3 ABs 21. 8. Of whom Grotius in locum, faith, qui cum olim de numero Diaconorum fuiftfet, fafius eft Vresbv- ter tf-ep/e/eiTH* , nulli cert & Ecclefia affixus ; cfuales Evangeliff^e vocabantur, Eph: 4, 11. zTim. 4- 7. i. e. OH]0^p E/tfi. 40 9. and 5-1.7. Ita folmt pro- motiones fieri K«tT* B*6^ r, 1 Tim: 3: 17. Let us then fee what Light we can get in this matter from Scripture, or from Antiquity, or by the help of rater Writers. The Scripture not only giveth us account ( as hath been faid ) that there was fuch an Officer in the Church;, but thatfome were fent hither and thither by the Apoftles, and that about fuch a Work as could not be done but by Apoftolick Authority; as is evident in Timothy c as is /hewed §. 12. ) and Titus ;. whom Paul made his Com- panion in his Travels, Gal: 2. Whofe Journeys and Imployments the Reader may fatisfie himfelf about, from Smeclymt §: 3: p: $8- ('That I may fhun the pains of Tranfcribing ) "Jichycus, Softbenes, Luke, &c, feveral of them are mentioned by V*ufeb: hi ft: lib: 3: C: ;,;.. It is evident that thefe Men can be Ranked into no other Clafs of Church Officers^ neither ordinary nor extraordinary. Wherefore they muft be Evange- lifts : and from the account that we have of them, we mufr gather what was the Power, the Work, and the Gharafteriftick Note, of an Evan- gel^ Sect. VII. ( M2 ) §i 7 . gelift,that he was an extraordinary Officer in the Church 3 needful for the firft planting and fet ling of the Churches , who was imployed by the ApoHles 3 and by them authorized to do what ever work, or exerce what Atts of Vower 3 the A" poftles themfclves, who imployed thetn 3 might have done. § 17. For what account of them is to be found among the Ancients, it is to the fame purpofe : they make them no fixed Officer, but itine- rant. They afcribe to them rtpoiioiick Power; and make them fubor- dinat to,, and delegated by the Apoltes; for this fee *>ufeb: biff, lib: 3: C: 3;: (or as fome editions have it 37:) who telleth us of fome who A7ro. 112. bringeth a new Argument, viz,. That James the Ju(i was Bijhop of Jerufalem, and he faith, it is not material to his defign, whether he was one of the twelve A~ fc >files, or not: One would think that this is more to his purpofe than he is aware of: for he is proving the Succeffion of Biihops to the Apoftles, and if James was an Apoftle, this inftance can never prove fuch Succef- fion. But I pafs this. I think he was one of the twelve, becaufe he is fo called, Gal. 1. 19. and 2. 9. Paul fpeaketh there of the Apoftles in the ftrickeft fenfe 5 for he cannot mean he had feen no Preacher of the Gofpel at Jerufalem, fave Peter, and that he fpeaketh of that James, who abode at Jerusalem, when the reft of the Apoftles left it, is not to be doubted. That James fta'yed at Jerufalem, and did not travel as the reft of the Apoftles, I have acknowledged, §. 4. and there have given account how it came to pafs. That he had all the Power that our Bre- thren give to their Diocefan,-we deny not: The Apoftoiate included that, and more. That he might be called a Bilhop, and was fometimes fo ftiied, we may eafily grant : for that word is fometimes ufed general- ly : for all Church Rulers, and not only Apoftles, but their, and our great Mafier is fo called, 1 Vet* 2. 2 f. But none of thefe Conceffions, nor all of them in Conjunction, will prove that James was Bilhop of Jerufalem, in the fenfe of the word that is now current ; that is, that he was an ordinary Ruler of the Church, inferior to an Apoftle^and an Evangelift, whofe Jurifdi&ion was limited to one Diftrid, and not ex- tended to all the World. Let us now hear his Proofs for James's Epif- copacy at Jerufalem. i* It is uniformly ait e fed by the moft ancient Witnef fes, particularly, Clem» Alexandr* and HegefippuS. I can eafily yield him a great many more Witnefies ; and perfons of more Credit than Uege- fiffus, and of more Antiquity than Uem* Akxandr, tho I will not yield, P that Sed. VII. ( 1 14 ) § 1 8, 19. that all his Adversaries grant k 3 in his fenfe. Salmafas ( whom he ci- teth ) faith nothing, but that he abode at Jerufatem* The Anfwer to this Argument is eafie, the Ancients called James Biftop of ftmfitkm ( as they alfo called fome other Apoftles who abode not fo joog in one place) becaufe of his Apoftolical Authority which he there exercifed ,• which included in it all that Authority that any of the Ancients ( or Moderns either ) afcribe to a Biihop : and ufuaily they began their Catalogues of Succeffion with fome Apoftle, or Apoftolick Man : as Peter at Rome • tho it is certain he did not relide there: and it is a Queftion whether e- ver he was there. And indeed it was ufual with the Ancients to fpeak of things long before their time, in the Dialed: that was current among themfelves. His Argument from this Denomination is naught, unlets he can make it appear, that James had his Authority, not from his A- poftolate; but by his being ordained a isiihop. I wonder to find that fuch a Learned Man as Downam afferteth that James, 3 before his Or- dination as £ifbopj had Authority as an Apoftlej but had no Jurifdieti- 011 over that particular place ; but was a Paftor fine titulo : for this (Irani; e fancie will infer, that Paul and the reft of the Apoftles never had jui'iil diction any where j feing they were no where ordained i?ifhops : nor doth the Scripture give account of any fuch Ordination of James, §. 19. We have further Argument from p. H 3. Peter when he was deli- vered cut ofPrifon commands that t he fe things be made known to James Acls 12. 17. J-faiere ( faith he very wifely ) the defer enee paid to Saint 'fames isvijiblc: and taken notice of e I ftwbere frequently, as Gall J: ic; and 2. r 9, Truly the Papifts have many Arguments that have a fairer mew than this hath for its Conclufion, for Peters Supremacy, I wonder that a Man pretending to Learning, is not aihamed of fuch an Argument. Was not all this reiped: due to James as an Apoftle j how then doth it prove him to have been a .Biihop : is there any thing that looketh like Jurisdiction (which yet we deny not to James, at Jcrufalem) cannot Men be civil to a Perfon fo eminent for Grace, Gifts, and his Character, but they mufr make him a Diocefan Bifhop ? but the ftrongeft Argument is yet behind : AIL 1 f. He pronouncetb the Sentence by his %-pf copal Authority. A. He might far rather do it by his Apoftolick Authority: but there was no need of either of them ;. he did it as being chofen Moderator of that Meeting : and that he exercifed no Epifcopai Authority in this Cafe, is evident • for the reft of the Apoftles were prefent, Aa* 15-. 2, 4, 6, 22. And it was never heard of ( but among Papifts) that one Apoftle had Autho- rity Sed. VII. ( .iif ") §-19,20. rky over another, or over all the reft : much lefs that a Bifhop fhou.d have Authority over Apoftles. I am afraid this Author unawares doth fo ftretch the Epifcopal Authority, that he will make it break, and be contemptible. He tellethus, Calvin holdetb all that be faith, en Gal: 2: 9; in faying that James was preferred to Peter, becaufe he was Hierojolymitana EccUfiaprafetlm* He difmgenuoufly leaveth out Calvins, fortajjis- which flieweth that he was. not pofitive in that matter. But I /hall positively yield him what Calvin doth but doubtingly, and let him make his belt of it. Let it be granted that James was chofen Prafes of that Meeting, becaufe of his Reiidence at Jerusalem, and being the chief Governour of that Church where the Meeting was held, ( not as Biihop but as A- poftle ) this can prove no Preference to any of the Apoftles ,• Prefiden- cy in fuch a cafe doth not infer a Superiority of Power. It rather fhew- eth that the Apoftles did not there a6t in their Apoftolick Capacity, but in a Parity with the other Elders,- with whom they are always joy- ned in that Chapter, when fpoken of. Our Author now making a Tranfition to another Head of Arguments, cannot go out of his Road, in concluding with infolent Contempt* of his Adverfaries. / do nut ( faith he ) new infift on thefe imaginary and fuperfcial Exceptions that are made by eur Adverfaries. If they were fuch, they were well futed to forae of the Arguments he hath laft ufed. § 20. Another Argument he beginneth, p* 1149 ^n& profecuteth it in fome Pages following, is tajten from the feven Angels of the /even Afiatkk , Churches • by whom he underftandeth the Bifhops of theje churches : if they were fo, the Confequence is, that Bifhops were fetled in the Churches by the Apoftles : and that thefe Churches were not by ^Divine Right ruled by a CcUedgc of Presbyters. This Argument hath been much tolled ,• and in my Opi- nion, urged with more Strength, by others of his Party, than he giveth to it. For clearing the Truth in this Matter, I fhali give my Opinion, and lay down the Grounds of it ,* and then Examine what he faith in Enforcing and Vindicating this his Argument. I find three Opinions among the Presbyterians about thefe Angels. The firft is, that by Angel is meant the Collective Body of the Church,- for this our Author citeth Salmaftus x Walo. Meffal, p. 1 84. AmbrofiuS Ausbertus, is alfo cited by SmeUy?ni and Aretas Ctefarienfis by Turret, his Words are, *K'yy%hw 7 2 Ep^a tm» v iv a vjii I mhmUv hiy n } &c. Alfo Ticonius was of this Opinion, asisfaid by MguB* de Do&*Chriftian., lib % ^» a^o. And it is certain, that not only all the Members of the Churches were concerned in what is written in P 2 thefe Sed' VII* ( 116 ) $20) 2U thefe Epiftles,* but John was commanded to write them to the Chur- ches, Rev. r. 1 1. And in the Conclufion of every Epiftle, all the Church Members are excited to hear what the Spirit faith to the Churches and not to the Mmifters only, which yet cloth not prove that by Angel is meant the Church : their Concernments in thefe times were entrufled to the Angela not that they were the Angel, Another Opinion is that o£$eza 3 Reynolds, and others,* who take Angel /JWi*£f ,• for a Tingle per- fon ; but maintain, that not a Diocefan Biihop is to be underftood but the rsfavt, or Moderator of the Presbytery, by whom the Epiftle was to be communicated to the reft of the Paftors, and by them to the Peo- ple: and indeed it is certain, that the Word may be fo taken • and if we mould yield this to our Brethren, it cutteth the Nerves of their Ar- gument, unlefs they can prove,' that thefe fingle perfons had Jurifdicli- on over the reft of the Paftors of thefe Churches. Which they can ne- ver do from the Epiftles themfelves ^ for all the Reproofs and Commen- dations may be intended for the Colledge of Presbyters, tho addref!cd to them by the Prafes- Nor can the. Direction of the Epiftle to a lirgje perfon prove what they intend : there is nothing more ordinary than to addrefs a Community by the Praefes of their Meeting: if a Letter be Di- rected to the Moderator of a Presbytery for the ufe of the Presbytery doth this Entitle him to Epifcopal Jurifdi&ion ? The third Opinion ( to which I moft incline ) is, that Angel is here to be taken 0VMw*TiKa t or CplkBively, for the Colledge of Presbyters -, fo that to the Angel is ( in our Phrafe ) to the Moderator and remanent Brethren. In the Con- tents of the old Tranflation of the Bible ( which expreffeth the fenfe of the old Church of England, in this matter ) they arc called Minifters: So it was un derftood by hretaS, Vrimafius, hmbrofe : Gregory the Great Beda, Haymo • and many others, faith Owen of Ordination, C. 2. p. 2 c. §2U I mall firft prove that it may be fo taken: next, that it^muft be fo underftood. For the former, it is ufual in the Scripture, and par- ticularly in the Myftical Farts of it j in Types and Viiions rand that moft of the Book of Revelation is written in that Stile, every one know- eth ) to pur the Singular Number for the Plural,- or to mean a Multi- tude when but one is expreft: how often is a People or Nation cxprel- fed by the Virgin or the Virgin Daughter of fuch or fuch a Piace? The Ram, Daniel 8. 3. is interpreted to be the Kings of Media and ferjta v. 20. The whole Succeffion of the Apoftate biftiops of Rome, is called hntichrisl, the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition. The Antichriftian Church, confifting Se&.VIL ( 117 ) § 2i 3 2C confifting of Priefts and People,, is called Bcafi, the Whore 1 So an infe- rior Number is put for a great Multitude 1 the Enemies of the Church are called four Horns , and her Deliverers four C(trf enters, Zech, i. j8, 20. The Directions given to Judges are often in the Angular number, thou (baft do fo and fo : hundreds of Infiances of this nature may be given Whence it is eaiie to conclude, that there is no Abfurdity, nor is any Violence done to the Text, if by Angel we underftand the Rulers of the Church, or the Colledge of Presbyters. My next work is to prove that Angel muft be fo underftood, for which I bring thefe Arguments, 1. The Lord here ufeth a Title that doth not lignifie Rule, or Jurifdi&i- onj but Gods Meffenger to the People : as alfo, Rev. 1. 16, 2c Thefe Angels are called Stars, which importeth their Teaching, or holding forth Light to the People ; both which are common to the Presbyters : feing then he doth not'ufe a word of Authority, whereby the BiJhop is pretended to be diftinguilhed from the Presbyters ; but of Embany, and giving Light; whereby the Presbyters are diftinguilhed from the 1 eople^ this word cannot be taken for a Ruling Biihop, but for Teaching Pres- byters. It were a ftrange thing, if our Lord defigning to Tingle out one. perfon from all the reft of the Church, would deiign him by that which is common to him with many others, and not by that which is peculiar to himfelf. It doth aifo llrengthen this Argument, that both in the Old and New Teftament, they whom God fent to his People to reveal his Mind to them, are called Angels, Jud,2.i. Hag, 1.1;. Mai. 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, Pfal: 3 4:. 7. §22. Argument 2. It is not without a Myftery, that Rev: 1: 2c: our Saviour in opening the Myftery of the Virion, fpeaketh twice of the feven Churches ; but Jhunneth calling the Angels feven : he faith not, the feven Stars are the feven Angels of the Churches; but the Angels of the feven Churches: as by the J even Spirits, Rev: 1:4: and p 1: is meant the Spirit of God., fufficient for the needs of all the feven Churches,- fo here, the Angels of the /even Churches muft be the Paftors whom the Lord hath provided for the ufe of his Churches ,- tho they were not one only for every Church,but more. Argument 3. It is manifeft from Atts 20:281 ( and I have evinced it § ;. o£Secl» ;. ) that there were more Presbyters., or Biihops at Ephefus than one : If then Chrift wrote to the Rulers of the Church of Ephefus under the Title of Angel, he could not mean a fmgle perfon, Sed. VII. ( 118 ) - § 22 . perfon. It -cannot be denyed, that they who are called Overfeers of the Church of Ephefus, Acts 20: 28: are they whom Chrift here calleth Angel : the fame thing is expreffed in the one Place in a more plain Stile in the other in a more Obfcure and Myftical Stile. Argument 4. Our Brethren will not deny, that there were more Church Officers irnployed in Teaching each of the Churches than one Bifliop, Now thefe muft either be comprehended under the Lavdleftkk, or under the Star', they cannot be a part of the Candleslick < for they give Light, as the Candle- slick doth not, but by the Candle ftkk is meant the People to whom the Light ihineth : they muft then be comprehended under the Star-, and confequently under the *Angel * whence it foiloweth that the Angel is a Plurality -of Perfons. So that we may conclude, that as by Candleftick h underftood the Collective Body of People, fo by Star, or Angel, is under- ftood a Body of Church Officers, and not a fingle Bifliop. Argument 5. Many things are faid in thefe Epiftles, which cannot be Expounded with refped: to a fingle perion : as at Ephefus, the A ngels forfaking his fir ft hove is threatned with removing the Candleftick : that is, Unchurching that People : can we think that fuch a fearful J udgment could be threat- ned for the Sin of one Bifhop, if the reft of the Elders and People were free : and this we muft fay, unlefs we acknowledge that the Angel to whom the Epiftle is Directed is not a fingle perfon, but a Community, The fame may be faid of feveral other Churches; would the Lord (hue out all the Presbyters and People of Laodkea, for the Hypocrifie of one Bi- fhop. Argument 6. There are feveral Pailages in thefe Epiftles wherein a Plurality is expreffed,- as that which is meant by Angel, to whom the Epiftle is addrefled : as the Devil flail caft [ome of you into Vrifoni can that be Expounded, fome of thee Biihop of Smyrna, or fomeof your Parlors and People? and unto you I jay, v'pir, and the reft inThyatira: is not there a plain Intimation of a Plurality, under the Name of the Angel} by the reft in Thyatira muft needs be underftood them who are diftinetfrom the Angel, and the Angel muft be who ever is diiiinct from thefe who are called the reft? and yet befide the reft, there is a Plurality, you. My An- tagonift hath an Aniv/er to this Pailage, fuch as it is,- which I ihail con- fider, when I come to Examine his Vindication of his Argument. "Smettym. Seel* 13. out of Fax, Meditation en the Revelation ( which 1 have not ieen ) citeth Auguft. Ep. 132. Sic ev.im ( faith he) in tipocalypfi legimus, AngeluS, &c. Quod ft de A?tgelo Jupericrum i^celorum, & non de prapojitis Ecclejia velit intelligi, non confeyttenter dicat habeo adverjum te, &c* And Homil. Se& VIL C 1 19 ) §2;. Homih x. in hpocalyp. Quod autem dicit Angelo Thyatira, hah to advvrfum te fama 3 dicit frafojttis Ecclejiarum. And Greg mitaU lib, $4. in Job %\ %&pb facra Scrlptura pradicatons Ecclefia, pro eo -quod Patris gloriam ann unci ant 3 hngelorum nomine folere dejignare : & hinc eft quod Joannes in bpozalypfi fep- tern Ecclefus fori bens 3 Angelis Ecclcfumtm loquitur, id e'ft 3 pradicatoribus popu- larity. Alio Trimajius, Hajmo, Beda 3 Vdchardns 3 fhcmas 3 and others are cited by Mr. Fox 3 to this purpof e. §2]. UhaH now examine what my Adverfary bringeth, offenfively, or defenfively, for his Opinion about thefe 'Angels, 1. He falleth on Walo Mepalinm, who/. 184. interpreteth Angel 3 by Church: calling V* G> the Angel of Ephefu-s 3 the Church of Ephefus ; and he giveth the reafon, becaufe the Chriitians in each of thefe Towns were purior & fanciicr pars- urbis 3 -atejue adeo magis fyirituaUs ; therefore that part was compared to an Angel. Tho I do not ovvne this Notion of the Learned 'baimafwf, yet I judge our Authors calling it afdlj Subterfuge 3 and his ridiculing of it, ro be' pretty ridiculous : he maketh the meaning be, the fc-ven Stars- are the Angels of the [even Churches^ that is } the Churches cf the [even Churches. By his favour, it hath no fuch fenfe ( Salmafius can hardly be Taxed with Nonfenfe, even by Men of more Critical Skill than this Au- thor 13 ) it ihould be thus Paraphrafed, the {even. Angels are the Chur- ches of the feven Towns : and it is evident, that according to the Opi- nion of that Learned Writer, the (\ngels are not diftinguifhed from the Churches, but from the Towns wherein they were. Alfo, when the Epiftle is addreiled to the Angel of the Church of Ephefus, the meaning, is not, to the Church of the Church of Ephefus; but to the Church which is at Ephefus ; even as the Virgin Daughter cf Ifrael, is not the Nation of the Nation of 'Ifrael; but that Nation which is called Ifrael. Myftical Expreffions muft not be drained by Critical Wits : fome Atheiits, by this method, have endeavoured to draw Nonfenfe out of the moil Profound, and lnftru(5fcivs Parts of Scripture. Our Author hath not dealt very fair- ly with Salmans, in this matter ; for he underftandeth by Angel 3 the Church Guides fignantcr, and alfo the whole Church ; his words are, per Eccleflam ( having faid that Angelas was Ecclefia) non tantum EcclepaBi- cum ordinexa intellect Joannes , Jed uni-verfum in quaque civitate fidelem popu- lum 3 ut mbs eft hpojiolis Icqui. And if he will ridicule. $aimafiits 3 the lame Cenfure muft fall on A retas Biihop of Ctfarea Cappadocise, whom Salma- fius citeth, p* 1 8 ; » Difcourfmg at large to the fame purpofe. I cannot underftand what he defigneth by telling us, p ¥ ii> That the Church cannot Sea. VII. ( 120 ) § 24. cannot be called a Company, a Multitude, or a Colledge of Angels ; but one Tingle Jngel praefiding in their Ecclefiaftical Meetings. For no Man doth io fenfe the word; but by Angel fome underftand a Multi- tude 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 InflruBiom in thefe Epifths } in which others are concerned, yet the Epilfles are no lejs to fmgh Angels, than the E fifth to the Philippians is to the whole Church there, tho particular Com- fellaticns he ufed } as, I intreat tbee true Toke Fellow, Cb. 4. Here is an odd Confequence, there is an Apoftrophe ufed to a Angle perfon, in an E- piftie exprefly Directed to a Community, and that in plain and proper Language, Ergo, when in a Myftical Speech an Epiftle is Dire&ed in the lingular Number, in a borrowed Term, we may not underftand a Plurali- ty, tho when the Writer of the Epiftle fpeaketh more properly, he fpeak exprefly to a Plurality. What tho the Conclusion of the fecond Epiftle to 'timothy had been to a Plurality ; doth it thence follow, that a My- ftical Word in the lingular Number, may not be Plurally taken ? the contrary would leem to follow more natively. But he is guilty of a double Miftake here, one is, that the Conclufion of that Epiftle is to all the Faithful,- the laft words are, The Lord Jefus Chrift be with thyfoirit ; grace be with you Where he is mentioned exprefly as the Perfon to whom the Epiftle is Directed : and the People of God with him are re- membred alio exprefly : it is not alike, when the Woid is ufed in the Di- rection of an Epiftle, which, tho lingular, is capable of a plural Senfe; and in the Epiftle a Plurality is exprefly fpoken to. His next Fancy is moft groundlefs. that the BMhops of the Sjiathk Churches are called An- gels in Imitation of the High Trie ft, who was Dignified with that Name : and for this he citeth Mai. 2. at the 7. v. For tho we fhould grant that : lv* '.'- may be Tranflated Angel, as well as Mejtenger ; yet this is a De- fcription of the PrieftsWork and Authority, teliing us what he is^ it is not a Name by which he ufed to be Deligned. Again, what Warrant is there to lay, that this is meant of the High Prieft peculiarly ? it is evi- dently to be underltood of Priefts in common: the Prieft, that is, every Prieft. For Deut. 27. 9, 10, 1 1. ( whence that Axiom feemeth to be ta- ken ) Afcribeth this Priviledge to a Plurality of Priefts ; and not to the High Prieft alone. Further, it is a bad Confequence, the High Prieft was called an Angel, and the Church Rulers are called Angels, Ergo, every one of them had the fame JurifdicUon that hehad : this is a loofe way of Sed. VII. ( in ) §243 2f. of Reafoning ; and either will fix the Tope in his Chair, or is Infigni- cant. He hinteth ( very fuperficially, and obfcurely ) an Anfwer to one oFour Exceptions, p. 116. That'll* Faults of the Churches are impu- ted to the Angels, becaufe they had Spiritual Tower to reform them. Reply, it cannot be fo underftood ; for fome of the Faults are fuchasno Church Difcipline can reach, nor any Minifterial Care prevent, or amend : as having a name to live when they ate dead ; Hypocrifie is not properly the Objed of Church Cenfures: but fuch Scandal as are the Symptoms of it : nor are Minifters always to blame when the Word doth not make People fmcere. That this Hypocrifie was the Fault of the People as well as of the Angel, may be gathered from v. 4. where a few, and on- ly 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 Epiftle be Dire- cted to him in his fingle Capacity, § 25-. He hath a peculiar Anfwer to what we alledge from Rev. 2. 24. To you, and to the reHin Ihyatira, i» He borroweth an Anfwer from Do&or Hamond againft Blondel, who not only blameth our Tranflation, but the Greek ; which he alledgeth to be corrupted, by adding K*< s he would have it read to you, the reB of Ihyatira* His ground is, the moft ancient Manufcripts; particularly, that of Alexandria, preferved in the Royal Library, hath not this Ktu. - Anf It is Confidence enough, if it be alfo Candor, to pretend to the Countenanced the moft of the ancient Manufcripts, when but one can be inftanced, Grotius, Ribera, andite&f, mention but three, which is far from the moft part ± and Bez.a proveth the ordinary reading out of Aretas. I oppofe to this bold Pretence, the Colledions of various Readings made by Curcellaus (who hath, wich no good Defign 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. Alio the Laborious Work of the Learned and Induftrious Walton, who in the Appendix to his Biblia Polyglotta, hath gathered the various Readings out of moft ancient Manuicripts : ( which he there namethj and not a word of thefe in any of them, likewife the Ope- rofe Notes of Lucas Brugenfis, ( in the fore-mentioned Appendix) where nothing of this appeareth. If his one Manufcript, be enough to Over- balance all the Manufcripts, and Printed Copies extant, i-et the Reader judge, Becaufe he could not but jealous this Shift as infufficient to his purpofe, he hath a fecond Anfwer, which fuppoieth our Reading of the Q Text Sed. VII. ( 122 ) § 2fj z6t Text to be right : that v^/r, you, relateth to all the Churches of Afia 3 which had beenffoken of in the former v. This is his own Invention, and let him have the praife of it, ( Dodor Ham. in kc maketh the reft to be the o- ther Cities under thyatira the Metropolis, which is better fenfe: but without all ground, unlefs what is in Queftion be yielded to him : ) his Party may applaud his Zeal, which will rather Diftort the Scripture and turn it to Nonfenfe, than not defend the Dignity of Bifhops. For what fenfe could it make, I will make all the Churches of Afia to know that I fearch the Reins and Hearts ,• but to you, the Churches of Afia and to the reft in thyatira, I fay : thefe of Thyatira were a part of the Churches of Afia; how then can they be called the reft, as diiiinguiihed from them. Befide, he had been fpeaking of the Churches of Afia in the third perfon : It were then ftrange, if with the fame breath he fhouid fpeak to them in the fecond perfon, I infift not on his calling Beta's fenfe of the Angel , that a Praxes is meant, ridiculous , and contrary to the fenfe of all Antiquity ,• fuch Confidence and Contempt are the Flowers of his Rhetorick. Neither doth Bez,a fpeak of a Weekly, or Monethly Mode- rator, butpleadeth againft his being perpetual : which this Author fhouid have oppofed with Reafon, or Scripture, not with Taunts. We make no Argument of the feven Angels not being called Bifhops : his refuting of it is idle work. That Poly carp was then Biftiop of Smyrna ( as he faith p. 1 1 8. ) it no more certain than thatTimothy was then Bifhop of Eph e - fus: and if the Good that is faid of Smyrna, fute to the one Hiftory, the 111 that is faid of Ephefus, will as ill agree to the other. He telleth us of the Explications of the Sectaries ( the Presbyterians) being foiled by com- paring the Epiftle to the Angel of Smyrna with the mofi ancient AQs of the Mar- tyrdom of Volycarp. But hath not thought fit to point at the Arguments that arife from this Comparifon ,- wherefore he cannot exped: that we fhouid Anfwer them : which might eafiiy be done, if they be no ftron- ger than what he hath hitherto brought from Antiquity. § 26, He hath now fallen on an eafie way to determine the whole Queftion, p. 118. It is pity it came not fooner, that all this Labour might have been faved. But it may be this Birrh alfo may mifcarry. Parturiunt monies, the Queftion feemeth to me to be in the fame State, and his Opinion to labour under the fame Difficulties, as before this Intention was hatched. His eafie way lieth in three Enquiries, Whether the Ancients affirmed that the Apoflolical Power was derived to the Bifiops as their Succefjbrs* a Whether they infift frequent- ly on this Succejjion o\ fmgle Perfons to the Apojiles in particular Sees, when tbey reafon SeA. VII. ■ ^'(^J ~\_ - §26,27. re a fen a%ain(t Heretich* %. Whether we may not with Safety and Confidence lean on their Authority, and Tradition, in an Affair of this Conference ? If ye will give our Enquirer leave to Di&at magifterially the Anfwers to theie three Queftions, our whole Debate will foon, but not foundly, be at an end : but if we conteit every one of them ( in his fenfe) with him, we cannot fo foon conclude this Difpute as he imagineth : For his firft Enquiry, it muft not be made, nor the matter determined fo indiftin&iy as he doth. It is not denyed that Bifhops fucceeded to the Apoftles ; but the Queftion is, whether thefe Bifhops had the fame Jurifdi&ion over Presbyters and People, that the Apoftles had ? The Ancients fome- times, with the Scripture, called all Presbyters BMhops ,• fometimes, by a Cuftom that early crept into the Church, they relinked that Name to the Pnefes in the Meeting of Presbyters .* and the Queftion is, whe- ther this Praefes had the Apoftolick Power in his fingle perfon, or it was diffufed equally among the Members of that Colledge in "which he did prafide? This being premifed as the ftate of this Queftion about Succef- fion to the Apoftles ; I hold, that all that Apoftolick Power that was needful for the Churches once planted, and muft be continued to the end, was communicated, not to the Prasfes alone, but alfo to the reft of theireshyters: and that all of them were the Apoftles Succeffors, in that refpe& : he is for the contrary Opinion. § 27. Let us now hear his Realons, Two things he brings for Argu- ments, or what elfe I do not well know. One is, It is evident that the Ancients affirmed that the dpoHolical Tewer was derived to the Bi(hops as their SucceJJers } from the Catalogue ofBijhops in the Apofiolick.Sees, by the mojf anci- ent Records of the church. This is no dreadful Argument ; for, 1. Among all the Sees he mentioneth ( I need not tranfcribe them ) there is not one in which an Kpoftle was faid to fit, but that of Jerusalem : the reft indeed were excellent Men who firft prafided in thefe Churches : but not Apoftles ; and therefore their Sees can no more be called Apoftolick, than that of Canterbury or Tork, &c. whofe Bifoops this Author recko- neth to be the Apoftles Succeffors, tho not fo immediatly as thofe men- tioned. 2. Thefe Catalogues that he mentioneth, were not fo early made as he would infinuat : they do indeed begin with early things, and guefs at what paft in, or near, the Apoftles Times: but we do not find that fuch Colle&ion of the Succeilion of Silhops was made for near three 'bundled years afcer Chrift ,• except fome little account by Itmaus : and thefe that are extant, are fo perpiext, and do fo difagree with one ano- Q 2, ther, Se& VII* ( >24 > $27,28. ther, that nothing can be concluded from them^ with any certainty: particularly in the SuEceifion at R«me 3 there is no certainty that Peter was there, nor who were after him,- the fame might be {hewed of others of them. 3. No more can be proved from thefe Catalogues, but that in the firftAges of the Church, there were fuchmen who Ruled and Taught thefe Churches, whom after Ages called Bifhops : but the Catalogues neither tell us what Power they had ; nor whether they ruled thefe Churches alone, or in Parity with the reft of the Presbyters. As Gerf. Bucer expreffeth it, p«4 2 ?* Non epueritur an Epifcopi continua fuccejfwne uf- fue ad Niceniim Concilium Ecclefiat gubernaverint 3 fed quale* Epifcopi fuerunt - & quid imperii aut potefiatis in EecYefiam aut Tresbyteriunt habuerunt. That one only is mentioned is no proof of fole power : for, 1 , That is not always done, Irenaus lib. 3.C. 3. beginneth the Succeflion at Kome with Teter and Vaul. 2. In their Catalogues they mentioned the Eldeft, or the Praefes of their Meeting, or the Man of moft Fame for Grace or Gifts. For their Defign was not to number all the Paftors of the Chur- ches; but to mew a Succeflion of Paftors, and of found Dodhine. Nei- ther do we find fuch Records of Succeflion in all Churches, but in fome that were of moft JNote. $28. Hisfecond Enquiry and Obfervation, pi 1 19. is, In what Lan- guage the Ancients ffakz, ofBtjhopf * 3 ivho are faidto have fucceeded to the Apo file i ; where he bringeth a number of Citations litle to the purpofe in hand; His iuft is Irenaus : Ef habemw annumerare eos qui ab hfofiolis in\\ituti funt Epifcopi in Ecchfiis 3 ejr Jucceficrcs eorum uf<]ue ad nos 5 qui nihil tale docueruni 3 neque cognoverunt 3 quale ab his diMratur. What can be hence inferred, fur- ther than that there were Sound and Orthodox Men,whom Irenaus calleth Bifbops, from the Apolties time: which is not to our Queftion. That Ire-) na us Reafons from this againft theValentinians ,is not probative of our Au- thors point: what he addeth out of Irenam 3 Quos {Epijcopi) ejr fuccejjeres relinquebanty fuum ipjorum locum Magifterii tradenta ,• is not concludent : For, 1. This is not fpoken of a i ingle Bifhop in one place,- but of all] the Paftors of the Churches: whom we maintain to have been a Plura- lity. 2. Or this Magifierium may well be underftood of their Teaching Authority; for that was to his purpofe,- that they whom the Apoftles authorized, to Teach the Church, Taught not the Doctrine of the Vakniinians. For what he faith that Irenaus carefully diftinguifties be- tween Biihops and Presbyters, he hath cited no place for it : and if he had, it importeth no more, but that fpecial notice was taken of thci! > Pra*fes Sea* vii. ( 12? ) s 2$. Fr#fes, beyond the reft of the Presbyters : it can never prove fole, nor fuperior Jurifdi&ion. Another Citation out of Irenaus ( that I may not tranferibe all the words ) is no more, but that kpofioli Mis tradiderunt Ec- ciefias : which we deny not; feing it may be underftood of all Presby- ters .* and indeed Irenaus faith the fame of Presbyters, lib. 4. C. 45. On- ly our Author will have it underftood of Bifhops, becaufe of their Age: on the contrary, I plead, that it mould be underftaod of Presbyters by Office ? becaufe Preaching Power was committed to them, and not to lifhops only : and it is of that he is fpeaking ,• as that by which the Va~ ltntinian ) and other Herefies were condemned. Another Teftimony out of trenaus, we muft obey them qui fuccejfionem habent ab hpsfiolis qui cum Epifcopatus fttccefime Charifma veritatis cerium, fecundum placitum Dei ac^ ceperunt. 1 fee nothing to prove that all this may not be applyed to eva- ry Presbyter, or Paftor of the Church,' nor is there any Shadow o£ Ground for his Inference, viz,. Ye fee here, that the Efifopal and Apofioli- cal Dignity are one and the fame, in the Language of Irenaus. None can fee this, unlefs the Eyes of his mind be Tin&ured with prejudice. For ie 'Epifcopatus fuccejfio is competent to all Presbyters, in our Opinion .• which he mould refute, not fuppofe it to be falle. 2. Here is not the Apofto- lical Dignity mentioned by Iremus, but a part of it, to wit Charifma ve- ritatis certum ; which J think he will not fay is peculiar to Diocefans : the Church would be ill ferved, if they only had the Gift of Preaching the Truth: feing they cannot preach tc all their People: and in our days feldom preach to any of them. He bringeth another wonderful Argument, which he fpeaks of as what may iuperfede his infifting on what he is difcourfing : the Vrophefy ( faith he ) which threatned that the Sijhoprick pojjejjed by a notorious MalefaBor (hould be given to another This Teftimony impor- teth no more than that there continueth in the Churches, planted by the Apoftles, a Government to this day. Cathedra cannot be {trained to fignifie a Biftiop with folejurifdi&ion : the Notion of that word is fufficiently Anfwered by a Judicature in the Church, where one preil- deth : v/hich we fay fhould be in every Church. He is fo confident of his Conclufion, that he defireth us to read Cyprian himfelf ( we do it, Sir, and think not fit to take all on Truft that is cited out of him by your Party ) and he thinketh the Difingenuity of Blondel, and his AJJbeiats wiU appear to the highefi Degree. I defire, on the other hand, that he would ,read him with an Uhbyafled Mind, and then all this Airy Confidence willevanilh. That he afferteth, p. 122. that the Authority of Bijhops over Presbyters, Deacons, and Laity, will appear to them who read Cyprian, is de- nyed, except in the fenfe that I yielded in the Book above pointed at : they have joynt power with the reft of the Confiftory over one another, and over the whole Church. § 30. I proceed with him p» 12;. to his fecond Enquiry ; Whether the -Ancients infixed frequently on this SucceJJion of Jingle Perfons to the Apo- files in particular Sees, in their Reasoning againfi Hereticks. I acknowledge that they frequently Reafoned from the Doctrine that had been taught by perfons fucceeding to the Apoftles in particular Churches: and that they named particular Men, or fingle Perfons in that Succeflion : but that they laid any weight on their being fingle Perfons whom they fo named j Sea. viL < 128 ; $ 3 o. named ; or that they lookt on thefe as the only Succeffors of the Apo- ftles in thefe Chinches., we deny ; and have not yet feen it proved. It is the fame things as to the Strength of" their Reafoning, whether one Mmifter,or more, had the Power of Governing thefe Churches. Where- fore, if wc ihould yield him all that he is here enquiring for, it doth not advantage his Caufe, nor hurt ours ,• unlefs it be made appear that the fingie perfons fo named, were the iole, or fupreme Rulers in thefe Churches: which 1 am well allured is not proved by any of the Tefti- monies that he biir.geth. His firft Citation is out otTertuU. whofe Ar- gument is plainly this, that the Hereticks could not mew the beginning of their Churches, as the Orthodox could do, from perfons placed there by the Apoftles,- as Volycarp was by John at Smyrna, and others in other places : and he addeth, ferinde utiyue & cetera exhibent, quos ab Apofiolis in Epifcopatum conjlitutos Apojlolici feminis traduces habeant* Here is not one word of Singularity of Power : and it is certain, that the Apottolick I Seed of found Dcftrine might be tranfmitted to Pofterity by a Plurality of Presbyters, as well as by fingie Biftiops: yea, and better too,- for if one erred, the reft might correct him ,• but if the Bilhop erred, there was none in that Church that might oppofe him. That Poljcarp in Smyrna, and none elfe, is named, doth not prove that he alone Preached the true Doctrine, and far lefs that he Governed that Church by himfelf. And indeed the Zealand Unanimity that he mentioneth p. 125-. was a good mean of keeping the Doctrine of the Church pure: but as this V- nanimity could not be in one Church, but among a Plurality of Tea- chers, fo the Unanimity of a few Bifhops in feveral Diocelies, could not be fo convincing in this matter, as that, with the Unanimity of Presby- ters among themfelves in thefe feveral Churches that they were to in- ftruct. Another Teftimony of Tcrtud. he bringeth, Ordo tamen Epifco- ■ forum ad origlnem recenfus in Joannem fiabit authorem. There is nothing here but what hath been already Anfwered : there was an Order, or Succetiion of Bilhops, whereof John the Apoftle was the Appointer of the firft of them: but he doth not tell us of their fole Jurifdiction. He argueth p» 126. that if the imaginable Interval of Tarity had been kno-wn 3 after the Apoiiles, and the Succejjion of Jingle Biflwps interrupted, this Argument had been weak, and the Hereticks might have injulted. d. I deny that either .he, or the Hereticks couid have any fuch advantage: becaufe the Fa- thers did not argue from the Singularity of the Perfons fucceeding one .to another, they had no occafion to conjider that, in this Debate,- fur- ther Se&- VII. ( 129 ) § ;o, ? i, th€r than to inftance in one perfon fo fucceeding in a Church, where there were more : it was enough to confound the Hereticks, that fuch Doctrine was conftantly taught fince the Apoftles days, and they could tell them by whom. What followeth p. 126, 127* is a Re- petition of the fame thing : about which I ftall trouble him no more, let him tell it over again as oft as he will. He needed not tell us p, 128. that the Succeffion s of fingle Perfon s Governing particular churchts, and their Jurifdiclion and Preheminence, is acknowledged by fome of the Galiican Shurch ; we know there are Worthy Men in that Church ,• but we ne- ver thought them all infallible. § 51. His third Enquiry is, Whether we may fiffely Uan on the Authority of the Ancients, in an Affair of this Stnfequence ? he faith, no doubt we may ; and ought. I affirm that this matter may admit both of further Diftin- ftion, and of fome Doubting: and that it is blind Confidence to be fo pofitive, without clearing the State of the Queftion. And there is the more need of diftinguifliing in this Cafe, becaufe our Author feemeth, in purfuing this his Enquiry, to confound two different Queftions: one is, whether we may lean to the Accounts they give of the Succeffion of Bifhops fince the Apoftles days ? Another is, about the Antiquity of Epifcopal Government, as he wordeth it, p. 131. It is one thing to owne a Succeffion of Teachers in a Church, whome fome Men will call Biftiops ,• another to owne that the Government of the Church was managed by them alone. I fhall here propofe and apply five Diftin&i- ons, i. The Ancients and their Writings are to be diltinguifhed. Some of them lived in, or near to the Apoftolick times: others of them fome Ages after : the Credibility of the former, ceteris paribus, is far greater than that of the later : Becaufe they had-feetter cau/am fcientia ; and becaufe, tho Tradition, without Writing, may, at firlt, and under the belt advantages, foon, and eafily be corrupted ,• yet by length of time, and pafling through many hands, it is more apt to be depraved ^ and that even without defign. For the Writings afcribed to the Anci- ents, fome 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 whofe Names they bear : others of them are Du- bious ,• (o that it is fub judiee, whether they be credible Teftimonies, or not, A fecond Diftin&ion is, of the things about which we debate . our Author indeed doth diftinguifti, in the Progrefs of the Debate, bej tween Matters of Faff, and Matters of Opinion, or Principle : of which af R terward, Se& VII f ljO I % l > %*• terward. I diftinguifh things on which our Faith, or our Duty doth depend • from thefe things that we are not fo concerned in, being mere- ly Hiftoncal Paffages, or Debates about Natural or Politick Things ,• in Matters of Fad of the later fort, we are to believe the Fathers as credible Hiftorians; and regard them ( at leaft fome of them ) as Men of Learning ,- yet fo as not to believe their Hiftories, nor receive their Conclufions againft Senfe and Reafon: for the former fort of things, I look on their Teftimony as inefficient, to perfwade the Mind, or clear the Confcience : Scripture, not the Fathers, muft be the Rule of our Faith and Religious Pra&ice. DiftincHon third, Thefe things that we Debate about, are either determined in Scripture, or not : if not,, much regard is to be had to thefs Holy and Learned Men ,• who had mu«h of the Mind of God in many things : yet, as was faid before, we muft not blindly follow them, over the Belly of Senfe or Realon. If they be Scripture light muft be our Guide,not the Opinion of the Fathers. Di- ftindion fourth, The Teftimony of the Fathers is either Unanimous, ©r they Jire Divided:. in the later cafe, we cannot follow them,- but muft examine which of their Opinions is beft founded. In the former, their Teftimony may occafion a great prejudice, and may readily byafs the Mind • yet it mould not determine us againft Scripture Light, they all being fallible Men. Diftinaion fifth, The Opinions of the Fathers are either clearly delivered, or we muft guefs at them, from dark Hints. As the one fort can no way command our Faith: fo neither the other is to be received implicitly. § -2- Out of thefe Diftindions, this State of the prefent Queftion refulteth, whether the Teftimonies of the Fathers be a fufficient ground on which we may determine, whether Epifcopacy or Parity be the Go- vernment of the Church that Chrift hath inftituted. My Antagonift is for the Affirmative, I am. for the negative : for which I give thefe Rea- fons j We have no concurrent, nor unanimous Teftimony of the Fathers on either fide,- for ail the noife that is made of the Uhiverfality and Perpetuity of this Tradition, and Unanimity aDout st. If they can prove what they confidently affirm in this point, we Shall quit this Ar- gument. Many of the Fathers have faid nothing on dais head : few of them have have written on it diredly, and of purpoie- and what they have faid, is but indiredly, without conhdering the State of our Con- troverfie • which I amperfwaded, was not brought into Debate in the Primitive^ Times: many of the Excellent Men of the firit Ages have written ! Se&. VII. ( i;i ) S |'k. written nothing J many of the Writings of that time are perilhed : there are different Opinions in this Debate among them, whofe Wri- tings we have ,• which arofe from the Change of the Pra&ice that had been in the Apoftolick Age : whence then fhould we have this Harmo- ny that they talk of? for this laft ( the reft are certain enough J I re- fer the Reader to what hath already been faid in this Difputation. 2. What raoft of the Fathers fay on this head, is obfcure, and hard to be underftood : their Expreflions being futed to the Cuftoms and Dialed of that time, which was plain enough to them who then lived ,- but not lo to us, who know not their Idioms, nor the Cuftoms that they relate to, as then known things: they alfo ufed words in a far different fenfe than we do : As Merit, Pennance, tifhop, and fuch like. It is fometimes far eafier to clear the Point in Debate from Scripture, and Rcafon, than to clear the Expreffions of fome of the Fathers about it. 5. The Uncertainty that we are at about the Genuine, and Spurious • the Pure and Corrupted Writings of the Fathers, make their Teftimo- ny unfafe to be the folitary ground of ©ur Faith, or Practice, even in this matter. Who knoweth not what Debates are among Learned Men on this Head ? and how Conje&ural all the Knowledge is that can b& at- tained by the moft diligent Search ? And furely it is no Wifdom to build our Opinion in a Matter of Religion, wherein we either pleafc God, or fin againft him, on fuch a Sandy Foundation : Of this Opini- on was fbeophilus AntiochenuS who flourilhed about an. 130. and is faid to be Sextus a Tetro } in the Church of Antiochia } lib. 5. ad Autolymm 3 near the beginning : he is mewing the Certainty of what Chriftians be- lieved ,• compared with the Stories about the Heathen Gods, and hath thefe words, I Xfwf f*t ewy$ urif „._■ §?£??. will be far from afferting : is there not much falie Hiftory of things done in the time when they are reported or written ,• much more it mav be fo at great diftance of time, when Reports pais through many hands virefque acauirunt eundo. Wherefore the San&ity, Zeal for Truth, and other Excellencies of the Fathers are no ways impeached by rejed- in2 them as inefficient to be the Rule of our Faith, or Pra&ice, in the things that concern Religion. %. For the Miraculous Gifts of the Fa- ri ers about whole Teftimony we now Debate, I think he will find it hard «> prove them. I deny not that iome extraordinary Gifts did con- . uc i n the Church fome time after the Apoftles, but can this Author tell us who had them, or that the Fathers who have left Writings be- hind them were fo Gifted ? Befide, their Gifts, if they had fuch as he lledeeth could not prove what he intendeth, unlefs he could make k appear' that they had fuch infallible affifrance as the Apoftles had : which I think he will not attempt to prove. j fourthly obferve on this part of his Difcourfe, that his Di- ftin&ion is wholly impertinent to this purpofe ,• and that the Fathers were capable to be deceived in this Matter of Fad, no lefs than fome Theorems or Matter of Principle : becaufe, i. This matter doth con- • ^ n } t I principle, or Theorem, viz,. That Epifcopacy was inftituted b the Apoftles: now this might arife from mifinterpreting fome Palfa- l of the Apoliolick Writings : if they fay the Church was governed b Biiliops in the Apoftles time, which is Matter of Fad : they muft al- fofiV it was appointed by the Apoftles, which is Matter of Jus or a \keoioo-ical Theorem : and this muft depend on their underftanding fome Panares of Scripture, as holding forth that Truth. For Example, I left thee in Crete, unto the Angel of Epbefus, and fuch like : now they might mifunderitand feme other Scriptures as is conteiled,- why not- thefe al- f None of the Fathers is fo pofitive as to fay that he faw a Bifhop exiling foSe J urifdidtion in the Apoftles time: wherefore their After- tion of the Faclum ( if any fuch there be ) muft have been built on their Miiapprehenfions of the Jus: and if they be net infallible in the one, thev couM not be fo in the other. 2. This Fathm, that Biihops alone governed the Church, and not Presbyters with them, ( for that is our Oueition) and that in, and next after the Apoftles times, muft come to -11 C or at leaft to molt of the Fathers by Tradition: for none of them cou'd fee the Practice of the Church in ail thefe Ages, about which we dilpute : but Tradition is very ly able to lead People into Error, as every Sea. VII. ( i?8 ) § 37 . one knoweth : if the Fathers might miftake about what is written in the Scripture, as is confeiTed, how much more might they err in that which they have but by Tradition ; which their Fathers have told them, and which is not lb Recorded in Scripture, but that they might misappre- hend it? ;. Whereas our Author, p. 150. afcribeth Fallibility to the Fathers in Do&rines and Theorems; becaufe thefc might d^end en their R a . tioclnati've and IntilUcluai. Faculties, and they had no Priviledge again/} Error of that Nature : may not the fame be £ad of this Matter of F?.& that we now debate about? the Management of Church Government is fuch a thing as a Man cannot underitand, nor rightly rpprehend merely by Senfe, and without the ufe of Ratiocination. How can we underhand what is the Power and Jurifdiction of one Man over others, without inferring it from the Ads we fee him do, with refpect to them ? I find my Antagonift often out in his Reafoning in this veiy thing. He rea~ deth of a Bilhop fet in a higher Seat than the Presbyters,- Church A<5te fpokers of as done by him,without mentioning the Presbyters: he findeth in Catalogues of Succeflions in Churches one mentioned and no more • and fuch like: here his Intelle&ual and Katiocinatl-ue Faculty inferreth that one Bilhop ruled theie Churches, and the reft of the Presbyters had no hand in the Government, further than advifing: here is ill Logick, and faife Reafoning : and in that he will not fay that he is infallible. It cannot then be denyed, but that the Fathers behoved thus to reafon from what they faw and heard: if then they might err in the ufe of their Intelle&ual and Katiocinative Faculty, what ihould hinder but that they might err in this matter: which maketh his Diilinction wl oily void. He faith, p. 1 31. We muii either receive this Hifiorical Truth, or fay that no Age, or no Society of Men in any Age, can tranfmit the Kncivledge of any Matter of Facl to the next Generation. A* 1. It is not abfurd to lay, that no Humane Hiftory about Matters of Facl can fo tranfmit what was done in former Ages, as to be a fufficient Foundation for our Faith or Practice, in any part of Religion, without, or contrary to Scripture • tho it may give ground for a Hiftorical Certainty in things that are not of that Concernment. To apply this, we maintain that Fpifcopacy is befide, and contrary to the Scripture ( and if he will beat us out of that Hold, we (hail yield him the Fathers) wherefore, if all the Fathers in one Voice, and that plainly and pohtively, would fay ( which yet they have never done ) that Epifcopacy is of L)ivine Right, we arc not obli- ged to believe it, becaufe we, know they may err 5 and the Scripture can- not Se&. VII, ( i%9 ) -'$?7,?*. not err. 2 I Th« Confequence is naught. There are Matters of Fad ! that are purely fuch ,• that Men fee, Or hear ,• and cannot miftake about them, if their Senfe be found, and other Requifits to right Senfation I be not wanting : thefe may be fo tranfrriitted by Humane Hiftory, to ) Pofterity, that we need not fear to be deceived about them ; but have j a Moral Certainty.* but it doth not hence follow, that fuch Matters of ii Fad, as muft be known, not only by Senfation, but Conjoyned Reafo- ning, can be fo transmitted to Pofterity, by mere Humane Teftimony, as that we are obliged on that Teftimony alone, to build an Opinion, or engage in a Practice, that Religion is fo nearly concerned in, as it is in the Matter under Debate. The Ordinances that we owne, muft I have furer ground than is neceflary for many Hiftorical Truths, that I we do not, nor ought to Queftion. $38. He affirmeth, p. I ;i, 1 %z. that Epifcopacy was front the beginnings \hf Divine Authority y a Copy of the Jewish Mconomy, iranfmitted from the A-* \poBleS to Jingle Succejfors, perpetually to bepreferved in all Ages: that it was uniformly fetled by the ApofileS in at Churches. AH this he hath faid over and over again: but hath not proved one word of it. Neither is any i thing here faid to our prefent purpofe, unlefs he prove that the Tefti« 1 mony Of the Fathers alone, is a fufficient ground for us to believe ail this ' for that is the prelent Debate. He faith, nothing is anfwered to all ; this, hut that they ( the Presbyterians ) fay the Ancients -were Erroneous in federal things. And is that nothing ? I have mewed that they were no more under infallible Conduct in this, than in other things. That they who tranfmitted to us the Knowledge of the Polity fetled by the ApoBleS, were fuffciently acquainted with the Apmolical GinftitutionS, and that thefe Cufiomt and Confutations were not only preferred in the EcclefiaBical Records } but con* veyed fo their Eyes in the doyly Practice of the church: this he affirmeth, f. 1 % 5 . I fuppofe to prove that the Teftimony of the Fathers alone is fuf- ficient ground for our Faith, that Epifcopacy is Juris Divini, Moft of this is already Anfwered, being but a Repetition of what he hath faid before.- I further d. 1. Thefe Fathers were acquainted with the Apo- ftolical Conftitutions by their Writings ( for he will not fay that they were Eye Witnelfes to Apoftolick Practices ; tho it is alledged that one of them faw John the Apoftle ,• that will not prove fuch acquaintance with his, or other Apoftles way ) we have their Writings, as well as they had ; and feing it is confeffed, that they were not infallible in Un- derftanding and Expounding Scripture, it is reafonable that we mould S 2 &§ Sea. vii. ( 140 ) * 98. fee with our ownEyes,and not with theirs,and we mould not implicitly believe the Fathers in telling us that the Apoftles meant fo and fo in their Writings. 2. We think the Apoftolick Constitutions are beft prcferved, and moft purely, yea infallibly, in the Apofiolick Writings, thefe are the EcclefiafKcal Records that we lay more weight on than the Fafii of the Churches that he faith, were in the afcer Ages. 3. That the dayly practice of the Church did convey to the byes of the Fathers the Con- ftitutions of the Apoftles, we utterly deny : for Practice and Inftitution are two different things : for the one is not always a good commentary on the others even in the Apofties times, the My Her y of iniquity began to work, Practice began to vaiy from Inititution: and in the very thing we now fpeak of, there were Efforts to cany Practice beyond the Rule 5 when Diotrefhes did ^ihowftTtJuf, affected to hzfrimus Presbyter: and we may rationally think, that this Ferment did ( when the a polKes were gone off the Staged gather ftrength among Men who were not fo hum- ble, nor mortified as they mould have been. Practice doth often dege- nerate fromPiinciples ( as we fee in dayly Experience ) and it is pio- bable that this very thing might deceive lcnie of thefe Holy Men, and make them judge a mifs of the Apoffoiick Conititution ,• and confe- quently make their Sentiments no fafe Rule for our Guider.ce in this Matter. Befide all this, we cannot y ieid that the Practice of the Church was fuch as our Author fancieth, in the times of the hi i! of the Fathers ; or, that they do fo reprefent the Practice of the Chu.ch as he imagineth. He infinuateth another Argument, />. 154. That the Fathers found the Se- ries of fmgle SuccefiorS in all the slpc/lclical Churches, governing Eccle/iafiical affairs, and this Succejfwn not afjtrttd as a thing that ivas then oj.pofed, but ra- ther fuppofed • and inferreth, that a 'tradition jo fiated,and conveyed, is as Ju- thentuk undlnfalliLL a- anything cf 'that Nature can be. A. That the Fathers found this.or that they ailerted it^isdenyed : what he effe where bringeth for proof of this is anfwered. Again, if the Fathers had found this^they had erred : we maintain that they were ivien capable to miflake, and to find what was not to be found. Further, it is not probative, that the Fathers did not find this way oppofed, but fuppofed: both becaufe the Degeneracy fiom the Apoffoiick Conititution that there was in the Primitive Chuich came in n.ieniibiy-,- it wrought as a My fiery, unobser- ved, 2 Ihejf.i. 7. (I do not underftand that Scripture excluhveiy of other things, but incluliveiy of this ) and were as the Tares, when Men Sleep. A.io becaule, if there were Oppohtion made, it might be fup- prefled, Se& VII. ( 141 ) § i% preffed, and not tranfmitted to Fofierity, by the Influence of the Party which had the Afcendent; Yet for all this ; we deny that the Fathers of the firft Ages had that Jurifdi&ion of Biihops that he taiketh of toop- pofe^ or that it was in their days. § 39. What follow eth, p. 134, i?r, x;6. feemcth to be defined as a Herculean Argument: it is brought from the dangerous Confidence they run upon, who derogate -from the Authority of this traditional Conveyance, in a Matter of Facl : for by the fame reafon, we muB quefiion the moft Sacred things in our Religion. And for an Iniiance of this, he Jheweth that the Canon cf the Scripture was not univ erf ally received before the Death of the Ape files 9 but fome Books quefiioned, thefe Books were received upon Search made by the Church, and finding that they were agreeable to the Apofiolick Standard ,♦ and that the Original Conveyance of fuch Books was fupported by the tefiimeny of ApoBolical Verfons, er Holy Men who Converged with fuch. If we receive fome Bocks cf Scripture $n the tejlimony of the Ancients, how dare we dilute their Fidelity in a Matter ofFacl, relating to the Polity of the Church? So that, on the whole Matter, either we mufi receive their Tcjlimonies in this, or w§ muft queftion the Authority of fome $ooks now received into the Canon : for it may be objected againft this la ft Tradition, that it up as ft oppofed by Men of great Name, but the other was always univerjally received: I have heard that A. M. D. D. hath been jealoufed as inclining to Popery, tho his Accufers failed in their Probation: he here ( and in feme other Paffages of this Book ) feemeth to prove what they could not make out, This Medium Stapleton, and many others of the Romipi Dodtors, ufe, to prove that the Church., not the Scripture, is the Ground of our Faith, becauie without the Church we cannot know which Books of Scripture are Genuine, and which are Spurious : julr as this Author telleth us, we cannot know this but on the accurate Search made by the Church,- upon which Scru- tiny fome books are received into the Canon which at iirft were doubt- ed of. I advife him to read Whitak$r againft Stapleton • efpecially his Duplicatio: lib. 2. C. 26. where this Controveriie is folidiy handled, as it is aifo in many other Proteftant Writers, ft is obfervabie that Pope- ry and Prelacy muft be defended by the fame Arguments : and that this Author hath no better Evidence for, nor firmer Faith of the Divinity of the Scriptures, than he hath of Epifcopacy: that his Faith in both is built on the Authority of the Church. 1 mention the Divinity of the Scriptures, becaufe the whole of it is made up of its Parts, the feveral Books j and if our Belief, that this Book is a part of the Canon, Ex Gr, Ruth . 3e£. VII. ( HO r . w w $ ? 9. i?»/6,- be built on the Churches Authority, 10 it muft be with ano- ther Book, and another, and fo of them ail. I muft here then digrefs a litle from defending Presbytery to the Defence of Proteftantifm, againft this my Antagonift. Let me not here be miftaken, as thinking that our Certainty of the Chriilian Doctrine in general, were no greater than that we have about this or that Book of Scripture being Canonical: We hare fufficient, though not equal Certainty of both: Or as holding that the Authenticknefs of the feveral EoCks of Sciipture were alike evident : fome of them bear more manifeft Marks of Livinity, or Motives of Credibility, than others do * And yet iti them all, there is what may latisfie us, that they are from God." Or thirdly, As of Opinion that the Teftimonies or the Chriftians of the firft Ages are of no ufe, nor Conducive to our Certainty in this Matter : I owne with Cbemnit. exam* Concil. trident, pt: 1. p. 86. That as Scriptttra babet autheritatem principaliter, a Jfriritu janclo * y deinde a Scriptcribus, fo, fofiea a Vrimitiva Ecclefia tanquam tejie. No doubt the Concurrent and Harmonious Teftimony of the firft Ages is a ftrong Plea : but we reft not on that Ground alone : for if we did, our Faith mould be refolved into the Authority of fallible Man : Yea, we mould rejed fome of thefe Books, which we now re- ceive as Canonical ,- which were for fome time queftioned : we affirm then againft this Author, that the Books of Scripture were not received . by the Church, upon the Teftimony of Men fingly : Which he either muft mean, or his Argument is not to the purpofe. I argue then againft him out of his own words ; the Church having made an accurate Search into the Doftrine of thefe Books, and finding it was agreeable to the Apoftolick Standard, and that the Original Conveyance of fuch Books was fupported by the Teftimony of Apoftolick Perfons, or other Men, &c. Here himleif doth not make the Teftimony of the Fathers a fuffi- cient ground of our receiving thefe 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 be- fide it. If he will let us fee Epifcopacy to be luteable to the Apofto- lick Standard^ we (hall embrace it,- but cannot owne it without that, tho all the Fathers in one Voice, mould plead for it. Again, the Church after her Scrutiny ,- and thele Apoftolick and Holy Men who bare Te- ftimony to the Conveyance of thefe Books, either had fome ground for owning them as Divine, or none,- but becaufe they thought ib, the lat- ter I hope he will not fay ; if he fay the former, we (hall receive thefe Books, Se&.VIL ( i 4? ) ^,40. Books, not on their fole Authority ,- but on thefe Grounds, that they went upon. If he f ay" the prefent Church received them from the Church of former Ages, he muft needs fift fomewhere, and not pro- ceed in infinitum. Whatever Perfon or Church he fifilin, the Argument recurreth with refped to them. Further, if we receive the Books of Seriprure becaufe of the Teftimony of the Church, our Faith, both of their being from God, and of the Truths contained; in them, rnuft be refoived uitimatly into the Veracity of fallible Meiiy and not into the Veracity and Authority of the Infallible Gods unlefs he will make the Church infallible, as his Complices in this Opinion do : and even that will not help him, feing this Infallibility cannot be proved. And if it could, I ask whether thefe infallible Perfons, who, after the Apohies, fearched what Books were & uthentick, had the Knowledge of this by Means, or by Revelation? the latter the Papifts do not pretend ; the former will ferve us, ufmg the fame Means for this Knowledge. Laft« ly, I ask, whether they who conveyed thefe Books to us could be decei- ved, or not ? The latter he will not affert, for he hath told us they may be deceived about theorems, and that fuch a Book is Canonical, is fuch : if they could be deceived, it is not fit for us to build our Faith of a thing of fo high Concernment on their Opinion. I conclude, that the Books of Scripture are auT*37tf9», and our Faith that they are Gods Word is built, not on the Teftimony of the Church ,* but on the Veracity of God who fpeaketh : and we know that God foeaketh in them, from the Motives of Credibility that the Scripture it felf aiFordeth^ of which our Writers agairift thePapifts bring not a few. If he can give as good grounds for Epifcopacy as we can give for the Books of Scripture being the Word of God, we fhall receive the one as well as the other. $46. "His next Work, which beginneth f. 156. is to cmfider the Con- cejjions of the Learned Presbyterians in this c cntr over fie l which yield fome Proportions that not only jhake } but quite overturn the whole Fabrick of the new Dotlrine. It is well that there are fome Learned. Men among them J he fometimes fpeaketh of them, "without Exception or Difcrimination, in another Strain : and even here, what he giveth with the one hand, he taketh away with the other: for it is no great Evidence of Learning for to overturn the whole of what one taketh pains to buiid. I, in the En- trance of this Conteft with hinu, muft enter my Protection, that I will not owne any Proportion, tho advanced by the Learnedelt of the Presbyterians, that hath a mijchkvous tendency: and if any fuch Afferti- en Sea. VII. ( 144 ) . * 40. on fhouid happen to drop from me, upon Admonition and fufficient Inltrudion, 1 lhall re era ct it ,* errare poJJUm, hareticus ejft nolo. He begin- neth with ^Imafius, Walo 3 MeJjaL p % 7. confeffing, that even the ancient times ( except the Apoftolic^ Age j diftinguifhed between Bijhop and Presbyter : I acknowledge the fame, and requiic this Author to ihew how this o- verturneth the Fabrick of Presbyterianilm, which hereckoneth the new Dottrine. The Ancients early m^de difference in the Name; referving that of Bifhop to the *e&«t 9 or Moderator ,• foon after, there was a dif- ference made in their Dignity : but wc deny that there was, in the firft Antiquity, any difference in the matter ot Jurifdieiion : and fo our Prin- ciple itandeth firm, for all this Conceilion. What he next citeth,out of the fame Author, p. 17. is fo far from his purpofe, that it fheweth litle Skill, or Confideration at leaft, that he mentioneth it: Salmafius faith the Apofrles fometimes calledjthemfelves Bijlwps find Presbyters, that they might 'f tit the Honour on them to "whom they comm$ted : the care of the Churches, to feem to be equai to them. May not this be meant of Presbyters, as well as Biihops, that the Apoftles fo honoured them. For our Argument from the Confufion of Names of Bilhop, and Presbyter, which he thinks is here overturned : the Reader, before he come this length, will fee this Cavill to be groundiefs j if he conlider how. we manage that Argument. He citeth him alfo faying, thar the Ancients called Timothy Bijhop of Ephe- [m, and Apefile. I have above Inewed in what fenfe both thefe arc fpo- ken, without any Inconveniency to our Cauie., fee Sett. 2. §. 3. It is as litle to his purpofe, that he further citeth from Salmafws, that he faith fames, whom the Ancients fay was ordained Bifhop of ferujalem, was 0- ver the lejjer Bifliops, as now one Bijhop ts over many Presbyters. He was over the Bifliops that is Presbyters, in the Quality of an Apoftle : that the Ancients called him a Bilhop, I have Ihewed how that is to be under-* 5 flood, in the place laft cited. He is at him again, in his p. 181. of WaW MeJJal. that he confelfeth the Form of Government was changed after the Death of Peter, and Paul, tho not Joon after} yet in the end of the firft Centu- ; ry, and beginning of the jecond. If Salmafi 'us mean ( as I am conhder.t he 1 ' doth ) that a Change unto perpetual aPrarfidency, and Majority of Dig- nity and Notice, did then begin to creep in, I coniefs the -lame : let our Author make his belt advantage of it: if he think that Bilhops were then let up with fole or fuperibjj j urifdiction, I diiient from him: tho even this wou.d not overturn our Saiife, which is built on Scripture, not' on the Opinion or Practice of the Ancients that were after tiie Apoltles/ § 41. lie ScA. VII. ( 145- ) §, 4 t 9 - § 41. He ncxt,^. 138. brings fomc cenceffions o£ Blondel, apol p. 3* that Epifcopacy of one over many Presbyters did not prevail before the year, \Ap 9 This is a foul mifrcprefentation 1 Blondel is there fpeaking of the Divi- sions, in which one faid, lam 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 Epifcopacy, as the fuppofed remedy, was not prefentiy applied on the firft appearance of the Malady : but that other means were ufed. Blondel faith, Pref p- 76. that in great Cities, where were many Thoufands of Christians, they had but one (Lhurch ; this faith our Author, could not be without a Bijhop over them. Which i deny : the con- trarie is ordinary at this day ; all the Congregations may be under one Presbyterie, and their Moderator; which in that place he calleth unkum concejjum. in fome places many Meetings are counted one Parochial Church ,• which I cannot fo well underftand. Yet neither way over* turneth Fresbyterie ; nor doth neceifarily infer Epifcopacy. He next Citeth Bocharti Phaleg. which is a Miftake ; the Words are in his Epiftle to *Dr* Morley P. mihi 54. nor are his Words fully Cited : he expref- ly affenteth to Jerome, Apoflolorum To all this the An- fwer is plain and eafie, and I hope will be convincing to fueh as do not look on things with the prejudice that this Gentleman feemeth to be un- der the power of. T § 42. Sea. VII. ( 146 ) § 42. §. 42. IAnfwerthen i.This bis Suppofitiori we will never yield,unlefs we fee more reafon for it than yet hath been propofed: we deny that the Authors he hath cited have made fuch concefltons as he fuppoteth : and ifany of them have, let him anfwer the .^bfurditie that folio weth on it, we are not concerned,we cau yeild no further than., the Apoftles,having fettled the Government of the Churches in paritie among Presbyters, and Nature having made a refes neceffarie in their Meetings ; foon af- ter (the remains of the Hiftory of thefe Ages caufeth that we cannot tell how foon ) this Prefidencie being conftant in the fame perfon, be can to be taken more notice of than was fit, and more deference to be pa> ed to the frife's than wa? meet : and that after fome Ages, fome, in fome places did Ufurp, or grafp at more Power than was due : but that either the Solitude of. Church Power, or the Superiority of it, was owned,or practiied avowedly, for the firft three Centuries, we deny : yea, we do not find that it became Univerfal for fome time after. • Wherfore, the ground he buildeth his Batterie on failleth; and fo, his roaring Canons wiJl prove but bruta fidmina ; and we are not obliged to account for nei- ther ib fudden, nor fo great a Change, as he mentioneth. 2. We can eafily give a rational dilineation of fuch a Change, as was indeed made from the Apoftolick conftitution, and practice of the firft times- We do net alcribe it to 2. general Council, nor to a Ccnfpiracie of all the \resby- ters in their fcattered and Perfected State, to make that Change. Nor do we derogate from the Holynejs and faitbfulnefs of the firft Pallors of the Church who were fettled by the Apoftles .* let him pleafe himfelf with all he faith to prove the Abfurditie of thinking that a Change could be wrought that way. But 1. We are perfuaded that a great Change there was, by compareing the Pra&ice, and fome Canons of Centi ^ , 6, 7. &c. with the Apoltoiick Writings. 2. We think there is no impoflibi- litie in fuch a Change as I have acknowledged : confiderin^ the corruption of Men, yea the finful infirmities of good Men ,- fome of whom may be apt to Ufurp ; and others to overlook evils that are not eafily obfervable in their Progrefs. And coniidering how fuddenly Changes to the worfe have fallen out in the Church, ice Mvfes Ir^iidion Deut> 51. 27, zS 3 29. fee alfo Exod. 32. 8. and the frequent *poita- cies otljrael after the death of their good Kings made this fo evident,that it can never be denied, nor ought to be wondered at ;. This Change did not come fuddenly, nor all at once, and therefore was not fo obvi- ous to everie ones Cbfeivation : that it was not complained of by any, we sea. vii. . . < *f I A ,. ft . AB .-It- we cannot fay j not having the compleat and ;diltm<9t Accords of the firft Aaes • fane lefs can it be affirmed that it was not obferved by fome who might Lament it in Secret ;. but for Peace fake and becaufe the thines tWhadto Complain of were dark and doubtiuUnd but fmall,and almoft inleniible Declenfions from what had been before, they would make little noife with their diiTatisfacUons. It is well known that thus rLeneracie hath grown in latter Ages of die Church : and I wife it h ot at this Day. Verie often a well Reformed ;Church doth thus de~ generate.whofeMaiadieislikelateiitDifeafes which are little observed till they e pa ^^ ^ £ true Account of this Change of the Church is -ivenbv way of Pr«edi&ion, by our Lord himfelf on the Parable of the Tares of the field, Matth. 1%.. 24. &c this with other Corruptions,grew while the Guids of the Church ftp y which cafe, in fome degree or ci- ther is incident to the beft' of Men i and as/ in procefs of time, the Snifters of the Church grew more remiffe, this evil had the more acf- ^wgrow. ofthisIhaveDifcourfedelfe-where^ Rational Def. ^nonconformity I.fliaU now attend my Antagonift endeavouring to Run down this apprehenfion of things with many hard Woras : whicu rmnt to no more but this, that it was impoffible to be brought about, be- r'ottheoyfervablenfsandfuddenefs of the Change, and the Faithfulnefs of 2 Lids of the Church that then were fet over her. Ail which is already Anfwered His ingeminating his Quefhon aoout the poffibihty of this riqnae P 14-T- his faying, that this cannot be imagined, ij we believe the o^r parts of 'Evangelical Hifiory , are but words that evanifti into no- eZi. on Yuppofftion of the Account that I have given of it : for we ^nv that the Evangelical Hiftory, whether Sacred or Humane, givetn Account of fuch a cenftitution of Epifcopacy as he imagineth, in the tt A-es That no Hi(torian took Notice of it, though it was moH memorable, fut b *' m Ws-rotten Hypothecs, that this Change^ fcould have been Lade fuddenly, and all at once : and I adde the riiftory of the time of Se Rife and Progrefs of this is defective, and uncertain as I have (hew- A sfl r We do not fay that it Was Agreed ufon by fome ambitious Bc- iLNeh as he P. 14A. fuch Men might carrie it on in their feveral S without Confutation; Nature, and a corrupt Heart, prompting Fh pm o it and the "World and Satan tempting them : yea, it might in W Wee, be promoted by better Men than theie unawares- «SSg that lor ..their Due which was not fo ; for its; being ^ ^Ssfc.VII. (148) § 4 , ted u tamely ( which he mentioneth ibid. ) that was not to be wondered at, because of the Humility offome, and minding other work for the Peoples Edification, leaving the the Ruling part too much to them who inclined to it ; and their not obferving this Change, which by its inienfiblc Degrees, made its Progress fo in the daik. §. 44. He p. 145-, &c. draweth fome abfurd Confequences, by which he laboureth to load our AiTertion, that the Apoftonck Govern- ment of Paritie, was in after Ages, changed into Preiacie. The I. is that they who were marked ft* the ScCred function by the Lird Chrisi } after fowe Experience , Judged it necejj'aryto 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 tranf acted among Mankind ', but infant ly 3 and in a miracu- lous manner, ^.Ihat the immediate SucceJJorf of she Apofiles were all Presbyteri- ans (this we hold) but that theft Presbyterians ( mofi of than Martyrs for Chriffianitie) preferred Prelacy to Paritie. 4. That in their Opinion there wot no other Remedie againft^chifm and Confufion. He faith, theie Conclu- fions are evident, and necenaric, if their ( the Presbyterians ) Hypo- thecs be allowed. Such Confequences from our Opinion we utterly deny and Challenge him to Prove their Dependancc on ir. The judicious Reader will eafily fee, that they all are Grounded on his fond Conceit that we hold that this Change was made fuddeniy, openly, and all at once : if he find us Maintaing that, let him load our Opinion with as many abfurd Confequences, as he can devife. And we neglect his tri- umphant Repetition of his continual Cant, p. 145-, 146. about the Vni- 'verfal Con fent of the Chri flan Church } and its being received without Contra- ditlitn. But to eftablim this laft Notion, he teUeth us, that none before Aeriw. tppofed Epifcopacy ; of whom, and. his A&ings, he taketh the liberty to give iuch Account as he thought fit for his delign : that his Mitive was 4mbitiott t and miffing of aBi(hoprick: was dull, had no Parts ; This ( in this learned Authors opinion ) muit needs be the native Confequent of his being a Presbyterian : for he reckoneth them all fuch. i have gi- ven a more true account of Aeriw, §. 16. of §. 6, Eitabliihed on better Authority than he in this Narrative pretendech to, which is ikv.iq but his own. lie needed not to fpend a whole page to teli us what ho meaneth by the Impfftility that he afcribeth to the Cnange wc fpeak of, iet him underitand it as he will, we are not concerned, who have given account of that Change which maketh it both poiftble and eaiie to be under* ftbotf; p. 1 4 8. lie iutu another Argument ( if it be different from what he Se&. VII. (M9) /^ 44* he hath faid before ) wewuB net fay that the primitive Church immediate- ly Succeeding the A^o files fo foon Apofiatiz,ed [rem their Original Eftahlijhmenf, e/fe we have no certain Standard to know what is Genuine, and what is Sup- pofithns in the whole frame of our Religion: This he enforceth by telling us, they might Change other things , and if the §rft and heft Chrifiiam were not to he truBed in matter of Fatly they are lefs to he truBed in matter of Opinion. Here we have yet more plainly expreifed, the V&pifo Principle, that the Churches Authority is the ground of our Faith : we do not fa Tm'ft the ftrft and beft Churches( except the Apoftles) as to make them the rule of our Religion, either in their Hiftbrical, or other Writings : We give that Deference to the Scripture alone; Again., we" impute no fuch Apo- ftacie to thefirft and beftSaincsf but to them who, at fome diftance,Suc~ ceeded them,- as hath been declared ; arid we know, that in after a ges, even among them who go under the name or the Fathers, other things w^yq Changed, as well as Church Government. §44. That our Reformers from Popery (whom he calleth the firffc" Presbyterians,/). 149.) did not plead a jus Divinum, is no Argument againit us:for few of bis Party, to this day, plead for a Divine Right to be on their fide,as he and fbrrie few others do. And himfelfand his Com- plices, made no noife with it, when the Oath of Supremacy, and the Tefi were in Fafliion: our Reformers did not difowne it, and 'they had not the Occasion, and may be, not the Light, to affert it, that after- times had. Whereas it is palpable, that Intereft maketh ibme of his Side to change their Note. If Bez,a wrote fmoothly to the Englijh Epifcopal Clergy , and fome more freely to Mr. Knox, and Mr, Melvii <-• I know no blame in that piece of Civility ( unlefs he can fay, that Beza ceded in many of his Principles, to pleafe the Englijh Church; which cannot be. alleclged. His imputing Ferce and Violence to us, and fancying that no Records can be true or genuine that are against us, we pafs, as angry and empty Words, but no Arguments: we owne all genuine Records that can be made appear to be fiich ,• whether they be for us*, or againft us: but build not our Faith on any of them, except fuch as are contained i a the Scriptures of Truth. And here he bringeth in, p\ 15-0. the Con- troverile about ' Jg^?f/#.rj Epiftles ^' and imputeth to Dally and others, that, they reject them en no other ground, but becauje. they owne Epifcopacy. It is not fair dealing to impute 'fiich Prevarication to a Perfon of A4onfieur\ Dai/lies Worth* after lie is; laid in the Grave, He will not pretend, p. 156. to debate : ^ie r niatter about the Authority- of tfrtfe Epiif ies ; • but '/>'.' iyo. and bed. VIL ( jjo ) $44 . ffbi and what follow, runneth out in a high Commendation of Do&or ftitrfon i on that Subject and many confident AiTertions, that what he hath faid cannot be Anfwered. I mall be far from derogating from the Learning and Critical Skill of that Author. But am not convinced by iiis Arguments. I am fure there 'is not that Evidence, nor Certainty in them, that is fufficient for us to build on, in a Matter that Religion is lb nearly concerned in, as is the Government appointed by Chrift in his Church. He tellethus Monfitur L 3 Arroque attempted to Anfwerthe fijliop of Chefier, but not to the Satisfaction of his own Party : md his Collecti- ons arc An fiver ed by Nourry. The truth is, V Arrocjue was prevailed up- on by fome of the Kpifcopal Party, ( as witneffcth the Tranflator of V Arroanes Hiftorie on the Eucharift, in his Life, p. $\ ) by fome fpeci- ous Arguments, from the Uhfeafonablenefs of Debates among Prote- ctants, to defift from that Work, and" it never was perfected: therefore it might be the more eafily anfwered: and we cannot judge what Efteem it would have obtained : it feems they dreaded the Strength of it. Whe- ther we ever were able to bring one plaufible Argument for that Caufe; the Rea- der muft judge,- we will not in this,, ftand to his Decifion, which he confidently makethp. 14 1« he declineth {ibid.) renewing the 'Debate a+ boat thefe Epifiles: wherefore I hope I may be excufed if I do fo too. And he afferteth that their Caufe lofeth nothing by their being laid a- fide : as I alfo affirm, that our Caufe may be maintained, if they be al- lowed to be really what he would have them to be. Some Citations out of them I have anfwered Cypriankk Bifjop Examined. And if he had thought fit to produce moe, it is like they might be found to do no hurt to ©ur Caufe. Or if he had cited what he talketh of out of the Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius , he might have received what (hould fatisflc a- bout it. A Diftindion between Biihop ( that is Moderator ) and Pres- byter, and Deacon, we owne, as well as thefe Acts do, which is all he mentioneth as making for him, in thefe Acts. He ckech WaU Mcffal. p. if;. alTerting, that thefe Epifiles were written in the beginning or middle of the fecond Eentury (this is but the Guefs of the Learned S '.<:. 'mafias ) but our Author doth not tell us that Salmafms 3 in the fame place, fet- teth forth, that they could not be written by Ignatius ,- from fome Ab- furdities that he maketh appear to be contained in them. This Gen- tleman miflaketh, when he faith, he that wrote thorn could not reprcfent Ecclejiaftical Volicy different fom what it was in the days if IgnatiuS 3 that is to fay, he couid not miftake* He fhould have proved this,, by demonftrating SdSt. VII. ( ifi ) S 44. demon ftrating that that Perfon, tho he knoweth not who he was* had the Gift of Inerrability: and if he afcribe that to a Perfon whofe other Chara&ers he knoweth not ; he might as well fay/ that no Writer of that Age could mifapprehend what was the Principle and Practice of the former. Is it not poffible, that this Perfon might he another Dlotre- phts.-, who, while" there was fome Tendency to a D eel enfion from Pa- rity^ did zealoufly forward it ; and ran a little before the fo^erer and better Men of that time,* and that his Zeal for the Opinion he "had ta- ken up might make him mifapprehend, or mifreprefent, what WM the Opinion of the true Ignatius ? ft is- a Drea m } , that it. folhweth from the Conceffion, or Guefs, of Salmaftxs, that that Author gave ~w: a true Idea of the Ecclefiafiical Policy of the beginning of the feebnd Century, and another,, that he ntuft refrefent Church. "Policy as thofe in his own days thought it to be in the days of Ignatius-, there was nothing in all the Presbyterian Writing^ fo vifionaire (to ufe his own word) as this is. For could not this un- known Perfon differ in the Apprehenfion of this Matter, from niofr^ yea, from all his Contemporaries ? and it is ftrange that our Author mould fuppofe that this perfon ate Ignatius was a Martyr, oraBifliop,- as he doth p. if4. He pieadeth next for the Epiftles of Ignatius, from the Diligence and Authority of Eufebius * and faith, that he hardly could be impofed upon in an Affair of this Conference. A. This is to beg the Queiti- on, to fay that the Church was in this'impofed upon: he mould prove that the Churches then thought thefe Epiftles to be written by Ignatius. for Eufebius^ I think few, who are vers'd in Antiquity, will lay fo much weight on his Hiftorical Authority as this Author doth. Himielf giveth ground to fufped fome things that he wrote,- as I ihewed before: and others have obferved yet more ground for it. It is a pleafant Argument^ the Church was careful to gather up fome hard Bones of Ignatius, that the Lyons had left, Ergo, they were more watehful over the Remains of his Mind, 'viz,, his Epiftles. If we have no more Certainty about the Epiftles, than we have about the genuine Bones of that Holy Marty r,and other Popim Re- licks^few wife Men will be much moved by Arguments brought from them. That Polycarp made a Collection of thefe Epiftles, and Iren&us cited them, proveth no more but that good Men may be impofed on by For- ged Writings. Eujehius rejected fome fuppoftims Books, after accurate Exa- mination;^ were a good Argument, if it could be made out that he reje- cted all fuch: the; 'contrary whereof is well known. For his "Belief that ike Orations of Cicero are genuine, let him enjoy it ; but if he build his Faith- Seft.VIL f if* ) $4^ Faith on any Article of Religion, or his Pra&ice of Piety towards God, on that Certainty, I cannot do fo too. Whether Cicero wrote thefe O- rations or not, is neither a Matter of fuch Moment, nor fo contefted by plaufible Arguments, as what we now Debate is. § 4f. What remains of my Antagonifts Difcourfe on this Controver- fie about Epifcopacy, is a Recapitulation of what he hath already faidj in nine Queftions t which he feemeth to.fet down as fo many Trophies of Victory over all his Adveriaries ,• and a few other Hints for flxength- ning his Caufe. His Queftions need litle Animadverfion : all that is contained in them being already Anfwered^ and his Opinion in thefe things difproved: whether concludendy and folidly or not, the Reader will judge. His nrft three Queftions do all fuppofe that we are againft Prelacy, merely from the Dichotomy of the Clergy uied in Scripture, which is a falfe Supposition : I have propofed our Argument with more ftrength, SeB. 4. §. j. fq as it is no way touched by what he here faith : where- fore it is no lofs to our Caufe if we give a negative, or affirmative An- fvver, to thefe Queftions, whether he fbail chufe. To his fourth Que- ftion I Anfwer, that Apoftolick Power, as to its permanent Branches, was perpetual and fucceflive (my Anfwer muft be Tautological, becaufe his Queftion is fuch ) but not fo, as to all its Eftential Branches. As to its necejjary branches ; if he mean what is necefiary to the Beeing, or Idea of an Apoftle, I deny thefe to be Perpetual and Succeffive. To the fecond part of this Queftion, I Anfwer negatively • that this Power was not tranfniitted, in folidum, to fingle Suc- ceflbrs in particular Sees; but to a Colledge of Presbyters. Queftion fifth, Where Superiority is forbidden ; is moft impertinent to our Debate : feing he pleadeth for a Jus Divinum for it,* he (hould 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 Prieft ( as he fpeaketh ) over another ,• both of them muft be Juris Divini, in his Opinion. I retort his own Argument, if Parity be not plainly forbid- den ( which I am fure he cannot mew ) then the Fancy of u jus Divi- num in favours of Epifcopacy ( fuch as is exclujlve of all other Forms of Ecclefi- aftical Government ) is Groundlefs and chymerical. It is enough to us, that Chrift hath inftituted Parity, and he hath not allowed Men to change it : we think this a fufficient Prohibition of the Superiority that he pl«a- deth for. His fixth is a heap of Queftions, to which I Anfwer, we de- ny the univerfal Tradition for Prelacy that he fancieth, and fay, a more univerfal Tradition might be demanded. We deny alfo that the Argn- ment SeA. VII. frifi ) S 4 & ment from univerfal Tradition ( exclusive of Apoftolick Traditioi i ,• if he can bring that he hath done his Work) is in this Cafe, either the moft proper, or.moft necefTary. Scripture Command, or Example, is - both more proper, and more necefTary. For the feventh, we do not pretend there was {uch a great Change Jo Juddenly, as he fancieth we do,* and therefore are not concerned to Debate the Poffibility of it. I hare faid enough on this head, § 41. To his eighth, we affirm, that. Jeroms Opinion is fairly and truly reprefented by Presbyterians : and have an- fwered what he faith to the contrary, SeB* 6. §. 7. & fiq. His laft Queftion about Ignatius' s Epiftles may be retorted on himfelf, whether there be any folid Argument brought for them : fub judice lis esl. Him- felf declineth that Debaters / alfo do. It is enough to us,that even the Teftimonies out of thefe Epiftles are not concludent : and if the Epiftles were Authentick, their Authority is but Humane and Fallible: and can- not be a Prejudice againfi Divine Ihftitution : and indeed cannot make Faith where the Queftion is de Jure Divino, as here it is. § 46. I now proceed to confider fome immethodical and incoherent Notions, with which he concludeth this Chapter. He telleth us, p. 160. Presbyterians owne a Yr tendency fince the days of the Apo Hies ( he might have added and in their days too ) fo that the Quarrel is not fo much againfi E- pijeopacy as againfi the Extent of their Diocefs } and Increafe of their Power $ over what it -was in the ^Primitive times. Now he will prove their Power over Presbyters to have been much more abfolute, than now it is pre-i tended to be : for nothing was to be done without the Biflwp ; a Presbyter might not Baptise withmt his exprefs Indulgence : as Hertub. witnejjeth. This Teftimony of Jertull. I have anfwered, Cypriankk Bijhop Examed, & 49. By Bifhop may either be underftood the Moderator, not in his fingle Capacity, but with the Presbytery : none might ad: within their Di- ftri&, but by their Allowance: or aPariihMinifter,none might Baptize^ &c in his Parifh, but by his Confent. He next citeth Dyonifius Bifhop of Corinth, writing to the GnoJ/ians ^xhortingPinytus , their Bijliop 3 not to lay the heavy burden of Celibacy (Jfuppofe that he meaneth by* Ayvita) on theBre-* thren } that is the Clergy : whence he wifely inferreth the Power of finy-* tus to have done this. And citeth on his Margin, Eufeb. hifi, Ecckf. but neither Book nor Chapter, nor the place of ' Dionyfius where the words may be found, A. Eujeb. hiftjib* 4. C. 23. hath a part of an Epiftle of Dionyfius to ^inytuSy and his Anfwer to him, where he checketh Dionyfius for that Advice to him. But nothing of all this importeth the Power U of Seft. VIL ( if4 > § 47 . o ' Pinytus to forbid Marriage : he mighc lay on this burden by preaching the necetfity of (S^libacy, without Autho.itative impoiing it. Yea, he might impofe it as Vrarj<.s, by the concurrent Authority of the Presbyte- ry ^ without foiejurifdiction. He mentioneth like ways the Cancn. supc- ftol. and Ignatius s fcpiities, but citeth nothing out of them: fo that he cannot expect: an Anfwer. As to the Extent of DioceifeSj we no fur- ther make an Argument from it, than we maintain that a Pallor of a Church Ihould have no larger Charge, than he can difpenfe the Woid and Sacraments to ; and that he Ihould not do this by Deputies under him. We lay no Strtfs on the word Diocefs, nor on the unequal tx- tent of a Paitors Diltrict, provided he pretend to no Power over his Brethren ; nor have a Charge that he cannot manage without fuch Su- periority over others. What he faith of Greg. Thaumaturgus proveth nothing, unlefs he can evince that the PresbyteiSj who were neceflaiy for the growing Charge, were his Underlings, not his Collegues. § 47. a Itrong Argument for Diocefan Epifcopacy ( as he thinketh ) he imnageth, p: 164: & Jey: from James Bilhop of Jerujaltm^ who wat ever many Congregations • for the Increafe of Christians was juch, as that they could not meet m one place. The Anfwer hath been before given • James was no ordinary Bilhop, but an Apoftle: and had Juiifdictioin, not only over the Chriltians in Jerufalem and in Judea ; but in all the World. He telleth us, that we ufe many Eva /ions • but he thinktth it then only feafc- nable to Answer them, when he knoweth which of them we mofi trufi to. If / had dealt fo by his Book, no Anfwer had been given to it. I know neither which or his Arguments he molt trulteth to 3 - nor which of them doth belt deferve that regard. If he had anfwered all that we fay, he could not have milled what we molt trult to: he Ihould deal with our Arguments and Exceptions, not according to our Elleem of them ; but according to the Influence they may have on the Debate now in hand. As for the Debate between Clark/on and Maurice, we are not much con- cerned in k; it is not material whether there be more or fewer Con- gregations in a City, provided, their Paltojs be not fubjed to one, but C o-ordinate among themfeives. His Information to him whom he cal- leth the Vindicator of the Kir*,, was needlcfs : he knoweth Attempts have been made to Anfwer Blondel, Dally, and Salmajim, yet that Author might modeltly put him in mind, how unrit it was for him to pick out here and there a word occafionally fpoken ,• and when he had ( in his own Apprehenlion ). baffled that, triumph over Presbytery^ as if never more Sed. VIII. ( iyc ) § h *• more had beeu faid for it ; while he hath neither out of his own Store,, nor from the Anfwers of thefs Books, brought any thing againfl our main Arguments. SECTION VIIL Animaeherjions on the Book called the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, I Had refolved not to meddle with the ill Natured Author of the Fun- damental Charter of Presbytery, further than I have done in anfwe- ring his malicious Preface,- Appendix to Cyprianick Bijhop Examined; judging it more proper for fome States Man, or one who is verfed in the Law : his Book being a direft Refutation of an Ad of Parliament, which he treateth very faucily : but finding, that they negleded his Book, and think it below them, unlefs they could alfo find his Perfonj and confidering the affinity of what he treateth with what I have been now controverting with another C if not the fame ) Author, herefpeak- ing more dareingly, from behind the Curtain, on fecond thoughts, I judg'd it not amifs to take notice of what he fayeth, in fome fhort a- nimadverfions C fuch as I have already made upon his Preface ) in fo far asheoppofeth Presbyterian Government. I intend not to explain an Ad of Parliament ( I know the hazard of that from the experience of others J but I deilgne to ihew how far the Presbyterians own what he oppofeth : infifting only on what feemeth to be argumentative in his Book, and overlooking the Virulent Sallies of his Pen,- which touch not this matter. Hedivideth his difcourfe into eighth Enquiries: I mall con- fider what he faith on each of them. § 2. His firft Enquiry is, Whether the Church of ScothrJ was Reformed folely by Perfons Cloathed with the Characler of Presbyters, I obferve two Miltakes ( to give them no worfe Names ) in thus dating the Quefti- on. Firft, it is enough to us, if our Reformers were moftly, though not folely Presbyters : if a Biftiop or two joyned in the Reformation^ it doth not hinder that Perfons of inferior Degree in the Church that then was, were the Men on whom lay the weight of this Work. Se- condly, it is not fo much material what Character our Reformers bare | when they were yet Papifts 3 as wha t Station they had in the Reformed j Proteftant Church in this Nation : or what Order they endeavoured to | fet up in this Church, when they had withdrawn from Subjedion U 2 tO Sea. VIII. ( if6 ) § 2. to the Roman Hierarchy, for our Concernment is to know what were the Principles of our Reformers, being now Reformed, (for befo e their Converfion they were all Epifcopal ) and how they fetled this Church with refped to her Government. But to gratifie my Adverfa- ry a little, I fo far yield to the State of his Gueftion, as to maintain, that few, if any, had an Active Hand in the Reformation, who had been Popifo Biftops : but they moved in a lower Orbe in the Yopijh Church 9 who were helped of God to be Inftrumental in that blelled Work. If he would have cleared the Queftion, he ihouid have told us what he meaneth by Presbyters in the Popijl) Notion of that Word: For that Antichriftian Society had left fcarce either Name or Thing off-he Or- der and Offices that Chriir had appointed in his Houfe, but confoun- ded all, and buiided a Babel of their own deviling. To prove that our Reformation was not by Presbyters, he telieth us of eight Prelates in the Reforming Parliament i 0o, who all turned Vrctfrants: this is iittle to the purpofe; for i. The Reformation from Popery had made fome Pro- grefs before that time, Preachers, and fome private Men, did more for the turning Perfons to the Tiuth, than Parliament Men did. 2. Eight in all Scotland was but a (mail Number: if there had been no more Hands at the Work, it had gone ilowiy on. ;. Among all thefe eight, there were but two Bifhops, the reft were Prelates indeed, in the Fopijh Senfe ; Abbots, and luch like ; but I hope this Author will not fay they were fuch as Protectants count Prelates ; or that they have fuperior Power in the Church.ro Presbyters. 2. Hq telieth us, that they who la- boured moft in the Reformation, were not in Holy Orders, and nameth fome of them. Anf. Then I hope they were no Bifhops. It is true, many of thefe worthy Men had no Ordination in the Popiih way, nor were they Presbyters in that Church; but when they turned Protectants, they were made Presbyters, and not Billiops. Yea. 3 Claud. hijf-oric- df.efthe Reformation, part fypage 1 j. faith, that in many Nations ( among whom he nameth Scotland ) the Reformation was made by the Consent of the greateft part of their Rafters', to wit Monks , Preachers , Y?rie(ls, Curat i, Canons, &c And it is as certain as Hii\ory can make it, that not a few of the infe- rior Clergy turned Proteltants ; whereas himfeif confelTeth there were but two Bimops, Argyle and Galloway. Some of them,and thefe of good Note, and who were eminently blelled with Succefs, were but Lay- Men, (as he frazeth it ) who by their private Labours converted ma- ny, and were at laft Authorized to Labour in the Gofpel more publick- sea vin. ( ^7 ) si, ?. Jy, by fuch Ordination as then could be had,* but they were never ex- alted to be Ei.'Kops. Let me digrefs a little, to obferve 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 o* that time, a Superintendent was not the fame with a Bi'hop : which our Brethren ufe to plead for, / (hail not infill on the further Proofs he bringeth of his Anfwer to the firlt Enquiry : they amount to no more, but that there were but few Minifters : and many Reformers were Lay Men : to all which I Anfwer ^ this fheweth that Presbyters, and f*erfons of an inferior Rank to Biflnops, had a far greater Hand in the Reformation than Bifoops had. It was far otherwife in England ; where the State carried on the Reformation ; whereas in Scotland, the greater!, both in State and Church, oppofed it as long, and as much as they could : and even the two Bilhops whom he mentioneth, did rather comply with the Reformation, than actively promote it s notwithftanding of all which, it is unbecoming a Prote- ilant, to call our Reformation 'violent, and dij orderly '. as he doth, f. J* Out of Spot/wood. § 5. The fecond Enquiry is, Whether ike Scots Reformers, what ever Were their Qbaraclers, were of the prefent Presbyterian Principles ? whither they Were for the Divine Institution of Parity; and the Unlawfulnejs of Prelacy a- mong the Paftors of the CMurch* here he taketh a great deal of Liberty to Comment, and try his Critical Skill, on the Article of the hdc of Par- liament which he had undertaken to baffle. In which it is not my Pro- vince to interpofe: I am little concerned in this whole Enquiry: if it be granted that Parity, and not Prelacy ,• was the Church Government that they chuied. If this Debate have any Influence on the Contro- verfie between us and our Brethren, it will make more againft them- felves than againft us: for not only our Reformers were further from owning a Divine Right of Prelacy than of Parity ; but they chufed this, and rejected that : notwithftanding that they had been bred in the owning of it, under Popery. We think it was a great Tcftiraony gi- ven by them to Parity, that they {hewed fo much Zeal for it, as they did, though they had not that Light about it, that after times afforded. It is certain., that that Difpute which had fo long, by the Tyranny of the Biftiops, been buried and forgotten, ( except among the Church in the Wildernefs, which few knew of, the Waldenfa) could not at firft be fo fully underftood^ as by further Enquiries it came to be. Notwith- Handing^ Se&.VIIL ( 3Tj8 ) $ 4. Handing, it is evident that our Reformers lookt on Parity as Juris Di- vini, though they did not much infift on the Debate about that: for in the Book of Policy, Chap. 1. they have thefe words, this Ecclejiafiical Autho- rity is granted by G»d the Father, through the Mediatory ejus Ghritt, unto his Kirk gathered ( not to a fingle Bifoop) 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 occafion of Tyranny , he ( that is God ) willeth that they fiould rule with mutual confent, as Brethren, with equality of Power, every one ac- cording to their Funclion. And after, there are Jour, ordinary Functions, or Offices, in the Kirk, the Office of the Paftor, Minifer, or Bifiop • the Dotior, the Presbyter or Elder, and the Deacon. Where it is evident, that they own no Bifliop Superior to any ordinary Minifter ; but make the Identitieof them to be of Divine Right. §. 4. I think it not worth the while to make a ftricl: 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 Caufe. And his Arguments are verbofe, tedious, and insignificant. I (hall only point at them, and the Anfwers that may be made to them. There is, p. 9. d^c. no fuch Controverfie was then Agitated in Europe ; the Popes Supremacy was Debated, but not Prelacy • Anf. nihil feejuitur, our Reformers affert the Conclufion as I have ihewed : but they and others were taken up in debateing greater Matters with the Papifts : He doth falfly affert, p. 10. that churches, when they are Reformed, Jet up a Church Government fut- able to the Model of the State, as in Geneva, which was a Common-wealth, they fit up Faritie. For who readeth Calvin* Writings may fee, that they built on another Foundation ,- even Divine Inltitution, and our own Countrey is an inftance to the contrary: Paiitie was in the Church, and Monarchy in the State ,He calleth it impudence to cite Cafoine for this jus Divinumibut if the Reader beat the pains to look into the Citations ti>at this Author hath fcraped together, to ihew Calvin to be for Indifferency of the form of Church Government, he will foon fee on whole iide the impudence is. He confelfeth that Beza foundeth upon Scripture: 1^1. but alledgeth that he no » here calleth Epijcopacy abfclmtely or /imply unlawful. If Chriit hath inftituted a Form, as it mult be if one Form be built on Scripture ; I fee not what is further necellary to prove an opposite Form, inconfiftent with that, to be abibiutely or fimply unlawful. He telleth Sea. VIII. ( i?9 ) § 4. telieth us, ibid, that Beza faith, that humanuS Ep'fcopatus is toller able, if duely bounded, by the pure canons of the ancient Church : and I fay the fame : for then it would be no more but a Prefidencie ,• which doch not de- ftroy Parkie. He citeth aifo a number of feeming conceffions out of Calvine : but they amount to no more than the lawfuinefs of a *?<>( n?U in the Church ,• which is not our Debate. If Beza was not for feparatinr from a church becaufe -t was Epijcotal ; no more are we : unlefs that Epis- copal Church impofe unlawful terms of Communion on us. His fecond Proof is, our Reformers had no peculiar Motives , or occafon for adverting to tbe evil of Prelacy : nor interefi to determine them to Paritie : nor were more Jharp figkted to fee the evil of Prelacie than other Reformers. Anf. a thoufand fuch Arguments as this cannot conclude againft a plain Matter of fad : I have fhewed that they were for the Divine right of Paritie ,• where- fore it is in vain to tell us that they had no Motive to be of that Opini- on. He falfly fuppofeth that other Reformers were not of the fame Sen- timents ; feing molt of them except England, fet up the fame Govern- ment. Thirdly, He argueth thus, none of the Confejfors, or Martyers, or they who had moji hand in bringing the Reformation to perfection, have given that ai their Opinion. And here hath a long Difcourfe of fome other Opini- ons that Several of them vented, they Declaimed loudly againft the Bijhops of thefe times j but what is that to the Order, p. 8* they Declaimed againjl the Shavelings as well as againji Bijhops ; againft Presbyters as if ell as Bijhops, p. 19- And he hath a long Debate, with fome of our Hiftorians, about the Opinion of John Knox in this matter, which, meeriy to fave . time, I fliall not concern my felf in. Anf. It being evident, that in our hrft Setlement of Difcipline, our Church declared for the Divine right of Paritie, negative Arguments from the Writing, or fayings, of private Men are inlighificant : and it is lefs to the purpofe, to tell us of their o- ther Opinions which have no relation at all to this Matter ,He cannot io much as ailedge that any of them have faid, or Written any thing to the contrarie, directly or indire&ry For his Debate about John Knox, I judge he hath faid nothing that can fatLsfie any imbyaifed Reader, that thefe Hiftorians had not ground to think that Master Knox tookt on Pre- lacy as a finful thing, and againft Chrifts Inftitution £ That imparitie was Eftabliihed by the fir ft Rook of Difcipline, is falfly fuppofed, p. 22. Superintendencie is no fufficient Proof of it 3 - of which after. §> 5*. His next Proof beginneth p, ;8. and is managed in a large Hi- ftoricai acount, of what influence England had on our Reformation from. Se&. VIII. ( 160 ) § y. from Popery : whence he inferred], that our Reformers proceeded en the fame Principle with the Reformers of England, Here he ui dertaketh two things,* 1.-. To ihew what influence England had en cur eformation. 2. ?h*t our Reformers were generally of the Jame mind With the Church ofEnjr* land, in fever al momentous instances relating to Cmjiitution and ommunion the Government and Policy of the Church. For Anf. to this Argument ; it is wholly inconfequential, if he never fo fully Prove all that he hath men- tioned; except thelaft, about the Government and Poiicy of the Church: and even that fignifieth nothing, unlefs he Prove that by the influence of "England our Reformers were for prelacy ; and not for Faritie ,• and that as Inftituted by Chrift. Wherefore I pafs over the laborious proofs he brings of the other things, and ihail coniider his lait Article ; and what he faith for what he hath aflerted about it. The Reader, without my Animadversion, will take notice of his unmanly depreffing of his Native Countrey, and fawning on another Nation. This after tion that weop- pofe is not proved by our Reformers Communicating -with the Qhurch of "England ( which he infifteth on from />. 7. ) it omy proveth that they thought Epifcopacy did not unchurch a Society that was otherwife found in the Faith. And if feme three or four of them did [true in the Church ^/England under Bijlwp* ( for which we have no more but Arch- Bijlop Spot/woods word J this might either be by the Indulgence cf the Reforming Bifhops, not requiring of them thefe Terms of Communion that the late Biihops did of thefe who got Places under them : or it fig- nifieth no more but that one or two Men of a Partie were of more, La- titude in their Principles than the reft were. For what is faid oi fome of them approving the Englifh Lyturgy, is lefs to his Queftiou, which is only a- bout Government* We never thought that our Reformers,at hrft,were all of the fame Principle with us in all things : I am fure they were far from being of all the Sentiments of the prefent Epifccpal Churchy Yea them- felves had afterward, other thoughts of fome things., than they had at firft : as Luiher held many Popifh Opinions at fir ft, which afterward he reje&ed. I obferve further, that in many of his Hiftorical pafrages a- bout fome of thefe Reformers, his beft ground for what he affirmeth is, it is not to be imagined, that they did fo and fo .* or it is to be prejumedm We muft then believe the Truth of Matter of Fact on his fancy, that fo it muft be. If I thought it worth the while, I would Examine thefe Hiftories more narrowly. But I could eafily yield him all, without pre- judice, to our Cauie : ieing the Principles of our Reformers are better known Se&. VIII. fl6i) $ y. known by their publick Deeds, than by the private Sayings, or Practi- ces of two or three of them ,• and thefe not fufficiently artefted, Thefe good Men did much rejoyce in the Reformation of the Do&rine of the Church of England, as alio in her cafting off the load of humane Cere- monies, by which (lie had been burdened • but that all, or raoftof them, were fatisfied with their Government and Difcipline, is the Queftion; and is not Proved by what he hath faid. It is leaft of all Concludent, that thefe 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 />• 8 1. he layeth on fo much ftrefs on our Reformers faying of England, that they were of the fame Religon with m \ which he putcth in majufculis : we fay the fame of them at this days and I hope they think not otherwife of us: and yet we think Paritie to be juris divini. If he can find a Contradiction here, let him try his Skill to difcover it. It is an odd method that he uleth, p. 85". he will prove that the Scots Reformers were for Epifcopacy, hecaufe it was natural for the Englijh, who had ajjifted in the Reformation t§ demand it. And I Prove they were not for it, becaufe, de fafto s they did not fetle it, but a way inconfiftent with it. Let the Reader judge whether of thefe two Arguments is mod concludent. We do not find that the Englijh made fuch a Demand, and if th«y did not, they a&ed like difcreet Neighbours, not to impofeon their Brethren, who had other fentiments of the Matter, and who agreed with them in the main points of Religion. And if they made fuch a Demand, the Event mewed that it was not liftned to. For his Citation of Buchannan } p. 88- that Scoti ante aliquot annos Anglorum auttilik e Jervitute Gallica liberati,Religionis cultui & ritibus cum Anglis communibut fubfcripferunt : himfelf confeffeth that no other Hiftorian hath mentioned it ; and he hath taken care that we ft all not be able to Examine Buchannans words, by mentioning Buch. 7, 14. in a Book of fo many diverfe Editions : who can hope to find the place ? I know not what Buchannan could mean by it ; but it is evident, if the Scott did fo fubfcribe, they did not acl: accordinglie • which was no Sign of their Inclinations that way : It is naufeous to repeat, with him, fo often, the Godly Conjunblion, the Unity, Peace, and chriflian Con- cord, that was then made between England and Scotland '• and to fet forth this as a Demonftration : Yea, a Set of Demonftrations, that the Scots Reformers were Epifcopal: nothing can be more ridiculous than to talk at this rate, in the Face of Matter of Fa<5t, that they fettled Parity as foon as they could fettle any Order in the Church. X § -6. He Sea. VIII. < itfi ) % 6. § 6. He undertaketh, p, 96. and forward, to prove, that at the Re- formation, the Englifli Lyturgy was ufed in this (hurch* If this flhouid be granted, it cannot prove that the Englifh Church Government was ufed alfo : they wanted qualified Minifters, fo that there was Jieed of fome help to them, in Praying and Inihucting the People pubiikly ,• and it may be, there was no other that they could,at that time, ufe, and they had not fo fully difcovered what might be, and afterward was, excep- ted againft in it,- and therefore ufed it for a time : but I think he will not deny, thatasfoon as they could, they laid it afide,* and made ufe of that more Unexceptionable Form of Geneve ; till at lail, that was difufed alfo, as a Man layeth by his Crutches, when he getteth Strength to go by himfelf. He Iheweth wonderful Skill in Logick, p. 58s Cair derivood had faid that the Englijb Lyturgy, which was read in the new Colledge in Saint Andrews, was not of any continued FracTice in time by Taft fince the Reformation • Ergo, it was pradifed at the Reformation. What- ever may be faid of the Confequent, the Confequence is no better than this, I never ufed to fmoak Tobacco in any continued Practice fince I was born, Ergo, I oid it when I was born, p. 10 1, &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 be- longed to the Civil State to reform the Church : that the People might appeal from the Church to the Civil Magiflrat, tjrc* this is ftill, extra oleas va~ gari. I fhall not fo far digrefs from the purpofe in hand, as to consi- der what the prefent Presbyterians hold as to thefe AJTertions; 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 fnall Anfwer him when he will. This whole Difcouife is impertinent: it doth not prove that our Reformers were for Epifcopacie: and if it did, it is no good Confequent ,• that we /hould be for it too. I have alreadie faid, that wc never thought our Reformers were, in all things, of the fame Opini- on with the prefent Presbyterians: and I am fure, that he hath far lefs caule to think that they were for all that the prefent Prelatifrs hold. Another thing more he Iheweth ,• that the Scots and Englijl) Reformers a- greed in this, p. iof. 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 oblique- ly chargeth the Presbyterians with all the Horrid Rebellions, and Vno.ri- jtian Divijions, unaccountable devolutions, both in Church and State, which have Sea. VIII. ( 16% ) %6, 7. have Unhinged all the Principles of Natural Juftice and Honesty, and T>ijabled i nay eaten out, the Principles of Chrifiianity among m ; that now we are not Jo much dijpofedfor any thing, as for Atheifm. Which Strain I find is com- mon with Men of his Stamp : but it is moft difingenuous Dealing : for the World knoweth where the Fault of our Divifions doth ly: and whe- ther Atheifm., Immoralities and Injufticc have thriven more under the Influence of Prelacie, or of Presbyterie. For the Revolution that he fee- meth to be fo angry with, the Presbyterians think it their Glorie to have Countenanced it : and the Bodie of the Prelatifts ( in England I mean, not in Scotland ) will not difowne their Acceffion to it ,• nor will they look on it ( as this Author and fome others do) to have Unhinged the Principles of Natural Justice and Honefty. The Rule of Reformation that he had mentioned, he faith he mil bring in again by and by, where we (ball attend him. § 7. He telleth us, p. 106, &c of his Performances, which he re- capitulated! ,• and concludeth, in the higheft Meafure of Confidence that Words can exprefs, that our Reformers were not for the Divine Right of Varity. I am fo dull that I cannot fee this Point proved, for all that he hath faid : and if it were proved, it is nothing to our main Caufe,- we never faid that they were in all things, either as Presbyterians, or as Prelatifts are now, in their Opinions ,• all that we afifert is, that they were for Paritie, and pra&ifed 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 folioweth, his Confidence arifeth yet higher, and that in the Entrance of what now he is attempting, and about which he maketh very large Promifes, p. 108. where he pretendeth to give plain, pofitive, direct, and formal proofs of bis Afertion, to as high a degree, as the nature of (he thing is capable of, or can reafonably bear. For per- formance of this ,• his firft Attempt is, in a Petition of the Reformers to the Government ; this is one Article, as it is fet down by Lejly, de rebus gejl if, Scot or. lib, 10. p. $04. Ut Epfcopi deinceps & Pa/lores, iUi Dominorum ac No- bilium eujufcunojue Diocefis, hi parothorum ajfentione, ac voluntate ad beneficia cooptentur. There is nothing Anfwerable to the Evidence fo confidently promifedby him : it is no pofitive, plain, &c. Proof: the matter could bear more, viz,, if Lejly had faid, that however, the Schifmaticks, ( as he calleth them ) were for abolishing the old Do&rine, that they were for keeping up the ancient Hierarchie. But that this is no futiicient Proof of his Conclufion ; I fhew, 1. Suppofmg Lejly s Veracitie, and X 2 fai£ Sea. VIII. ( 164 ) § l> 8. fair Repr dentation of the Addrefs that the Reformers made, no more can be concluded from it, but that it is fuppofed, that the Revenues of Bifhops could not quickly be alienated, and that fome muft be chofen to enjoy them, that they might be fo and fo chofen : here is not a Word of chufing Bifhops to Exercife that Office over, or among the Prote- ftants : and it is well known, that the Rents of Biihops, Abbots, Pri- ors, and other Dignitaries of the Church of Rome, did continue ,• and Men were chofen to the Name, and Rent, of thefe Places, who did not Exerctfe the Power that Men under thefe Names had in Popery. 2. Himfelf confeffeth, that this Article of the Petition isotherwife ren- dred in Bucbannan, and Spot/wood $ 'viz,. Vt MiniHrorum eleclio \uxta Anti- quum Ecclefia cenjuetudinem penes pofulum ejjet. Here is no Word of Bi- Jnops : and one may tbink,that we have more Caufe to Credit thefe two Proteftant Hiftorians than Lefly, a Papift; who, on all Occafions, flieweth his Spite againft Proteitants : efpecially Spotfwtod, an Arch-Bi- fhop, would not have negle&ed to make ufe of this feeming Counte- nance to his Caufe. This Author hath no other Shift to take off the Edge of this Exception, but to tell US, that Bucbannan winded Matters of State meji in Hiftory : and S tot [wood is very defective in many farts of his Hi- ftory : which is indeed to fay, that neither of them is to be much regar- ded: but LeJJy is the Man: if it be fo, we muft look on the whole of our Reformation, with a very unfavourable Eye. Whither this will feem abfurd to this Author, or not, I know not. He is at a great deal of Pains to prove, that Lefly did not Forge this Article ; and bringeth no fewer than fix 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 Mifworded the Article, though he did not Forge it } the other Hiftorians have the fame Article, only they have not the Word Biihops, in which lyeth the whole force of our Authors Argument § 8. Hh next Argument, which beareth pofitive, plain, &c Evidence, u from another Petition of our Reformers, fet down in the Hiftory commonly afcribed to John Knox, p. iji. a large Portion of which he Tranfcribeth ; I /hall Compendize it, without taking any thing from its Strength on his Side ; they require that the ill Lives of Prelates, and the State Ecclifiafiical, may be Reformed $ and Declare that they envy not their Ho- nours, nor covet their Pofiefjions j but dejire their Reformation : and they add, that we are content, that not only the Rules and Precepts of the New Testa- ment, but alfo the Writings of the Ancient Fathers, and the Godly and Appro- ved Se<5b VIII. ( 16% ) ; i * 8. tW Ltf^j of Juftinian the Emperor, decide the Contrcvirfie betwixt us and them : and they earneftly deftre, that notwithstanding the long Cuslom they kad to live at their Luft, they may be compelled either to defift from Ecelefia/li- cal Administration, or di/charge their Duties as becometh true Ministers. Let us now hear what Improvement he maketh of this PaiTage to his pur-, pofe : he telleth US, that here cur Reformers lay down a Complex Rule for Reforming of the Church : and we refule not to try it with our Oppofitcs, in the Controrerfie about Prelacy, by this Complex Rule : but with thefe two Limitations, which cannot be made appear to be inconfiftent with what is there expreffed by our Reformers : oac is, that all the Parts of this Complex Rule, be not lookt on as of Co-ordinat Authority ; but that the reft be fubordinate to the Holj Scripture: we are not afraid of the Vcrdid of the Fathers of the nrft Ages,- but if they mould be found in any thing to recede from Scripture, we reject them. The other is, that the Laws of Juftinian, which our Reformers mention, be rather lookt on as a Rule concerning the Temporalities of Church Men, than their Spiritual Jurifdi&iorL He n#xt faith, that our Reformers were con- tent that the Clergy fhould live and rule , and difcharge their Trust, at they did in the days of Justinian: and now ', Xkith fie # if they who fo Petitioned, were for Rarity, and not for the Continuance cf Prelacy, I muft confefs my Ignorance ■to be very grofs* Anf I fhall not determine whither Ignorance, or fome- what elfe hath led him into a grofs Miftake of the Meaning and De- fign of thefe Petitioners: but a Miftake Ceemeth ro be evident. They were not fo abfurd, as to make the Roman Civil Law the Rule of Reli- gion : 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 fliould enjoy their Benefices, ( this for Peace fake they yielded too ) as they were fetled by the g»od Laws of Juftinian : ( where a Limitation even in that is infinuated ) and that the Lives and Autho- rity of the Paftors of the Church, mould be regulated by Scripture and the Writings of the Fathers in Subordination to that. Juftinian lived in the fixth Century, when Prelacie was far advanced in the Church s wherefore they had Aded very abfurdly, if they had been for that way, and yet fo quickly fettled among thcmfelves ( contrarie to the Inclina- tions of their Friends in England, to whole Affiftance they owed very much ) a way fo oppofit to that. Our Reformers, the Nobilitie, Gen- trie and Miniftcrs, were neither fo unfaithful, nor fo changeable,, as to be Se&. VIII. . ( 166 ) §. 9. be influenced by one or two Men to fueh an abfurd Courfe. I add to all this, that it is moft abfurd to fay, 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 Nulhtie in the Power of all their Bilhops • on account of their being chofen by the Magiftrat, and fitting in Parliament : for Canon. Aposl. ( confirmed by Concil Confiantinop* 6. Canon 29. revived by €on. til token. 2. Canon. 3. ) condemneth the one, and Can, 6. and 80. the other. $ 9. After mentioning another Petition of the Reformers, which contalneth no new matter, he cometh from p. 119. to prove, that the firfi Church Government that cur Reformers jtttlcd, was net Paritie, but Su- perintendencj s All that he faith on this head, hath been often anfwered^ and it hath been made Dlain, to the Conviction of them who will fee, that Superintendency, as let up in Scotland, was nothing like Epifcofacy, that it was never intended to be continued ,♦ but ufed for the preient Neceffitie: and that it was never lookt on as inconfiftent with their be- ing for Pari tie in Opinion : but we muft fubmit to the Drudgerie of Repetitions ; feing he will have it fo. I take notice of his forgetting what hchadfaid a little before (as I obferved §. 2* ) UiniprS were fubjeB to kim, in all lawful Admo- nition*; he^cu tt be obeyed. 14, He had Power of 'Vi fit at ion of Churches* If. He might depofe Mini(hrs, 16, &§ might tranflate Minifieri. 17. He might nowin at Mini fieri to be Members of the Bmeral dffemhlp 18. He had "Bower to hoU x I>iocefan Synods. 19. To appoint Fa&s within his own Bounds. 20. To modify Stipends. 21. To receive Appeals, zz. He had l*ower of Fineing } in cafe of undue Appeals. 2$. fs determine intricate Cafes of Confci- ence, or Government. 24. To judge of Divorces. 2 5". To enjoyn Pennance to greater Criminals. 26. to reftore Criminals. 27. He had the Power of Excom- munication. 28. To delate attrociota Criminals to the Civil Magi fir at 29, They had great Tower over Schools and Colledges, 30. they Were the LicenferS of Books. § 10. Qua non profunt fngula } juncla juvant ,» here is a large Mufter Roll., to Fright the Reader with a numerous and long Train, that might have been, to as much advantage, drawn into a narrower Compafs. I mall firft,Make fome general Obferves on all this Heap of Prerogatives. Next, Examine them particularlie, but very fuccin&lie. For the former, I obferve, 1. That the Power of Superintendents was at firft more abfo- lute, and independent on the reft of the Minifters., than afterward; becaufe at firft there were hardlie any qualified Minifters ,• but only Readers, or-fuch as could CatechHe the People*, newly come out of Popery • but when there was a better Stock of qualified Minifcers, and yet the Church but meanlie provided, the Superintendent was obliged to rule with their Concurrence ; and was little other than a conftant M o- derator : and his Power was by every General Affembly, abridged, till that Office was at laft abolished, as no longer needful in the Church. 2. It is not denyed, but that there was an Imparitie between a Superin- tendent and another Minifter : but this was lookt on by our Reformers, not as a ftanding Office, nor as having any Foundation, but that of prefent Neceffitie t fo that it did no way derogate from that Paritie, that they lookt on as the Way that the Church mould be Governed ; and as what they intended, when their Cafe mould allow it, But of this more afterward. 3. Ail this cannot make the Superintendent and the Biihop, to be the fame Officer in the Church ,- becaufe the one is pretended to be an Officer appointed by Chrift, and his Soveraign Power over the Presbyters, is by Divine. Appointment s the other is fet up by Men, and more or lefs Power is given to him, as they think fit. The one is accountable ro none but Chrift, the other is accountable to the Presbyterie, and may be Cenfured, yea Deprived by them. The one Sec*. VIII. ( 1 68 ) $ I0 , ii. one is lookt on as what ftiould always continue in the Church ; the other was defigned but for that Exigency of the Church, to be laid a- fide when that was over. 4. Not a few of thefe Prerogatives are either afferted, without Ground, or Mifreprefented. To make out which, I proceed ro the fecond thing I propofed ,• viz.. To Examine them par- ticulate i for the firft, The Extent of their DislriQ is no Argument for fuch Difparitie as he pleadeth for : they had each of them, their proper Charge, as other Minifters^ where they were ordinarilie to Labour; but had larger Diftricts for Vifitation. 2. Their Nomination by the Coun- cil, and Election by tht Nobility and Gentry , is afferted without Ground. Neither doth he Cite any Authoritie for it, nor do I find any thing to that purpofe in any of our Hiftorians. ;. A Superintendent could not be dt- pofed, but by the Ministers of the whole Province : This neceffarilie follow- ed upon his Charge, or Power of Vifiting, being ot that Extent. In that he was depofeablc by the Minifters, it is evident he was no biihop, in the Notion that our Brethren have of a Bifliop. 4. The lame rea- fon was for his being tleQed by the Minifiert of the Vr evince. What Our Author faith of the Ordination of the Superintendent , is a foull Mifreprc- fentation,- as any one may fee in the place heciteth, Spotf. hift. lib, ;. f. 1J9, 160. Nothing is there mentioned, but Ele&ion and Trial,* but on the contrarie, it is expreilie faid, other Ceremonies than this Exa- mination, the approbation of ftlinijters and Superintendents, with the publick Confent if Elders and feople, we do not admit. Whence it is evident, that he had no new Office, nor Ordination, above 4 Presbyter. § Ii. His fifth Prerogative is, Hi was n§t to be IranJUted from one flat* to another, but by a (council oftbt while Church. This is no Epifco- pal ] urifai&ion. The Extent of his Diftricl:, to a Province mad« tnis ne- ceffarie : there being no Judicature above his Province, but a General Afftmbly* 6. It is leaft of all Argumentative, that be was to ghe good proof of his Qualifications, by being Jome time in the Minifiryl becaufe the want of due Qualifications in the Generalitie of the Miniftry, was the Rife of his Office : therefore he muft be the beft qualified that can be had. 7. His greater Benefice is no Argument.- he had more Work, and Occahon for Expenfe, by Travelling to Vifit Churches, than the reft had. It is falflie allcdged, that Spot/, p. 210. faith, it was agreed, 1767. that the Superintendent Jhould fucceed to the "Benefices of the Popijb Bilhops dz» prived : there is not f ach a word in that place : only there, and in the former page, it is agreed, that the Church Jhould be rejlored to her Pat, i- Sed. VIII. ( 169 ; Sir. monie. 8. There being conHant Members ef the General Affembly, faith no more., but that there being fo few qualified Minifters, thefe few choice Men were needed in the Affembiies of the Church. 9- His trying Mi- nifters and Readers, was from theprefentneceflitiey of the Church, when Presbyteries could not be had to do its 10. His giving Collstion did fol- low on the former Power. 11. The jus devolutum for planting a Mini- fter fell to him, and his Council* He could not place a Minifter by himfelf, as our Bifhops pretended to do .- but by the afliftance of fuch Minifters as were ntteft to judge, thefe were his Council ,• this alfo was for the prefent necedity, and want of Minifters to make a Presbytery. J 2. ¥Lis power of Ordination, our Author paffeth very (lightly, and with a general alleging of feveral Ads of Affembiies. It is like a Superintendent might Ordain by himfelf, when no other Minifter could be had to joyn with him : but as foon as Presbyters could be had, it was not fo. Our Reformers ufed no other Ceremonie in Ordination, but Nomination, and Tryal, and Approbation ,• and it is evident that thefe were to be performed by the Superintendent ,with the reft of the Minifters,- for Spotfw. p. i $ f. Iheweth out of the Book^of Difcipline, that this Tryal and Appro- bation was to be performed by the learned Minifters appointed for their Exa- mination, then not by one Man alone. »;. Subjection to him ( which our Author is pleafed to call Canonical Obedience, was a neceffarie confc- quent of his Oifice^but it is to be obferved, that in the Affemblie 15- 6z, out of which he allegeth this Paffage, Superintendents were Tryed and Cenfured by the Affemblie : and it was appointed that at every Affem- blie, they, and Minifters, and Elders mould be Tryed, as to their Con- versation ,• which looketh not like Epifcopacy* 14. His power of Vifitation was indeed his main Chara&eriftick ,• but doth not prove Epifcopal jurif- diclion • it being delegated to him by the Church, and he being Ac- countable to her for it. 1 $•. His power of Depejing is exprefly faid to be given him by the Affemblie, and he is ordered to report his Diligence to the next Affemblie ,- which iaft, our Author overlooked!. 1 6, His TranJIating of Minifters is no more, but that his Confent, or that of the whole Church muff be had to a Tranfpoi tation : it was then neceffarie when there was no Presbyteries to j udge of fuch Matters. 17. He great- ly miftaketh when he faith that the Ajjembtie Enacleth that UiniHers for the (general Ajjlmbiie jhould be brought mtb the Superintendents, &c. which he will have to be Nominating them, and he aiioweth the reft of the k >ynod but a Confent: whereas Spotfw, p. 219. words it, fuch as the bupain- Y tendent VIII. ( i-o ; § n . Ia , Undents fliall cheoft in their Diccefan Synods. If he could choofe them by himfelf, there needed no Syncd for this end ; that Exp etfion can i g- nifie no lefs than the Synods iuftrage in the Election. My lord GLm$ Letter that he mentioneth is not Authentick. 18. He held Dioceftn Sy- nods, becaufe he was their Moderator. 19. They might appoint Fafts in their bounds, but with Advice of the Miniliers. 20. Modifying of bnptnds is no Spiritual Power, and therefore, impertinently here brought in. 21. Appeal f was made to him., and his Synodal Convention : here is no foie jurifdiefcion, 22. His power of Fine in g is no Spiritual Power. 2^. Determining Cafes of Confcience, and otheir Questions, was never com- mitted to him alone • but in the Synod, and ro them. Yea, Questions fo determined were to be reported to the General Affembiie next en- fewing,- fo that Manufcript that he fo often Citeth, p. '4. 24. To judge of divorces is a civil Power • and not to cur purpofe ,- 2 5". It is clear by his own Relation, that the Injunction ofPennance ( as he calieth it) is to be by the Superintendent with the Synod. 26. Refioring of Criminals or Ab- folution, did the fame way belong to him. 27. Notifying Criminals to the M.agiflrat is no part of jurifdiction* 28+ Excommunication was not to be done by his fole Authority • but by his ^dvice. 29. His vower ever Col- leges. And 30. His Licenfmg of book ■ ; both of them Depend on the Civil Power: and are not to our prefent purpofe. Thefelhort Notes may fhew how little caufe there is for his Triumph, with which he conclud- ed"! this his Enumeration of the Superintendents Prerogatives , They prove a Difparity between him and other Mini tiers, 1 confefs,- which die Church in that her State thought neceifarie for a time : but on the other hand, it is evident that fome of them Prove as much Difparitie from and inconfiftencie with the Prerogatives of a Diocefan BiJnop, which our Brethren plead for, as belonging to him, Jure Divino. §. 12. His next Work from p. 140. is to dijjipat the Mi ft wherewith the Paritie hlen are fo very earneji to darken the Prelatical Power cf the Superinten- dents : he mentioneth Three of their Exceptions. The 1. Is, it ma not inte?ided to be a perpetual (ianding Office • but was Temporary, and for the then Neceffities of the Church. For this he Citeth Calderwucd, and ■ e.rie af- ferting this • with whom I do cordially joyn. Againfi this, he thus rea- foneth. p* 142. whether it r?as Temporary or not, it Was Prelacy , and this is all that I am concerned fo? ; And to Fortihe this, he taketh in by force a Similitude from the ttresbyier'.ans making Addrejs to King J 'amtS ; a rare but ufelefs piece of Witt Anf. If he be concerned for no more than this' we Se x?y* 4 . •fide. f. The Words cited make it evident that this was not intended for a lafting Prelacy in the Church ,• far lefs for an Epifcopacy fianding on a Jut Divinum $ For the Affembly where this Book of Difcipline was Eftabliftied, do give them Charge and Commandments they do appoint their Work, fet Limits and Bounds to their Power : they Command them in the very Circumftances of their Work ,• this would be thought ftrange Prefumption in a Meeting of Minifters thus to treat their Biihop. 6. To fay that their Authority was defigned to be perpetual, but thefe In- junctions about fome part of their Work was to be Temporary ,• is to fpeak at Random,*and to put what Scnfe we pleafe 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 aud Charge ( thefe are the Words of the Book of Difcipline ) by which they were made Superintendent s 3 did include one part of what is Injoyned as well as another part of it : and when ever this Work that was Injoyned them ceafed, their Commiffion behoved to be renewed : as is obvious to any whoreadeth the Hiftory of our Reformation : their Injunctions were often Changed, till they had no more Work to do, and then they were Abolifhed. § 14. Let us now hear how this Author will Prove that the PaiTage under Debate mud have the Meaning that he hath put upon it. His firft Argument : the Compofers of the fir ft Bock of Difcipline- ( in which that PaiTage is J were generally to their Dying day^ ofPrelatical Principle*. Anf 1. The Confequence is naught : for however the rirft Draught of it might be framed by the Six Perfons whom he Nameth, out of Knox, v. i87.yet let the Reader turn over to the next page 3 \vherc a Formula is fet down according to which it was Subicribed, and he mall find that they Approved it conform to the Notes and Additions thereto : and it was well known,that fome Papers being Amended and Licked over and over againjby many Perfons, f as this was ) have at laft Differed much from what the firft Compilers intended. Another thing alfo may be Obfer- ved in that Form of aftenting to the Book of Difcipline: that they were Careful to Referve to Bijhops, Abbots , and Priors, and other Prelati, and be- neficed Mew, which elfe have Adjoyned themfelvos to us ( fay they J to brook the Revenues of their Benefices during their Lifetimes $ they fuftaining and up- holding the Miniftry and Minifters } as ts tocrein fpecified y for Preaching of the Word, and Miniltering of the Sacramtnts, Here the Biihops C even fuch of them as were Proteitants ■) are put in the lame Categoiie with Abbots and sea. viii. ( 174 ) § 14. and Priors ,• and there is, no Provision made for their Spiritual Power, but for their Temporal Goods ; andnoSucceiiors are intended for them: only they are provided for while they live : yea the Admiraitrators of Word and Sacraments are here contra- diftinguilhed fiom the Bilhops, as well as from Abbots and Priors. Doth any thing here look like Pre- latical Principles? yea is not the whole Strain of this Paiiage contrarie to them ? therefore, whatever the firft Compilers of the Book of Bifci- pline might be, it is evident, the Approvers of it were not of the Epif- copal Principles. Anf. 2. He ftieltereth his AiTertion under the Ambi- guide of Prelatical Principles : it he mean thefe Men were for Superin- tendents, who had a Temporarie Limited Preiacie, we fliall not Debate that with him : if he mean that they were for a Jus Divinum of the Preiacie, that he and his Partie owne ,• or for a Perpetuitie of any other fort of Preiacie, we lhall confider his Proofs for that,- which are, Win- ram and Wtlloc\ were Superintendents , and fo was Spotjwood $ of whom his Son faith , he was a con fi ant Enemy to Paritie : this prove th nothing againft what I have faid ,• except he can allure us that Arch-Bilhop Spotfwood could not, through Prejudice, and Refped to the Caufe he had Efpou- fed ; miftake and mifreprefent his Fathers Opinion in that. Dowglas (another of them) was Arch-Bi(hop of Saint Andrews. That proveth him an Apoftate from the Way he had owned ; and we know how he, and his Way was difliked by the reft of his former AiTocia-ts: John Row, another of them, defended the Lawfulnefs of Epifcofacy, at a Conference ap- pointed by the General Afemhly, 1 57 f. Here is a pitiful Shift, and fbull Mifreprefentation. The Truth of the Storie is f even according to Spotjwoed, as well as Yetrie ; not to name Caldervtood, left he allcdge that I have read no other Hiitorian ) a Queftion arifing in the Allemblie a- bout the Lawfulnefs of Epifcopacie : fix Brethren were appointed to De- bate the Queltion in a Conference, three were appointed to be on the one fide, and three on the other ; it was Matter Rows Lot to be on the fide of the Lawfulnefs of Epifcopacie : can any Rational Man thence in- fer, that he was of that Opinion, And if he were of that Opinion, there is enough faid to take off any Inference that could thence be made againft us. John Knox was the other of thefe Compilers, whom he wili make Prelatical ; now when he hath been dead a long time ; though he was known to be far from fuch Sentiments while he lived. § iy. For a fecond Proof of his Senfe of the Paiiage cited out of the Book of Difcif line, p. 145". Knox ajfignes a ^uite other Rea/on than the then Neceffities of the Churchy for the Eflablifoment of Superintendency. Superinten- dents Se. if;, 1 J4. That the Superintendents, when Churches were provided, were no more to travel among them ; but I affirm, when they were fuffieiently provided, their Work was Confined to one Pari fh ,• and that Office ceafed in the Church: of which before. § 19. Headvanceth now, p. 194. to another piece of his Work,* to confider our Reafons for the Temporarinefs of Superintendency* The firft of them, that he nsmeth is, the Force of Neafjity, there being fo few Men qualified for the Miniftry, fcarcely one in a Province : againft this he bringeth feveral Replies, intermixed with an unbecoming Con- fidence, and bitter Reflections. The firvr. is, this Reafon is inconjequenti- al, befaufe that neceffity might have been anjwered by dividing the Nation in as many Taripes as there were qualified Men, and Lcjfening them as moe qualified Men could be had, Anf. The courfe that was taken, was materially the fame that hepropofeth: only it was necefiary, that within thefe great Pariines,the Minifter, or Superintendent of it, (call him as you will) inould have Power over the Readers and ill qualified Minifrers who were fet in the feveral little Parishes, and who could neither difpenfe the Word iuf- ficiently, nor govern the Church ,• and Jhould have i'ower to plant quali- fied Men, as Toon as they could be found in thefe ieffer Parifhes : and this was the Office of a Superintendent. I hope the Reader will fee, that this Reply to our Reafon is infignificant, and that our Reafon is not fhewed to be. inconfequential. His fecond is, thus Reafon deftroyeth Pa- rity '. for tk it could not be the Model that our Lord instituted, which cannot att- fwer 1 he ends of its Injiitution ; as in this cafe Parity could not do: for here the Church is reduced to that State that the GovernourS thereof forced by neceffity, muft lay it afide for a time , and e/fablijlj a Prelacy. Anf. This is ilranger Di- vinity than what he chargeth in his next Reply on our Reafon. It fup- pofeth, if it have any Senfe in it, that all Gods Inftitutions and Injun- &ions,do fo ferve for all the cafes that can fall out, that no neceffity can excufe a temporal receding from the Obfervance of them. Which to be evidently falfe, {hall be made appear in Anfwer to his third Reply (which upon the matter is the fame with this ) the Model of Govern- ment that himfelf, and other Prelatifts, is for, is iyable to the fame In- convenience • and according to his Logick, is none of Chrifh Injiitution. He, and the reft of them, maintain, that by the Laws of the new Te- ftament, there can be no Ordination of a Presbyter without a Bi/hop, and. Se&.VIIL pig i ) § I%20 . and yet they think themfelves warranted by Neceffity to allow Ordina- tion without a Biinop : Downam 3 in his Sermon about Epifcopacy, hath this Paii'-ige, pofitd enim Eccle(ta s aut in univerfum Epifcopo deftitutd, aut conferva Heretick aut Idolatries Yrtelatis 3 o\uales Vapifici fur,t 3 a quibm ?iulli Orthodoxi Miniftri crdinationem (per are debent 3 dubitandum non eft cjuin prifci Yatres 3 in tali necefjitatk cafu crdinationem fine Fpifcoyo faclafermiferint 3 licet non ut regularem 3 ordinarii Ecclefite rcgimims regulU reffiondentem 3 effcacem ta- men 3 ejr qua juftificari Vcffit 3 ubi dee ft Epifcopm. ( I have not his Sermon by me in Engiiih,and therefore ufe the Latine Translation ) And he ci- teth Goncil. Antioch. C. 10. for it, and pleadeth for it by feveral Reafons. Here that Learned Perfon, had in great Efreem in theEpifcopal Church,, maketh two Cafes of Neceiiity, in which the Model he pleadeth for as Chrifts Inftitution, muft be receded from. And if Prelatifts may allow Presbyters to Ordain in Cafe of Neceffity, why may not Presbyterians allow a (ingle Perfon to Ordain under the fame Force and Cogency? Alfo Forbes, hen. p. 15-8. & fecj ¥ not only aiferteth, but proveth the Force of Neceffity to warrant fuch things: withal alferting the Jm Di- vinum of epifcopacy '• and he inlifteth at length to prove this Propor- tion, from Scripture and Antiquity j that Presbyters may Govern and Ordain in want of a Biihop. §. 20. His Third Rply is, it is firange Divinity 3 that Varitie is of Chrifts Inftitution 3 and yet may be laid a fide in ca[e of neceffity : and here he falleth heavily on, G R. for afferring what this may be inferred from : and taketh occafionto reproach him. I find no more (hew of reafon in this .part of his Difcourfe ( though there be many bitter and harih words in it- ) but this, that if we may do fo in one things we may do Jo in all things* Anf. I (hall (new that this is no ftrange Divinity ,and then Anfwer his Rea- fon againM it. It is not rare Divinity,- for I have already (hewed that Dounham and Forbes f Men of the firft Rank among his own Partie) teach the fame* 1 hat it is is not againil Scripture nor Reafon ( and therefore not ftrange) I Prove, 1. It is taught by Chrift himfeif: it was Gods Command that the Sabbath (houid be ftri&ly obferved, the Law con- tained! no exprefs exeption from this Rule : yet our Saviour maketh the cafe of Neceffity to be a juft Exception 3 ' in that he Defended his Brf- ciples plucking the Ears of Com on the Sabbath day i and that by other Ex- amples, where Necedityhad the fame influence : Luke 6. j, &c David . appoved by Chrift, in the place cited, thought it no H 'range Dotlrinei it was the Inftitution of God that none Jhould eat the Shew. Bread but the. Prieits Sea. VIII. f 182 ) § 20. Priefls: David and his Men were no Piiefts, and yet their Neceflity did warrant their eating of it. The Apoftles thought it no firange Daltrinei who (though they knew that the Jewil'h Ceremonies were aboiiihed,and become unlawful to be ufed after the Refurre&ion ofGhriit,- and though Paul told the Galatians when the cafe of Neceffity was now over, that Cbrifl fhould [refit them nothing if th ey "were Circumcijed ,- yet they enjoyned the Obfervation of fome ot thefe Ceremonies, and pleaded Neceffity for it, Acts ij. 28. and 29, verfes. Paul Circumcifed Timothy, A&s 16. ;. ufed the Ceremonies proper for the jewiiii votaries, AcJs 21.2;, 24. enjoyned forbearance to them who obferved the jewifh Ceremonies, Rom. 14. 1. though out of that cafe of Neceffity, he feverely condemn- eth that Obfervation. Gal. 4. 9, 10, n. 2. Reafon, as well as Scrip- ture, doth plead for this influence of Neceffity, on humane Actions. For 1. Neceffity ( I mean fuch as the Providence of GOD without our fin, bringeth us into ) is a Declaration of GOD'S will,- now this can- not be contrai ie to that Declaration of his will that is made in his Wordj when the Word and Neceffity feem to claln ( for they can never be true- ly inconfiftent, being both from GOD ) and if in that cafe we tliould Jin by yielding to Neceffity, we mould be under a Neceflity of finning* which no Divine will fay a man can be under, without his own fault: To take the preient cale for an Example : let us fuppofe Church Go- vernment by Paritieis Chrifts Inftitution ; fuppofe alio that there arefo few Minillers that there cannot be Men got to fupplie Places, but fuch as are palpably inefficient for the Work : here is a Dilemma, either Gof- pel Ordinances mull: be negle&ed, or unduely managed, by thefe Men ,♦ or on the other hand, they who are Qualified mult be fet over thefe for a time, to Preach now and then in their Places ,• to DirecT: and in/oyn them what is right, to Plant the Places with Qualified Men when they can be got : all which is fuppofed to be ciois to the letter ( I do not fay to the Meaning and Defign ) of the Inftitution,- in the firft Cafe, the Church (hould fin in neglecting that which is the main Delign o£ all Gof- pel Inftitutions, viz,. Edification, and Saving of Souls ; therefore, ine doth not fin on the other hand, by eroding the Letter of the Infti- turion : otherwife fhe mould be under a Neceflity of iining,without her own fault bringing her under that Neceffity. 2. Although our LORD did forfee all the Cafes and Circumftances, in which his Church was to be unto the end of the World, and could have fully Provided for them all, by giving diitincl: Laws futed to every one of them ,• yet infinite Wifdom SeA. VIIL ( i8 ? ) § 20, 21. Wifdom thought fit to give Laws for regulating the ordinary cafes of the Chu-ch, leaving thefe that are rare, ana Extraordinary to b<3 Managed according to the general Rules of scripture, and found reafon, becaufe diftind Laws for all poflible Cafes, would have fwelled the BiBLE to a bignefs which would have made it lefs ufeful to us i and of this it may be faid, as of a Cafe not unlike to it, John 2c 30, %i. The l¥ arid could not have contained, at leaft Men could not have Read, and Retained, the Contents of all the Boohs that fwald have been Written^no doubt, whenGOB made the Law forbidding that the Shew ^Bread ('could be eaten by any but by the & riefts,he forfaw what cafe £) zvid and his Men would be in:. but he thought it not fit to provide for mat Cafe by an Exprefs Excepti- on from the Law ,• but left it to be Ordered by his more general Laws ' Even fo it is in &e Cafe that we Difpute about. § 21. linall now Anfwer his Reafon brought againft this yielding to> Neceflitie, in cafes of Divine Znftitution which is, that if Necejfitie can oblige ^hriBians to forjake 3 cr to crojs Institution in one Cafe y why not in all Cafct, The Confequence that this his Queftion implyeth, we fimply Deny. And I may Confidently fay, that himfelf, in his cooler thoughts, will be aJrramed of it at leaft he will have few Men of Senfe, whether Learned or unlearned, that will allow fuch a Confequence. Farlefs, that will Joynwit him in what followeth, viz,, that crojjhg Inftitution- "ivhen forced to it by the Law of Nee e '(Jit y- what is it elje than to open a doer to Gno- fticifm, to Infidelity, to Afofiafie • and to all imaginable kinds of Antichrifiian Ferfdie, andVillanie ? To c^ear this Matter, and to {till this Noife, and', that the Reader may underftand this Debate about the Force of Necejftie better than this learned Author feemeth to do : I fhall lhew when Ne- ceflitie may warrant an A&ion, which without fuch Neceffitie were unwarrantable, and when not. 1. It is not feigned or pretended Ne- ceflitie that can have this Force : we are far from thinking that it is a furlicient Excufe when on hath done an evil thing, to lay there was Ne- ceflitie for it, I could not fnun it,- if our Reformers did but pretend Ne- ceflitie for fetting up Superintendents ,or if we do but pretend it for them,*; if my Antagoniit can prove ( as he hath alleged ) that there was no Neceflitie for it, but that if they had been for Paritie ; they might have Promoted the Gofpel without thus diverting from it, for a time ; we fnall quit this Argument ; GOD is Judge in that cafe, whether the Neceflitie be real, or only pretended ; And in many cafes, Man may Judge, and Punilh them who break the Law, and. pretend. Neceflitie. for. SeA. VIII. C 184 ) $ 21. for their A<5Hon. 2. It muft be a Neceffitie of GOD'S making, not of our own bringing on ; as I hinted before ; If either a Church,or a Per- fon, do fmfuily bring themfelves under a Neceffitie of Tranfgreffing the Law j the finful Caufe maketh the A&ion llnful which is confequenti- al to it. 3, The Neceffitie that wemelter our Adions under muftnot only be of the Means,nor only of the End, but of both. I fuppofe a Man cannot five his Life, his Libertie,or Eftate, but by doing what is finful or omitting what is a Moral and perpetual duty, or is fuch hie et nunc Here is the Neceffitie of Means, but it cannot » xcufe him becaufe there is no Neceffitie of the End, it is not necelfarie that we ihould Iive-_be at Libertie, nor that we* have Eftates • there is neither ar?«#r3foTute Ne- ceffitie of thefe nor comparative Neceffitie : none of them is fo necef- farie as it is to keep a good Conicience, and to pleafe GOD • and ftiun fin. Again fuppofe the End be neceffarie V. Gr. to advance the In- tereft of Religion^ but this End maybe attained toby means that do no way crofs any of GOD'S Inftkutions,* to do what is crofs to fnftitution in that cafe is no way Excufable: For there is no neceffitie of the Mean If my Antagonift can fhew that either the End of fetting up Superinten- dents , was needlefs ,• or that that could be attained without encroaching a little on Paritie, for a time ; then (hall we no more plead Neceffitie for what they did ,• but judge that they were not for Paritie in their Prin- ciples. 4. We diftinguiih, with refped: to the Force of Neceffitie be- tween thefe Actions which are Moral from their Nature, and thefe that are Moral only by Inftitution, How far Neceffitie may Warrant or not Warrant an A&ion againft the Moral-Law, 1 (hall not now Difpute • our prefent Debate, not being concerned in that Queftion : it is evident that there are fome cafes in which Neceffitie, even in fuch Adrions hath place,as Adam's Sons Marrieing their Sifters^of which Lyra and Menochius in Gen, 4. 1 7. fay, Initio mundi necejje fuit Sorores Fratribm nubere. And it is alfo certain that no Neceffitie can difpenfe with fome other Actions that are naturally Moral ; fuch as Biafphemy, Lying, &c. but in Matters of /nftitution,the LORD hath not fo ftri&ly bound his People nor made his Inftitutions to clam with the natural and indifpenfible Commands that he hath laid on them : as is evident, in David's cafe a- bove- mentioned : If Inftitution, in fome Circumftances that the LORD hath caft his People in, do clafh with the Moral Dutie of faving Life .• this Moral Dutie fuperceederh the Obligation of Inftitution, in that time, and in that cafe, much more when prefent Circumftances make Infti. sea, viil C i8y ) § 22. Institution to clafli with the great End of Inftitution ,* as in the cafe in hand .• without difpeniing with Paritie in this cafe, the End of Church Government had been loft,* vix» the Edification of the Church, and Promoting the Reformation. If any fliould objeA, that this is a dif- penfing with the Law of GOD : I Anfwer, it is not Mans difpenfing" with GOD'S Law ,• but his Judging that GOD, in that Caie, difpenfeth with his own Law j or as Aquinas z. 2* Q, 88i Art* 10. Fit ut hoc quod erat lex non ft kx 3 in hoc cafu 3 and 1. 2. Q. 96. Art. 6, Qui in cafu Necejfitatis agit prater verba Legis 3 nonjudicat de if fa Lege y fed judicat de cafu fingulari in quo -videt verb 11 legis obfervanda non ejje. And indeed, to denie all Influence of true, real, and innocent Neceffitie, to change the Moralitie of fome Actions, efpecially thefe that relate to Inftituted Worlhip, were to put Mens Confciences on fuch a Rack, as there were fome times,no poflibilitie to attain to well grounded Peace. And on the other hand, I hope what is faid will Defend this Opinion from the hor- rid confequence that he is pleafed to draw from it : efpecially when we confider., that this influence of Neceffitie muft be but for a time ; not perpetual : becaufe it is nod to be thought, that any of GODS Appoint- ments are fo contrived, as to be always unpra&icable : or that the LORD will bring his Church, or any Perfon, under fuch a lalting Necefiitie^ that they never can do what he hath Commanded, they uiing their ut- moit endeavours to obferve ail that he hath Commanded, as is injoyned Matthew 28* 20. I. (hall not Determine what Necefiitie of Omiffion one may be perpetually under jbut I underftand not how this can be with reipectto pofiitive A<5fcs contrarie to inititution* §. z%y He dealeth with a Second Plea that he imputeth to us,, p, 1^7, &c. why our Reformers are not to be thought Epifcopal in their Prin- ciples, notwithstanding of their fetting up Superinten dents , which is; that thefe Superintendents did very much differ from Bilhops, in the No- tion that our Adverfaries" have of Biihops : The Author of the Ten Que- stions calleththat a New Modell of Epifcopacy* To take off this C alder-wood bringeth fome Differences between them and Bifliops : and V'mdicat. in Anfwer to the Ten Qitejtions, mentioneth alfo fome of them, and Addeth what after he confeneth to be Material. All which he is pleaf- ed to ridicule } with his wonted nfolencie : but I am confident the judi- cious Reader will eafily difcern who is molt Ridiculous ; he thatProveth a Superintendent not to be the fame with aBifhop, from his Election, Exa- mination^ and Admifiion : that he had no new ^onfecration, as Biftops A a muft Sect. VIII. ( 186 ) § 22 . muft have, and fo was in no Superior degree to a Presbyter t that there were no Arch-Superintendents as there were Arch- Biifi ops, &c. or he who comparcth thefe to the ordinary Habit of the one, with the State and Grandeur of the other in their diHinguijlring Marks : which yet, if not fet down in fuch fcurrile terms, asheufeth, may make a great Difference between the Temper of the one fort of Men and fhat of the other • though not of their Office or Power. If our Reformers had intended to continue that lble Jurifdiction of Prelats in the Church, which they found fettled in it under Poperie, this Change that they made, even in thefe things, is unaccountable: nor can a Reafon be given why they kept not to the old Difhid that the Biihops had before Governed. It is as evident, as any thing can be made at fuch a diftance of time, that the Superintendents never had that abfolute Power in the Church that our Epifcopal Brethren now allow to their Prelats. Though we denie not that they had a relacie, and more Power than We now give to fingle Presbyters ; and have given the Reafon why it was fo, and of its C on- fiftence with the defign of our Keformers, that the perpetual Govern- ment of the Church ihoald be by Paritie. The main Difference between the two forts of Church Rulers which we infill on, and which himfelf acknowledged! to be Material, he falleth upon, p. 1^9. and fayeth he must be fericus in it • is, Superintendents ivere made obnoxious to the Try a I and Cenfures of MinijhrJ within their own Dioces. The Truth of which and that it neither was fo with B/jhops in the Vrimitive Church, ror [Jwuld be fo now he doth freely Profefs ,* But he putteth his Wit to its utmoft frretcl/ to get a fair Aniwer to it. He bringeth no lefs than Five Anfwers whereas one good one had been Worth them all. His firft Anfwer hath fome what of Ingenuitie in it. He condemneth our Reformers in this • and fayeth, it was a great Error in their Ccnftitutions 3 and declames againit it with great Vehemencie, that GoziernourS jliould be Subject to the Cenjure of their Suhjefis; and fheweth a great deal of Zeal for abfolute Govern- ment, both in Church and State : into Debate about which I jnall not now enter : only I take Notice, that here he fairly gives up that part of our Controvefie, that he hath been at a vaft deal of pains about ; that our Reformers were Epifcopal in their Principles. With which 1 am lure, this is wholly inconliltent. if he had thought of this fooner, and Acted confequentially to it, after this Thought came into his Head, he he might have faved a greas deal of pains to himfelf, and Me ; and near the Half of his long Book might* have been fpared. His jecond Anfwer is. 2. Sea. viii. c 187 ; $22 5 is, tbU was put in their Confiitution from a Principle about civil Government owned by them, that the King is Major fingulis , but Minor omnibus', which he alfo Ridiculeth. Neither am I concerned to Debate this Principle., it doth not belong to our our prefent Controverfie. But what he affert- eth is a groundlefs Conjecture ; we have better ground to think that they lookt on this as according to the Laws of the Gofpei; which for- biddeth Church Domination, His Third is, they made alfo MiniBers Cen- fureable by their Elders ; and from thence taketh occafion to Reproach them, as having little Skill in Church Policy : nor will I degrefs into thefe Debates; only I take Notice, that what he faith is no Anfwer to our Exception, but rather a Confirmation of it : if both a Suferininten- dent was Cenfureable by the Synod, and the Minifters by the Elderlhip,- it doth evidentlie follow, that the Superintendents and the Biihops power were not the fame, A Fourth Anfwer is, this was never put in Pratlice. Reply, It will be very hard for him to Prove this Negative: but whe- ther it was or not, it fiieweth that our Reformers did not intend Epif- copacy when they fet up Superintendents. His Fifth is, this Confiitution doth not infer Parity* -Reply, We do not lay that Superintendents were in abfolute Parity with other Minifters j we confefs a difparity of Power, for that time. All we plead is, that our Reformers were not for Epif- copacy, even in that cafe of Neceffity : and the Imparity that they were then Forc't to,- they did not intend fhould always continue. §. 2;. The other Plea he mentioneth hath its Rife from his own fancie % it was not ufed by us : what he citeth for it, was not ufed either for its Advantage, or disadvantage, but an occafional Obfervation caft into a Parenthefis, to fhew that it was merely the Deed of the Church, howeveiy t might afterward be taken notice of by Parliaments. Out Author now,p. 166. imagining that he hath difpelled all the Mifts caft by Presby- terians on what he pleadeth for, about the Principles of our Reformers, with refpecl to Church Government,- proceedeth to give us Accompt of: 2.fecond Modell that Church Government 7vas casl into : But as an Intro- duction to this, he falleth on the Miftakes and weakneffesfof the Refor- mers, with the Preface of a pretended unwiilingnefs to expofe them fo • the imcerity of which pretenfion the Reader may judge of, if hecon- fider that the whole of this Difcourfe is wholly Impertinent ; for we are to confider their Actions rather than guefs at their Motives: if the ; Reader alfo reflecl on his page 7. where he reproacheth our Reforma- ; tion as a violent and difordered Reformation. Their weaknefs he expofeth A a 2 in sea. viil C 188 ; § 2h 2% in two things : one is, that they 'went en this Principle, 4hat the be ft way to Reform the Church was to recede as far from the Vapifls as they could', to have nothing in Communion with them but the ejfentials, the necejjarie and indijpenfible Articles and Parts of Chriftian Religion, what elje was in its nature indiffe- rent, and not fofitively and exprefy Commanded in the Scripture, if it was in fafoion in the Popijh Church, was therefore to be laidafide, and avoided as a Corruption, at having been ahufed , as made Subfervient to Super/lit icn and Ido- latry. Here is a falfe reprefentation of our Reformers, and that in three things. 1. This Principle was never held nor Pra&ifed by them, in the Latitude nor extenfivenefs that he mentioneth: they indeed were a- gainft Religious Ceremonies devi/ed by Men, as on other Grounds, fo on Accpmpt of their being Symbols of Idulatrie and Superjfition, and having been fo ufed : but there were many parts of Religon that were not fundamental, but of inferior Note that they did not fo deall with. 2. They never ftejedled any thing that was truelie a part of true Religion and was peculiar to it, whether it were of greater or leffer Moment onlie on the Ground he mentioneth : but always were able to give o- ther Beafonsfor their Opinion or Practice, ;. They always were wil- ling to receive what could be, by good confequence, proved by Scrip. ture, though it were not poiitiveiy and exprefly Commanded \ I advife myAdverfarie,if he have little regard to the reputation of the Reformers that he would be more careful not to Wound his own, by fpeaking what is not Truth. For the Principle it felf, duly ftated according to what I have faid, I am willing to Debate it with him ,• but that is not his bufinefs, but rather to expofe it by Invedtives The next thing that he Reprefenteth them in as weak, is, they were for the Revenue that had belonged to the church in Poperie,to be Imployed Bill for the Churches ufe. I think this Debate is little to our purpole, and therefore I wave it, § 24. His next Attempt is, to prove that there was 'dfecond Model of the Government of the Church of Scotland, after the pubiick E/rablifh- ment of the Reformation ; and that this was fipifcopacy. And here he bringeth a Labyrinth of Hiftory, in which it is hard for any Man to follow him : rejecting what ever difliketh him ; and calling Dirt on all that have written the Hiltory of our Reformation, not fpai ing Spot/wood himfelf, when he doth not pleafe him : only he hath had the hap to light on a Manufcript, out of which he alters, adds, and contradið all the other Accounts that we have of the Affairs of our Church • whence that Manufcript came, what Authority it hath _,• whither it be his Sea. VIII. f 189 ) § *f his own, or any other Mans, he is not pleafed to tell us. He calleth it bis Manufcrift, whether he would have us take him for the| Au- thor, or for the Owner of it, I cannot determine "• nor do I fee what Title he hath to it on either Account j I have the prefent ufe of a Ma- nufcript, which ( as I am credibly informed ) is the very individual Co- py that he had, which now belorigeth to the Vniverfity of Glafgow : Whether any other Copies of it be extant, I am uncertain « It was Tranfcribed by William Laing Reader of Ebdie Kirk, in the year 1658. It containeth the Ads of the General Affemblies from 15-60 to 1616 in- clufive, and other things relating to Church Affairs. I (hall in a few Words fnew how little Advantage he hath by this Manuscript, by (hew- ing that it is far from fetting forth our Reformers as enclined to Epifco- prcy : and by pointing at fome of his faife Citations out of it ; for the former, it will be evident to them who without Byafs, confider the fol- lowing Palfages : Ajjembly 15-62 p. 6» not the Superintendent alone, but they with the Minitters and Elders, are to expone to the Kirk, the State §f the Kirk among them, and note Offences ; that the Kirk may find fome Remted for them ' p. J. Superintendents as well as other Minifiers are remo r ued 3 and tryed in Order to Cenfure by the Ajjembly % fo alfo p. 8. and almoft every where: This looketh not like Hpifcopal Jurifdidion ] p. 7. Sep 4. the Affembly giveth Power to Superintendents, to tranffort Ministers, but with this exprefs Limitation ,• that it be done in the Synod, and with Confent of the moft part of the MiniBers and Elders. Ibid. SeJJ'. 3. Speaking of Inhibi- ting fuch as have unduly entered into the Minifiry, it is faid, this Aft is to ha0/> o/" Orkney deprived of all Ministerial Function ef the Mini- pry, for Marrying the Queen to the Earl of Bothwell, a Divorced Adulterer : On his Repentance he is reftored again to the hAiniftry of the Wordi No mention of reftoring to Epifcopal Jurifdi&ion. The Manufcript giveth a very fhort account of the Convention at Leith i£7i« Jan. 12. where our Author beginneth his new Model of Epifcopacy. Of the Affembly at Saint Andrews, in March 6. it bath but little. Affembly 1972. at Perth, a Determination again ft the Names of Arch-Bifoops, Deans 3 &c. as fcanda- lous : Alfo that the Articles at Leith be received but for an Interim. Affembly March i. 1772. Bsfhops appointed ( as well as others J to be at the fir ft Meeting of every Affembly, under the Pain of Tinfel of half a years Stipendi Afcmbly March 6. 1 57 3 • Bifliops admoniflied to joyn with the Kirk, in her Af- femblies, which it feems fome of thefe Afpiring Men thought below them. And it is Ena&ed, that the Bower of Bijliops foould not exceed that of a Superintendent : And that Biftops fliould be fubjecl to the Difcipline of the General Affembly. Afembly I 974. The Bifhop of Dunkel rebuked for Mini- stration of the Lords Supper on Work days. They were" then fo Shy of fixed and perpetual Prelation among Minifters^ that it was Enad:ed_, Anno 1 57 5". p, 70. at the end, that to flmn Ambition and Inconveniency to the Kirk, Commiffwners for Vifiting Provinces flwuld be Changed every year. In the beginning of that dfembly, when the Tryal of the Do&rine and Converfation of Bifiops, Superintendents, and other Minifters was menti- oned, John Dury one of the Minifters of Edinburgh, Protefted that the Tryal of Bifljops prejudge not tbe Opinion, and Reafons that he, and other Bre- thren has to oppons again ft the Office and Name of a Vtijliop, This is the high- eft Pitch that his new Model of Epifcopacy ( as he calleth it ) came to from 1 571. to 1 $75"., when ( we deny not ) there, was a Declenfion from the Purity of Church Government, endeavoured by fome Courti- ers, and Ambitious Church Men, their Tools. But from this time Pres- bytiy began to Revive, and gather Strength, till at laft it was fuily fet- led: For in the Affembly 1^79. it was queltioned whether the Office of ftiflwps was Founded on the Word of God, p. ji, and fome appointed to De- bate on either Side. Biflwps are appointed to chufe a particular Flock, where they muft ordinarily Labour. Afembly 1576* p. 71. Adamfon Prefented by the Queen to the Biftioprick of Saint Andrews is called by the Affembly to be tryed, />♦ 77. The Biihop of Glafgow is required to takf a particular Charge. Affembly Sea. VIII. ( 191 ) § 24, Ajjemhh i $77. f, 79. Adamfon Summoned before the General Affembly for Ufurping a Bifhoprick, without the Kirk 1 Commiffioners are appoin- ted to Examine the Matter , and to Difcharge him to Vifit any more, till he be Admitted by the Kirk^'. Ajjembly ^78. p. 83. Ordained that Befoops he called by their own Names, and called Brethren, p. 84. The Affembly difchargeth Creating any more Bifljops till the next Ajjembly ,• becaufe of great Corruptions in the State of Biflrops. Ajjembly 1578. held in June, extended! the fore- faid Kc\ to all time coming, till the Corruptions of the State of Bifliops be whol- ly taken away ; And Commands all Bi/hops that now are, to Submit to the AJfembly under Pain of Excommunication. Affembly at Dundee, July 12. p. 96. After Liberty to all to Reafon, 7 he whole Afembly in me Voice, did de- clare the Office of BifhopS as now ufed in Scotland, to be unwarrantable in the Word of God, and unlawful in it felj * and to the great Overthrow of the ¥±irk of God. All Bifhops are Charged to Dimit, and to ufe no part of the Office of P afters, without new Admiffion by the AJfembly. Synods appointed within a Month after to Summon them, and proceed to Excommunication againji the Refufers. AJfembly 1 j8i. Declared the above-mentioned Act to mean, that the Go- vernment of Bifhops, as now in Scotland, is wholly Condemned. After which, Presbyteries wereEre&ed through the whole Nation. For his falfe Ci- tations out of the ManuJcript, I Iball mention but two (tho the Reader may obferve many moe, by Comparing his Book with the Uanujcript. ) One is p. 127. that the Manufcrift faith it was Ordained, Affnfbly 15-62. that no Mintfier leave bis Flock to come to the Ajjembly, unlefs he have ( om~ plaint to make, or be Complained of , or be Warned to it by the Superintendent • whereas the Manufcript hath not a Word to that Purpoie in that Aifem- bly: The other is p.nS. out of the Ajjembly 1 5-65. that none Vote in /jjcm- blies hut Superintendents, Commiffioners, and MiniferS brought with them, toge~ ther with Commiffioners of Shires, Burghs, and Univerjities : And that Mini- flers Commifjisners be Chofen at the Synodal Convention, with Confent oj the reft of the Ministers, and Gentlemen Ccnveened at the Synod, Whereas the IS/Lanufcript (it is p. 10.) faiths that every Superintendent within his own JurifdicTion, caufa warn the Shires, Towns, and Parijh K.irks, to fend their Commiffioners to the Affembly, declaring to them the Day and Place. Here is nothing like what he Citeth: and if it were fo as he faith, it could not infer the Superintendents Nominating the Commiftioncrs to the Aiiembly 1 but it is plain that they were Cholen by the Synod J and that the Synods Confent was no lefs an Ad: of Authority, than if it had been laid, ic muft be done by their Vote. Tiiefe things out of that Manufcript, 1 have 5ed. VIII. ( 192 ) . § 2S . have here caft together, becaufe I had finifhed this Work before it came to my hand, and therefore could not fo conveniently difpofe them in their feveral Places. § 25-. I inall not any further take notice of this Hiftorical Controver- fie, than to make fome fhort Remarks on it, hoping that a Hiftoiy of thefe Affairs may ere long be ready for the Prels, from which we ex- pect a fuil Account, with more Truth and Candor, than what is to be found in his Difcourfe. 1. I deny not (nor do I know any that ever denyed ) but there was fo much ground for his telling us of a leccnd Model of the Government of the Church,- that the firit Endeavours of the Reformers, for fhunning the old Hierarchy that was under Popery met with fome Interruption and Oppofition ,• the Caufes were evident* the Covetoufnefs of fome Courtiers, and other States Men • and the Ambition and Unfaithfulnefs of fome Church Men ; there were At- tempts to fet up Epifcopacy, and they had feme degree of effect • but they were always oppoled ,• and the Defigns of the Prelatical Party couid never f ucceed, as they withed ,• but at laff, after much Wreftling Presbytery was fettled in its Vigour, in the year 1592. Wherefore his tedious Citations to prove that the Church did fome things that cannot well be reconciled with Parity, in that Interval of her Declenfion and Confuiions, was needlefs Labour, which I do not envy him the Plea- fure of, feing he was pleated fo to imploy his Leafure Hours • I have elfewhere Debated fome of thefe Paliages, with the fame Author f if I miftake not ) nor do I find any thing that now he bringeth which is new, fave infolent Contempt, and ill Words ,- which I can eafily bear from a Man of his Temper } nor will I make equal Returns to thefe his Complements. 2. I obierve, that when p. 14;. he is giving account of the Alteration that was endeavoured, toward the fetting up of Epif# copacy,- he bringeth Reafons for the States Men, and Reafons for the Church men, mat might move them } and that with as much Confi- dence, as if he had been at the Conlult j the States Men confide? ed that Epifcopacy was jtill ejfablijhed by Law ^ the Ecckfiafiicks made $ne of the three E/iates ,• and to take it away was to [bake the Civil Constitution • and they might have been called to an account for tt 3 when the King jhould ceme to Ape • who was then Minor : But this is a pure fallacy : the Biihops were itill by Law polleiied of their Temporalities', Revenue*, and Parliamentarie Priviiedges ,* but not of their Eccleiiaidck J ui ildiction : it was the pre- lerving of tiieie, not of this, that the Courtiers were accountable for with Se& VIII. ( 19; ) § 2 S . with refped to the Civil Conftitution. That this iva* the hfi way to pre- ferve the Right of the Church > is faid without Book,- unlefs he can prove that Chrift gave her fuch Rights ,- her Civil Rights might have been, and afterward were, otherwife preferved. It was very evident, that many of the States Men were A6ted by other Motives, f I do not fay all of them were for a Jus Dlvinutn, or A&ed Gonfciencioufly ) even to get the Revenues in their hands. Which he doth plainly enough confefs, while page 189. he telleth US of their Playing their Tricks, and Robbing the Church. For the Reafon that he maketh the Clergy go upon, 'viz,, the ill Ejfe£U of the former Scheme^ laid in the frsj Book of Difcipline, that had arifen to the Church: there is no Hint given by him of any fuch ill Ef- fects, as apprehended by the Men of that Time,' except that they who defigned a Change for their own Ends, would readily pretend fome fuch thing ,• neither he, nor any elfe, can prove that any Detriment to the true Interefts of Religion, did arife from it: It is evident, that fome Church Men had a defign to advance themfelves •> though they were difappointed, as to the advantagious part of their defign, they got the Titles, and the great Men got the Revenues ; which he would fain deny or diifemble : but it is ic> evident, that he muft contradi<5t our plaineft Hiftories, if he deny it. 5. That another was Moderator in the General Alfembly, than a Bifhop, is brought as an Argument that Prelacy was not got to its height, even by the greateft Efforts the Party couid make at that time. All he faith to this is, that George Buchannan ivas chofen Moderator in the General Afiembly 1 ^6~j. which yet inferreth not the Ruine of 'Presbytery \ The Strength of this Evafion is foon taken off: the fcpifcopal Church look on Brfhops as fo far above Presbyters ,• that it is Eiiential to them to Rule, and the Presbyters to be Ruled by themj fo that for a Biihop to be a fingle Member of an Aflembly, and a Pres- byter to be Moderator, is inconfiftent with the Bifhops Prerogative ; but Presbyterians hold no fuch diiringuiihing Principle^ they think a Mini- fter is in a fuperior Order above a Non-Preaching Elder: but do not think that the one hath Jurifdiction over the other,- but that both have equal Ruling Power: and therefore,, though it be now fo Cuilomary, that only Minifters prefide in our Meetings, that it would be thought odd, if it fhould be otherwife, yet for a Ruling Elder ( fuch as Matter Buchannan was) and a Man of his fingular Eminency, to prefide in a Meeting, is not againft any Principle of Presbyterians, that I know of ; ( tho the Way we ufe is raoft Rational, an(f Decent, and there is no B b Reafon Sed. VIII. ( 194 ) **• Reafon for receding from it. ) But to make this Obfcvation yet Wron- ger, Calderwood p. $6. ( if I may Name him without firing thisGent'e- mans Choller ,• and being Charged with Ignorance 3 and knowing no ether Hijhry) telleth us, that_ never one of them had the Credit to be Mode- rator of the General Aiiembly ; which is a Token ( I shall notfpeak in his Dialed:, an infallible Demonstration ) that their Epifcopal Jurildidion was not then owned by the Church. § 2.6. A fourth Obfervation I make on his Hiftorical Debate is, that he endeavoureth to prove, againft Petrie and Calderwood ; that the Ar- ticles at Leith were approved by the Qeneral Ajfembly • that Epijcopacy was Jo approved ; that it cojl much Stuggling before it could be Aboliflied. What he gaineth by all this I know not. The Oppofition that was made to that Way did foon appear, and it was foon abolished: that it is faid, that it was not allowed by the General Ajfembly, is only meant of the firft Gene- ral Affenibly that fat a few Weeks after the Agreement at Leith; though afterward the Party grew ftronger and got it approved ; 1 know none that aiferteth that it was never approved in any General Affembly : though his Proofs that he bringeth for its being approved, might tempt one to think that it was never approved, viz,. That they fat in Jjfem- blies, and voted, and that even as Bifoops : Their fitting and voting pro- veth that they were tollerated : what he meaneth by lifting and voting as Wjhops, 1 do not well underftand : that Reduplication muft either import the Exercife of the Epifcopal Authority, or it is a Word with- out Senfe, or Signification : now that they Exercifed Epifcopal Autho- rity in any of the AiTemblies, I do not find, nor doth he attempt to prove it. The Arch-Bifhop of Saint Andrews, being pre lent, and fir fi na- med m a Committee, (as p. 20;, ) is fuch an Argument for Epifcopal Pre- heminence, as the Papifts ufe not a few for refers Supremacy : that Su- perintendents are continued ( ibid.) is a weak Argument, for the Affemblies approving Bijhops of the fecond Model, as he caileth it. It is another fuch Argument, that the AJfimbly declare what they mean by the Names Arch-Hi- pops Deans, ejrc, and rrijh the/e changed into Namis lefs offcnjivei that the Articles agreed on at Leith ( which contain his fecond Model) are voted by the Sifjcmbly to be received but for an Interim. Thefe and fome more of the tame, or like Importance, are his Arguments for the Approbation of Epilcopacy by the Church of Scotland at that time. I do not fay they Acled as Men for the Divine Right of Parity : it was a time of Temptation, and many yielded too far : but there was a Paf ty that did not Se&. VIII. ( 195- ) § 26, 27. not thus Comply, and who prevailed to get this Yoke caft off at lafl : many of the Ads of the Aifernbiies that he citeth, do Direct the Bi- fttops, and Limit their Power, and appoint them to be fubjed: to the General Affembly^ and to have no more Power than Superin mdmis had; this looketh like no good Will to Epifcopacy t but a Hedging it in, when they could not, for prefent, caft it wholly out. But he will prove, p. 212, &c. That all this was out of no Difiike to Epifcopacy \ and that by a Petition confifting of nine Articles, drawn by the General Ajiembly, I $74 •> Wherein Btjhops are fe-veral times mentioned, and that as -^cling as isi- Jhops, in Naming MinifierS for Places; ( where yet Superintendents and Com- m:jfioners are alfo mentioned, as equally concerned in that Work ) yea in one of thefe Article t, it is defired, that Qualified MinifierS might be provi- ded for vacant Bijhopricks. This proveth no more, but that the major part of this Aflembly thought fit, that feing Men, bearing the Name of Bifhops ( for little more they had ) were for an Interim tollerated in the Church, their Places fhould neither be vacant, nor filled with in- efficient Perfons. All this may well confift with aDiflike of that Lord- ly Power of Bifhops that fome were Afpiring to, and that my Anta- gonift pleadeth for. § 27. Our Author thinks he hath now done his Work, and proved that Prelacy Was pr'vvatly and publickly liked, from the beginning of the Refor- mation : it feems he hath argued himfelf into a Belief of it, ( fuch is the Efficacy of Prejudice ) which few eife will be perfwaded of. He thin- keth his further Work needlefs ( and I think it had been more for his Credit to let it alone ) it is,to prove that Presbytery met with Oppofiiion'jand I could feldom obferve that any good Defign was carried on, but Satan raged againft it, and found Inftruments againft it : his former Hifto- rical Difcourfe he juftly ealleth Naufcous, p. 216. But what foiloweth is much more fo^ and yet worfe : for he falleth to downright Railing a- gainft Mafter Andrew Mehil, in not only a naufeous Gingling Strain of Words, but with fuch Unmanly Bitternefs, as a tender Confcienced Chriftian would abhor ; yea a Perfon of common Morality would be a- ftamed of: and is only fit for the Scolding Women that have loft all Shame. The foull Mifreprefentation of Matters of Fadl, which have fome Semblance ©f Truth in them, that this Narrative aboundeth with, I leave to the Hiftory, that I hope may appear ere long, to con ed 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 B b 2 now. Seel:. VIIL ( 196 ) § 27. now, an Epifcopal Party, who were loath to let go their hoped for, or enjoyed Church Preferments. That after Matter hUlvil appeared was the fir fl time that any appeared for Presbytery in Scotland, or againjt Epifcopacy is a daring Affertion ,- after which we may expect whatever he ihail think to be for his Intereft ,- considering what hath been already addu- ced out of the Book of Discipline. One who readeth this his Hiftorical Difcourfe, may eafily perceive what Shifts he is put to, for proving the Regent Mortons Change from Epifcopacy, to favour Presbytery,- and to prove his Intentions in fome of his Actings, and that by a long Train of Arguments. To prove that England, though Epifcopal, did endeavour to promote Presbytery in Scotland. 7 prove the Ignorance of the Cle r . 274. It had been good his own Party had ufed them oftner,- and that they and we had improved them better. I take notice alfo of his ma- king fo very great a Difference, between the Meexings of Minifiers and Elders for Exercifes ( that is, for Interpretation of Scripture ) and Presby- teries which were jet u\ '• on account whereof, he repreienteth it as a great deal of Ignorance in one who affirmed, that the real Exercife of Presbytery, in all its Meetings, lejfer and greater, continued, and was allowed in the year. 157)25 I deny not but that there was a Difference between thefe two Sorts of Meetings, as there is between a Child and a full grown Man, 'viz,. The Meetings for Exercife, or Presbyteries, fcall them what ye will ) did at firft meddle with fewer Acts of church Pow- er than afterward: yet they Acfted with Authority. lor the Minijfers and Elders met to interpret Scripture ,- I hope the Elders were not Interpre- ters by pubiick Teaching, as well as the Minilters : the People, no doubt, were aiio prefent at thefe Exeicifes, as Hearers,- but the Elders, are mentioned as ConlKtuent Members of a Meeting, wherein the Peo- ple had no Share, which muft be an Authoritative Meeting. King Jamts the iixth was far from his Opinion about thefe Meetings ,- who in the Conference at Ha.mpton-Court 1602. in the fecond days Confe- rence. Se&. VIII. (197 ) § 27. re ace., />« 78, 79- when Do&or Reynolds moved that the Clergy might meet once every three Weeks for Prophefying: as Bifhop Grindai and o- ther BUbops defired of her late Majefty ,• the King being ilirred at this, £nd. that they aimed at Scottijh Presbytery. He looketh on it'as ridiculous that G. R. had reckoned that "Presbyteries were from the beginnings and fan- cieth that he hath no other ground for fo faying; but that Calderwood had faid, that the Kirk oj Scotland had four forts of dffemblies, ever fence the beginning, of which this rauft needs be one. But I can tell him of other Grounds on which he might reckon this Meeting a Presbytery,- one is the General Affembly i?79- as tne Manufcrip? he fo often citeth, hath it, p. 95", did exprefly determine that thefe Meetings were *Pres- byteries : another is, what is above faid : and a third is, that even in times of Epifcopacie in Scotland • thefe Meetings were called the Exercife, and yet they pretended to> Presbyterial Power in them • though it was in Subordination to the Biifiop. That Calderwood fayeth that Presbytrie* fiecceeded to thefe Meetings importeth no more, but that Pres- bytries Were after jet up with more Power and Freedom than they then had un- der Superintendents, or ''Bijljops. When he cannot con tradid: Matter of facl, with refped to the prevailing of Presbytrie ,• he falleth to down right railing at the AiTembne, which condemned Prelacie, for boldnefs, folly , iniejuitie 5 prepofterom Zeal; if more Reproaches had then occurred to his Fancie, it is like we ihould have had them ■• it is neither good Manners, 'nor a token of a good Caufe thus to fall from Reafoning to Scolding, I leave him now after he hath again miftaken the Queftion, to pleale himfelf 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 WimeiTes for Confirming what he had fo long infilled on ; The firft of them is, an Author with whom 1 am not acquainted, but feemeth to be of his own Sentiments ,• So that what he fayeth of the Oppofition made to Presbyterie in Scotland; is no more to us than what A< M. D. D, himfelf hath faid,- efpecialiy feing we have not the Reafons,but the bare AfTertion, of that Author. The other is King James the fixth, to whofe Teftimonie brought alfo by the Author of the Ten Que (lions, I did 'then Oppofe, and ftill do, his own Explication of what he fayeth, in an af- ter Edition of his Baftlicon-doron, that he ' meani^zmx, hut fuch as -Anabaptists^ and FamiliHs ■. And a contrair Aflertion of that fame Royal Author, whereby he highly extolleth the Presbyterian Government in Scotland ; by faying,and that frequently,that no Error could get foot ing. there ( inScot- land } Se2, called the little A ttf of Parliament, that Aci (being the iztb Chapter, Parliament, 1^67) is wholly left .out. That ^upmritmdencie was then in the Church,* is no Argument that Se&. VIIL ( 201 ) § 29, ;o, that Prelacie was fettled in the Church,* as what was Intended fhouM continue; but they were then intending another fort of jurifdiftion, as the event did (hew. What he fo critically carpeth at, p. 29-4. about a Citation out oiJLeJJyes Hiftorie,* is pure quibling ; it was not denied that Popifii Bifhops fat in Parliament, but rather acknowledged • yet Lejly was cited to rnew that it did not long continue fo. If there be any material Change in that Citation from the Authors Words, iet the Reader judge ; after all the frivolous Critticifrn he hath made. The Reader may obferve how exad a Hiftorian this Man is, who huffily Bantereth others with defe&ivenefs that way : for he telleth us, that Meeting of which Lefly fayeth, that the Hcclefiaftickj were Exclude d s was not a Parliament ;but at moft aPrivy CouncikLefly fuppofeth it to be a Meeting that had the Legiftative Power, which I thought had been in the King and Parliament • and that they made fuch a Law as was the Fountain of all the Here/let, ( i. e. the Proteftant Religion) and other evils that followed. That he calleth i^ Concilium, is nothing contrarie to what I fay ,• feing Parliaments are often fo called in Latine, § ;d + For his fourth Enquirie, he manageth his Anfwer to it, with fuch undecent Reflection both on the Church and on the State ; that I judge others are rneeter to deal with him about theie things than I, or any in my capacity ,• and the Matter ( as himfelf confefieth ) not be- ing capable of Argument ,* nor any publick'Deed being extant ( except die Ad of Parliament which he fo petulantly expoieth ; by which it might be Determined : I fee no ground here for Debate, but our Affir- mation 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 Vindica- tion] had faid very tranllently, and without intending a laborious Paper combate about a Matter fo remote from the vitals of our Controverfie with the Epifcopalians, I fay, all that Rapfodie that he hath written on this Head, I am content to refer it to the judicious and unbyaffed Reader ; to consider whether our Caufe, or this Authors Reputation as a Wife Man., and one exercifed in matters of folid Reafon or Learning, do more Suffer by it i it is Truth, and the Ordiances of Chrift that I am fet for the Defence of, not Men, my felf, nor others ; unlefs it were in Matters that may rerled blame on the Caufe that i own. Where- fore I (hall wholly pafs over this Enquirie : if any one who hath more leafure than I have,- oris mote inclined -toward Eriftick jangle, will C c take Sed. VIII. C 202 ) s . ;0i take him to Task, and deal with him at his own Weapon, he may do it. I fay not this, as either being convinced by his Reafons, or feeing them to be Unanswerable* I am ftill in the Opinion I was in before concerning the Inclinations of the People of Scotland • efpecially the Soberer fort of them, and thefe of the befl: Lives, with refpeCt. to Epifcopacie and Presbyterie. Only this Iconfefs, that I believe there was never a time fince the Reformation in Scotland arrived at any degree of Confidence or Stabilities wherein the Inclinations of the Generaiitie of the People were lefs cocerned about any thing of Religion, either the more Efieir- tial, or the lefs Subftantial part of it ; on the one fide, or on the other • fo Fatal im predion* the Flood-gates of all manner of Profannefs, and Loofenefs that had broken out in the late Times, under Prelacie^ had made on the Minds of Men ,• and to fuch height irreligioufneiV arri- ved. Yet I Affirm, that the reai Refped that Men had to Religion in any of the concernments of it, were rather on the Presbyterian than on the Epifcopal fide. I lhall lay lefs of his fifth Enquirie, for I freely COnfeis, that neither the Inclinations of the People for Presbyterie, nor Epil- copacy being a Grievance to the Nation ,• nor our being Reformed by Presbyters if all this were true, evident and certain ; none of thefe, nor all ofchem in conjunction, could by themfelves, infer that Prelacie fhould be Abo- lished : nor (\ am confident) did the Parliament ever intend to have them fo considered Wherefore, if my Antagonift, or any for him,can prove that Prelacie is the Ordinance of Chriit for the Gofpei Church : we mail part with all thefe Arguments for its Abolition, and mall cordial- ly own it : but if that cannot be done ( as I am fure it cannot ) and if thefe Propofitions be true ,• they afford an Argument for the Aboli- tion of Prelacie, that he will never be able to Anl'wer. And 1 fhall dif- mifs this Enquirie ,• and indeed this whole Book, after I have Noted a few things ( without infilling on Debates ) out on a Difcourfe that he beginneth afrcfh, p. 33; . about the Principles of cur Reformers: he piead- eth for tht'iv fallabilitiei he it not for all they held or did: we fay the fame of both. Only 1 take Notice, that here he overthroweth the Argument that he had fo much infilled upon againft us,-that our Reformers were not exactly for the whole of our Way. Though I do not pretend to De- fend all the Principles that were held by our Reformers : yet many of thefe which he blameth them for might eafily be Defended,- if it were nottoDigrelfe from our prefent Controverfie about Church Government. The Reproaches that he cafteth on Mafter Knox deferve Correction • I xvtih, Se&. IX. ( 205 ) § r. wifh, fome may undertake it. His Challenge to us, p, 344. to jhew wherein they have defertedthe Reformers , fo far as they Agreed with the Pri- mitive Churchy or, what is an Abroach toward Poperie, I fay, Epifcopacie is an Inftance of both : but this being the Matter of our main Debate, the Decifion muft depend on that. He undertaketh to make it appear t^at the prefent VresbyterianS have receded from the "Principles of our Reformers, in 1. The Faith, 2. The Wor(hip, 3. Tbe Difcipline. 4. "the Government of the Churchi In itead of this lad, he infifteth on their laying afide the Bifhops from voting in Parliament. I cannot now degreffe to confider what here he fayeth \ though he infifteth on them at great length ; for I diverted into the Confiderations of this Book, onely in fo far as the Controverfie I have with him ( or who ever is the Author in the other Book ) is concerned. And there are fome of thefe that are aifo there Debated, which I intend to confider. I have alreadie faid, that we reverence our Reformers^ but neither thought their Reformation at firfr. Perfect,* nor themfelves Infallible. I hope fome, or other will take him to Task on thefe Heads, and Defend the Principles of this Church,from his infolent Obloquie: I wifh him a more temperat Spirit than appeareth in his £)ifcourfes i an ^ particularly in his Ridiculeing of the Admini- ftration of the LORD'S Supper, as it is managed in the Church of Scot- landi SECTION IX, Of Holy Day? of Humane Infiitution. I Return now to the Enquirie into the New Opinions : and proceed to his Third Chapter ,• wherein he pretendeth enquire into feveral #e2^ Opinions. The firlt of which is, that We are again!} the Obferving the Holy Days, of CHRISTS Nativity, Refurreffion, Ajjention • and Commemor- ating the Viety, Faith, and Martyrdom of the Saints that are mentioned in Scripture. We do not denie the Charge, fo far as being againft the An- niverfaries ohfervation of thefe Days doth reach. That this is a new Opinion we denie : though at the fame time we confefs the contrarie Practice is verie old : yet we maintain, that no fuch thing was injoyned, or pra&ifed in theApoftolick Church^which is older than the Church that he Appealeth to, He is too confident when he fayeth, it it certainly a new Doflrine ; for we are certain on the other hand, that there is War- C c 2 rant Sea. IX. ( 204 ) § 1, 2. rant for it in the Word of GOD ,• as there is for no new Do&rir.e. He fayeth, it flieth in the Face of the whole Christian Church y Antient and Modern, Reformed, and Unreformed : and other harih Words he is pleafed to run us down with. This is Paflion, not Reafon. a modeft Diifent from a Church or a Perfon, though of the greateft Veneration that is due to Ven.is no f.ying in their Face. And if he will needs call it fo, our Apolo- gie is, if they rlie in the Face of the Holy Scripture, we chufe rather to Differ from them, than with them to file in its Face : but we put no fuch Conftru&ion on the Opinions, or Practices of other Churches, Antient or Modern. I am not without hope that it may be made ap- pear, that he and his Complices, file in the Face, both of Antiquitie, and of the Reformed Churches, by their Opinion about Holy Days • and Differ ^rom them more than we do, which will appear when we come to State the Queftion : which he hath never minded, though he en- gageth in the Debate with a great deal of warmth.This is ^ndalatarum more fugnare, to Fight in the dark. We are now but in the ThreiViold, considering the Opinion of other Churches. He will allow us none but the Church of Geneva, and that with Calvincs diflike, For Calvines diflike of the Abrogation of the Holy Days by the Magiftrats of Gehetia, he Citeth two Epiftles of his ,• which he doth not diftinguifli by their Num- bers,- fo that I cannot find them: not being willing, nor at leifure, to turne over the whole Eook for them. But 1 jhail more difiin&iy point, him to other two of his Epiftles, wherein, though he doth not fully declare for our Opinion, he doth plainly condemn that of our Prelatifts. They are, ad Monf.BelgradtnjtS, Ep, fi. p. 112. edit: Hano-v, 15*97. and Manfoni Poppio Ep. 278. p. $-20. I fay the fame of our Reformers and of the French Proteftants. §2i 1 ihall now addrefs my felf to fixing of the true State of the Que- ftion. And 1. We do not, with the Anabaptiits in Germany (forfome Anabaptifts in this differ from them ) and with the Petro Bru/iani, cited by far a in Rem. l<\. Dub. 4* out of the Life of Bernhard. lib. ;. Cap, j # difowne all Holy Days. The Lords Day we owne, as of necefllty to be obferved, being of Divine Jnftitution, Pardon a fmall Digreffion: 1 fee no ground to think that Feter Bruce was or. this Opinion : all that I find aicribed to him, Cent* Magd, 12. cap. f. and that even by Petrus Cluniacenjis, his Antagonist, is, Die Dcminicat & aliis , futabat licitrm tjjt -vejci ct.rni' us. The Centuriatort wifh, Utinam vero ipfius Petri (cripta txtarent, e.\ quibus multo retlius facere judicium liceret, yuam ex Mis qui in ' defenfonem Sea. ix. ( 20 y ) § 2, defenfionem ?ontificiarum abomlnationum conjftirarunt* He was one of thefe fa- mous WitneiTes for the Truth againft Antichrift, who went under the Name of Waldenfes, dlbigenfes, &c. It is like he might difowne other Holy Days; but there is no ground to think that he diibwned the Lords Day. 2. We maintain it to be unlawful, to obferve the Jewiih Holy Days,- I mould bring Arguments for this : but I think our Adverfaries will hard- ly contradict this Aifertion : the Lord having of old appointed thefe Days, and all the legal Rites, for Prefiguring Gofpel Myfteries; and the Apoftle exprefly condemning this Observation: Gal. 4. 10. Col. 2* 16, 17. where they are exprefly called Shadows &f things to come* %. We hold, that not only thefe j ewifn Days are not to be obferved as fuch, or on jewiih Principles ,• but the Days ought not to be fet apart as Anniverfary Holy Days, on account of Decency, Policy, and Order, in the Chriftian Church. All the Arguments will have place here that were ufed by the Primitive Chriftians againft them who keep Ea- fier on the fame Day with the Jews. 4. Our Adverfaries are not one among themfelves about obferving the Holy Days : fome count them more Holy than other Days, and hold that God's extraordinary Worki have fanclified fome times, and advanced them, fo that they ought to be, with all Men that Honour God, more Holy than b'her Days. So Hooker Ecclef Fo- lic < lib. f. §. 60. where he layeth a Foundation for Believing that thefe Days ate Holy, and to be obferved, antecedently to the Churches In- ftitution. Others of them, are of a contrary Opinion, Ccttper Bifhop of Galloway, in his Refolution of fome Scruples, about the Articles of Perth, which are fet down in the Hiftoryof his Life, pi 8* of his Works; hath thefe 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 fheweth that a Day may be fet apart far Preaching, as- the Birth Days of Prin- ces are for Publick Rejoycing, &c. Our Author hath not told us, which of thefe Opinions he owneth. $'. It is one Queftion, whither a Day may be let apart for Commemoration of fome Myftery of our Religi* on, by Men ; and as a part or Gods Worship. And another, whither fuch Days may be fet apart for Worshipping God, merely as a piece of good Order and Policy. The firft the Papilts are for .* the other molt of our Prelatiits owne : though fome of them differ little from the Pa- pills in this Matter. 6. The Queftion is not, whither a Day may be fet apart occasionally for Religious Worlfiip s that is 3 when any fpecial Providence giveth occafion for Fading and Humiliation, or for Thankf- giving Sea. IX, t ( 206 ) §2, y giving and Rejoyci«-g: feing in that Cafe, there is a fpecial Providen- tial Call to that Solemn Work : but, whither a Day may be fet apart to be obferved constantly, and as it recurreth every Year, The one maketh a Difference between that Day of the Year, and other Days ; and exempted! it altogether.; and conllantly, from Civil Ufe,- the o- ther doth not fo,- the one maketh a Difference among Days; the other maketh the Difference only in the Works, or Difpenfations of God, Which occafioneth fuch Work on that Day, and not on another. All that the Church doth in the one Cafe, is, whereas the prefent Provi- dence calleth to the Work, as it is expreffed, Ifa. 22. 12. The Church only determined! the Circumftance of Time ; which mufr be done : in the other, the Church determined! more than a neceffary Circumftance %tiz» That there (hall be fuch a Solemnity : Which the Lord hath not injoyned, neither do we doubt, but that the Church may appoint re- current Days for oolemn Worfhipj to wit, while the prefent Providence that calleth to fuch Work continued!. Weekly, or Monthly Faffs may be appointed under a lafting Calamity or Threatning. 7. One Quefti- on is, whither any Anniversary Holy Days Ihould be allowed, or may be appointed by Man: another, whither any are to be allowed in Com- memoration of the Saints: for fome are for the great Days • as they call them ; which refpeet Chrift, and our Redemption ,• fuch as the Nativi- ty, Rcfurrecticn, Afcenjion, and fome others : who are wholly againft Ho- ly Days that refpecf only the Saints. 8. It is aQueftion, whither Days may be Dedicated to Sums; as the Papifts do : and another, whither the Commemoration of Saints may be made on fet Days •• this laft our Brethren are for : though it will be hard to feparate thefe two ; of which afterward. § ;. I Ifiall now fet down our Opinion, and wherein we differ from others. And firfr, we maintain, that God hath inftituted the Obfer- vation of the Weekly Sabbath, as a part of that Religious Worfhip we owe to him. I do not expert that cur Brethren will dire&ly, and ex- prefly controvert this: though fome of them teach Do&rine not very confident with it : which belonged! to another Head than what we are now upon. Only I take notice, that they who are moft for obfer- ving other Holy Days, do ufually fhew leaft Zeal for the flrid obfer- ving of the Lords Day, either in their Principle, or their Practice* 2. I ali'ent, that the Lord hath not inftituted, under the Gofpel, any o- ther recurrent Holy Days, nor enjoyned the Obfervation of them. If any Sq&* IX. ( 207 ) § • ;j # any think otherwife, they muft prove what they affirm. ;;, The Church hath no Power to inftitute, or injoy the Obfervacion of any recurrent, or Annivcrfary Holy Days, for Religious Ufe, without a fpecial and prefent Occafion. 4. Any Days that the Chuich fetteth a- part occasionally, for Religious Work, are no further Holy, than that Holy Work is the Defign of their Appointment ; they have no Sancti- ty in themfelves ,• nor can Men impart it to them. 5-. Though we are far from fevere Cenfuring, either Ancient or Modern Churches, or Per- fons, who are for feme of thefe Holy Days ; yet we cannot be of their Sentiment in this : nor look on thefe Days as indifferent things, as fome of them do. 6. That the Reader may be undeceived about the Opini- on of the Reformed Churches, which our Author talketh fo much of, and blameth us for differing from them : he may know, that our Ilpif- copal Brethren are at greater Diftance from them, in this Matter, than we are : for they condemn the Saints Holy Days s fo Paraus in Rom, 14. Dub. 4. fo Calvin , in both the Epiilies cited, §. 1. The Hehetkk CcnfeJJien of Faith 3 caf. 24.' in Cor. Confeff* f. 5-4. Baldwin citet-h Danasus difowning all the Holy Days, in thefe Words ,\ Dies ChriHo dicatos tollcn- dos exiftimo, \udicoque • quotidie nobis in Evangelii fradicatione nafcitur clr- cumciditur 3 moritur, refurgit Chrift us. turretin Theolog. Ek?itic, he. ii» caf. 1 j . Though he allow Liberty enough for obferving of the Holy Days that relate to Chrift ,• yet he decermineth the Controver/ie about Holy Days far otherwife than our Epifcopal Brethren do: I (hall tran- fcribe his Words: after he hath told us that we ought always to remem- ber Chrift and his Benefits, and ftould do it in the Word and Sacra- ments ,• he addeth, fed ( queftio eft ) an ad fingulorum illorum beneficiorum & myfteriorum recordationem certi quidem dies fefii 3 Deo fieri ; , annuatim re- currentes 3 a Chriftianis quotafinis cekbrandi fint ? quod no$ negamusi he alio denyeth thefe Days to be more Holy than others, or a part of Gods Worihip, or to be Celebrated fub ratione myslerii., Markius alio Com- pend. caf. 12. §. 17. He condemned) the Difference of Days that was brought into the Church,from the firft Chriftians yearly Commemoration of the Martyrs* When my Antagonist hath duly confidered thefe things, I hope he will not find caufe to reprefent us as fo widely differing from the Reformed,- a; d himfeif fo 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 Oblervation of thefe Days as indifferent 3 - in which we cannot affent to them. But I know SeA. IX. ( 208 ) § ?t know of none of them who impofeth them with fuch Rigour, and talk io highly of the neceflity of obferving them, being recommended by the Church,- or of the Religion that is in this Obfervation, as the Epis- copal Party in England and Scotland do. Our Brethren do alfo ftand by themfelves, in their keeping of Saints Days* and in the Number of their Holy Days,* which in England is greater than the Number of thefe that God injoyned to the lews; forthe Primitive Church, at fome Diftance from the Apoitolick Times, may be they may have fome Countenance there j yet thele faints Days were not then fo fo injoyned, and urged as they urge and impofe them, nor ma le fuch a Yokeno the People • as^ may be gathered from Socratas hifior. Ecclef. lib. f. cap. 22. whofe Words arc, e//o/ cT« . If he can fbeWj by any good topick, that CHRKT left fuch a s ower to his Church, we {hall Debate no" more with him : that Jhould in all reafon Command our heartie Aifent. What followeth I cannot refute, for I cannot undcrftand it ( which, may be, is my Duinefs. ) it is, things indifferent in their Nature do generally carry in them the Advantages, and En- couragements of Necejfary things. If this be true, it is Myltical : it may poilibly Se&. IX. ( 217 ) § % 10. pofliby havs a hidden Senfe,- if I may adventure to griefs at this Riddle, hs fuppofeth,the Appointing' of Holy Days to be an indifferent thing: I cannot reconcile this with what he fayeth in the former page, that they were, originally appointed to Communicate the great Adyjferies of our Redemption, whh all poffible Zeal, Gratitude and Solemnities What is conducive to fo great End's, and is for fo necelTarie Ufes, I fee not how it can be in its own nature indifferent ; far lefs can I make it confiftent with what he faith in his A pologie for the Clergie p, 41* 42. do not we fee that all Nations agree in this, that pttblick Solemnities, and Anniverfarie FeHivitiss are ne- cejfarie to the "Seeing and beautie of Religion : how he will reconcile necejfarie to the beeing of Religon, and indifferent $ is beyond my Capacitie. As little can I underftand how that can be indifferent in. its own nature which hath in it ( that is in its Nature) the Advantages and Encouragements tfa necejfarie Thing, I wifh he had Inftanced in fome of the Things compre- hended under his large Word generally, which have fome Advantages and Encouragements in them. Many Inftances may be brought to the con- traries as, whether he walk a Mile on foot ; or Ride on Horie- back, or go in Coach : whether Tuefday or Wednefday be appointed for the Weekly Sermon : whether Sermon mall begin on the LORD'S Day at Nine or Ten of the Clock,- whether the Pulpit ftand toward the EaftorWeft,* ejrc. what Advantage or Incouragement of necefjarie Things is in anie o£ thefe ? If he wiil mew us anie Encouragement or, Advantage of any necefjarie Thing ( and if that Encsuragement or Advantage to that necef- farie Thing be it ielf Neceffarie ) to be in the Holy Days ,• we fhall look on them,, not as the Appointments of the Church ,♦ ( for it is to be fup- pofed that this Neceflitie is Antecedent to that, and doth not flow from it ) but either of Divine Jnfritution, or of Natural Neceffitie : neither of which, I fuppofe, he will afcribe to the Holy Days. §. 10. Another my ftical Sentence folio weth,- GOD will have our Obe- dience approved in indifferent Things, as well as Necejfarie • for Necefarie Things are approved for their intrinfick Excellencie ; the other are by way of Confequtnce and Relation. Here alfo zALdipus hiffifelf might be puzled to find out the Senfe. So far as I reach his Meaning, I mall Examine what is afferted I verie well underftand that GOD will prove our Obe- dience to Himfelfin indifferent as well as in neceffarie Things, ( if there be anie thing neceffarie antecedentlie to His will) but that our Obedi- ence to Man, muft be fo Proved, or that our Obedience to Church- Rulers is approved of GOD, when they enjoyn indifferent Things^ in E e the $e&. IX. ( 21 8 ) xo. the Matters of Religion, to that I cannot affent ,• and if I could, I mould not fcruple the implicite Obedience that fome require. Is it by Chance or by fome inward Byaffe that this Author ftumbleth fo often into Popifti Principles? Before I affent to him in this, he muft 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 in- different, but Men have thought fit to impofe. What he Meaneth when he faith, the other ( indifferent Things ) are by Confequence and Relation : doth yet more puzle me. What is that Confequence, or what theReiati- on/or which indifferent things are approved as Neceifarie Things are for their intrinfick Excellencies : this I cannot guefs at. He cannot Mean that they are approved, becaufe they are only confequential to Necef- farie Things : for if that Confequence be Neceffarie, it maketh the Things to be Neceifarie, and to ceafe to be indifferent : if it be not Neceifarie, but the Neceffarie Things may do well without them, it can no way make them more approved than if there we no fuch Con- fequence. For their Relation to Neceifaries Things, how can it make them approved ? if this he Mean, and if this Principle hold, the Pa- pills have a notable Foundation for the Holinefs of their Relicls,- and indeed, on this Principle it is Buiit : they are therefore Holy, becaufe the Perfons to whom they were related were fo : may not relation transfufe a Holinefs into his Coat, his Shoe, or what elfe was about him, as well as either the Birth of CHRIST transfufeth a Holinefs into all the recurrent Days of all Years that Anfwer to that Day on which he was Born : or if he make the Relation of thefe D<*y s t0 De to the Ho- ly Exercifes performed in them : fbail 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 frrange Doctrine* He goeth on : when ive Commemorate the Nativi- tfoj we l-Vorjhip GOD and adore His Love that fent His Son into the World : and tbe Church Commands that this jhould be performed with all pojjible Solem- nitie at Jome fiated and find Seafons : ail this is true : But how doth this Prove his Point ; we question the Churches Power to appoint fixed and frated Pays for this Commemorating Worfhip, and maintain thatChrift hath ited Ordinances of his own for this Commemoration, and he teileth us, the Church hath Commanded it alfo to be done: and there is an End* Se&. IX. ( 219 ) § 11, §. 11. He next bringeth fomewhat like Reafon: the Church may ap>- point thefe SeafonS ( which are but Cir 'cum -fiances of time ) as well as the Jew- ish Church appointed the Hours of Prayer : at which the ' sipojfks were prefent 9 A&s 2, 1 j. and 3. 1. for which there was no immediate and exfrefs Insti- tution of GOD, but were kept by an Appointment and Cuftom of their own* Anf 4. He doth injurioufly -infinuatc that we require an immediate and cxprefs Inftitution for the Days that we will obferre ,• where have we ever faid fo ? let him Prove an Inftitution, either by exprefs Words, or good Confequence,orApoftolick example ; or by anic good Medium, and we mall aequiefce. 2» The Appointing Holy Days is more than determin- ing a Circumslance of lime. It is a fequeftering of thefe Days perpetually from Civil, to Sacred Ufe ; it is to give them a relative Holinefs, as far as Mans power can reach ; by making a Connection between them and the Solemn Exercifes of Religion : it is a Dedication of fuch a part of our time to GOD; fo as we do not Dedicate other Days of our time ; and fo making a difference among Days ,• which we think can only be done by Divine Authoritie: theApoftles, Rom. 14. 5-. counted it aweak- nefs in fome, who did no more than what our Author putteth off thus flightlie ; what they did was, *« p*u K?im ipiftr n*t * npif*/. They difiin- guijheddays one from another; and that with refped to Religien ; which could not be without judging one of them better, and more Holy than another; and fo it is Expounded by Erafmsa, mdVatablus: Esiius turn- eth it, digit unum pra alio, is this no more but determining a Circum- ftance ? Betide, the Lord hath not left it to us to determine Circum- ftances of Worfhip as we pleafe, but when it is Neceffarie that a Cir- cumftance that relateth to Worihip muft be determined, and it is not de- termined by the Lord in Scripture, in that cafe Men may, and muft Determine it ; but this is not the Cafe in hand : there is no need that a ftated Day be determined for Commemorating anie of the Myfteries of our Redemption ; feing the Lord himfelf hath appointed his own Day for that End, and his Ordinances as the Means of that Commemoration. 3. For the jewiih Church, appointing hours of Prayer : It is to be Consi- dered, that Prayer was joyned with the daily Sacrifice. And thefe Hours of Prayer were appointed by God, not the Church. It is true, Maimnoides giveth account of three times of Prayer that the Jewe^ were obliged to Obferve everie day, and on their Feftivities they added a Fourth : but this was in the degenerat times of their Church ,• as the Papifts have their Canonoical hours ; Maimmida indeed telleth us that E e 2 Sfdras Sed. IX. ( 220 ) § I2 . Efdras made Forms of "Prayer, and they appointed the Number of Prayers ac- cording to the Number of the Sacrifices : but it cannot be Proved that thefe Conititutions were of that Antiquitle. §♦ 12. He further reafoneth thus, p. 171. there is fomething Analogical in the Chrifiian Church to the Free-will Offerings of the Jews uhich are not the lefs Acceptable becaufe Voluntarie ■ but rather the mcre 3 as long as they are with- in the Circle of thefe things which he hath Commanded. Anf. 'f we give Scope to our fancie to frame Analogies, and make thefe a Warrant for modes of Religious Worfhip, there fhall be no end of deviling new Wa)'s of Worfbipping God, while yet Men keep within the Compafs of what is Commanded, as to the Subirance of their Service. In this cafe the moft fancieful Contriver, and Inventer of what is New, fine, and gau- die, ihali be the belt Divine : and there &ali be no end of Contention : for what this Bilhop thinketh a fine way, and Anological to what is Commanded, another (hall think unfit : We have caufe to blefs the Lord that he hath given us a more fure Ruie for our Direction, even the Scripture. 2. Thefe Days invented by Men are not Analogical to the Free-will-offerings of the Jewes : for thefe were Commanded in gene- ral, and a Warrant given for them, and Directions given how they fhould be Managed. Levit. 1, 3. and 5. 16* and manie other places : nothing of this«can be faid of the Holy Days ; People may Pray as oft as they will, and io may the Church meet as oft as Jhe will for Religi- ous Service, as the Jews might Offer as oft as they pieaied : but the Jews were never allowed to let up ftated Days, and to feparatc them from other Days for their Free-wiii-or'ierings : no more are Chriftiaris allowed to do lb with refped to Prayers and Praifes. 3 . If Modes of Worihip, or ftated Days for them, be not lets Acceptable becaufe Vo- luntarie, there could be no fuch thing as Will Worjhip j which yet the Scripture condemneth : and it were not Worshipping GOD in vain to Teacb for Dotirine, the Commandments of Men (viz. about Religious Wor- ship ) which is contrary to Matth. if. 9. I confefs, Prayer and Praifes are not the Jeis accepted becaufe Voluntarie: for thefe are Command- ed Duties* but to ieparate Days from Common ufe to thefe Exercifes, and that without ipeciai occafion 3 and cciil;aiitiy, when GOD hath appointed a recurrent Day for that end ; this is not Commanded in ge« neral, nor in particular: nor hath any Aiialogie with the jevviih Free- toill-ofterings : this we Affert, not to be within the Power of the Church : if he think it is, he muii Prove it* He fayetfn, the Doctrine of Vresby- sea. ix ( 221 ; $ 12. Fresbyterians » contrary to all chriftiart Churches, and he telleth us of Citati- ons to this purpofe by Durellm : No doubt there may be many Citiations brought of Churches differing from us : but fuch an univerfal Affertion cannot be Proved by a Thoufand Inftances ; if we can bring one inftance to the contrary : and for this we adduce the Apoftolick Church r I have alfo §. 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 fiiall now add'fome more: Luther. lib. ad RIobilit at em Germanic am, Art. 5-. conftdium ejfe ui omnia Ft ft a aboliantur 3 prater diem Dominicum, And lib, de bonis operibus 3 Utinam ( faith he ) apud ChriBianoS nullum ejfet F&fikm nift dies Uominicus, That Calvin was really again!! them all. though for Peace he yielded to fome few of them, I have (hewed above, Eucer, in Math* 1 2, p. 1 i 8. hath thefe Words, Ferias alias, five Dei-pari Yirgmis, five < hrifii, five Sanctorum Nomine commendata fint, optarem abrcgatas uni- verjas. And he bringeth (hong Reafons for his Opinion, while he ad- deth : Frimum enim con(tat 3 nutlo Dei verbo invethis °. ubi enim in Apoftolick Scriptis aliquid de Natali Chrifii, de Efiphania, & (itnilibus } facile credide- rim Ze/$ Dei a veteribas introduclas,qua Ferias Ethnicorum 3 feu clavum clavo fellerent 3 fed <^uis dicet hunc Zelum jecundum Scripturam 3 qui omni adeo ver-- %o. & Exemplo Scripture car eat ,• mereque reitionem humanam fecuta (ft : jilting, in Exegefi GonfeJJ, Auguft. Art. 15*. />. 93, giveth account that the Lutherans objected to the Zuinglians ^that they had no Holy Days except the Lords Day. I hope hereare fome Chriftian Churches onouriide :Da- naus ( befide what I have cited out of him before ) hath thefe Words,. Eth* Chriftian. lib. 2. cap. cap. 10, Nobis hodie eofdem dies obfervare nihil necejle eH. And after, Itayue 3 neme dies illos colere 3 aut obfervare neccjfe efi^aut opera fr ostium. And below, Apparet quanta fuperfiitio pofiea inducla fit 3 & multi- tude ifiorum dierum Feftorum 3 ut omnino tolli fatiuS' fit. Ihef. Salmur, in a. Di/putation on this Subjed, by Cafellui, commends thefe Churches, which in their Reformation, did quite aboliih them, (it is evident then, that fuch Churches there were : and we are not contrary to all Chrifti- an Churches ) and he giveth his Reafon, in reiigione enim, yuan- do vel t ant ilium a Dei prafcripto dijeeditur 3 - 0" homines aliquid fibi licere volunt, aut put ant , omnia tut a timenda funt, fiquidem experitntid cemprobatum eft, a quam exiguis, & imVercepiibiUbus tnitus, m.i- rus f actus fit in- Idololatriam 3 ejr horrendam fuperfiitionem in &cclefia Fcntificia progrejjus* And after, Ut fatiut efie videatur 3 bono all quo utili, fed minus nicroved. His Reply is, He leaves us to Guefs -what Word of Scripture he I huildeth this Fancy upon. I crave him Pardon for that Omiffion,- himfelf fupplieth it, p. 17;. it is •verfe y. Did ye Fatt to me. He faith, that im* ports only that they were Carelefs, ejrc. in their Publick Appearance before \ God ,♦ and uSeweth that as, much, or more hath been faid of Solemnities that '■■ ChriH himfelf 'appointed ; all which we deny not ; neither do I doubt that 1 ! fo much is imported, yea and mainly aimed at, in that PaiTage. Their j Profanenefs and Irreligioufnefs did bear more Bulk in the Prophets Eye j than their Superftition, I indeed call for Proof that no more is here I reproved, but their wrong Way of going about thefe Fafts. And I give this Reafon for that Demand : though it is a Negative that is to be pro- I ved, as he frateth it. He bringeth an Argument from a Practice which God exprefly difowneth. It is evident that there was Sinful Evil in this A&ion ; he muft then prove that there was alio fome Good in the Action ; otherwife he can draw no Argument from it to prove its Ac-.l ceptabicnels ,• the Management of this Solemnity was Evil ,• that can- j not prove thefe Holy Days to have been accepted ; for on that account exprefly they are difowned : the Controverfie is about the Authority ' by which they were appointed,- to wit, the Churches ; we fay that could never make them Good: he faith it doth: here is then an Affir-i mative that he muft prove: But to pleafe hira, for this once, 1 ihall.l prove, I Se&. IX. ( 223 ) §. 1;. prove, that thefe Fafts are difowned on this account alfo : though it be not here expreffed. This A&ion is fimply condemned, Vik,. their Fa- lling : the Lord looketh not on it as done to Him : therefore all the Siri- fulnefs that is in it,* is to be look t on as the Ground of this Difowning : that want of Divine Inftitution was one part of the Sinfulnefs of it, I prove, becaufe in general ( under which this Particular is Comprehen- ded ) all Reiigious Ads, or Solemnities which have no Divine Autho- rity are condemned, Matth. tf. 9. and by other Grounds that I have a« bove laid down. If there be two or more Sorts of Immorality in one A&ion : no doubt both are condemned in that Action, though but one of them be expreffed ,• as in this Inftanee, Jer* 7. % r. in that Infanti- cide, there was Idolatry, and molt Unnatural Murther, and alfo Will- Worfhip, the A&ion is fimply condemned,- but only the Evil of Wili- Worfliip is mentioned, which thing I Commanded not, neither came it into my Mind: will any fay that the other Evils of that A&ion are not con- demned ; nor the A<5H©n for them, becaufe they are not mentioned in that Place. Wherefore, from an Action fo pofitively condemned, he can make no Argument for its Lawfulnefs, ( which is our Debate about the Fafts )- unlefs he can, aliunde, prove, that this was no Fault in that A&ion, that- it had no Divine Authority ,• for tofuppofc it, is to take for granted what is the Matter of our Debate. From all this it appeareth, that he hath no Ground to fay, that if the] Jews had had regard to the Mo- ral Injiitutions , their Solemn Fafts had hen acceptable to God y though appointed by Humane Authority : neither is there Caufe to rejed this Expofition as new, feing there is fiich Ground for it* He next taketh notice of a- nother Anfwer given to his Obje&ion, the Prophets had many things of greater Moment to reprove, and infiff particularly on, that they contented thtm- fel'ves to comprehend fitch things as thefe under general Reproofs. Hence he infers, that thefe 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 Confequence we will not yield i it only followeth, that other things of more Mo- ment are, -in fome Places of Scripture, mentioned, when thefe are not* Sttt there are particular Reproofs of thefe in other Places, as hath been I above fnewed, and will more appear anone. § 14. I (ball now adduce another Anfwer to his Argument ; which J might take off its Force, fupponrig that thefe Fafts were not condemned by the Lord, ( which yet I do not grant) but approved. They were apppointed 8ed. IX. ( 224 ) 5 14. appointed under a prefent Calamity, and Providential Call from the Lord, 'viz,, the Captivity, and Defolation of Judea, and the Temple. Here was a Call to extraordinary Failing on that Occafion ; and they only determined the Circurnitance of Time, which was not determined by the Lord, nor any other Appointment was made by God, which might fupercede this recurrent Solemnity. Now that the Church ap- pointed tliefe Solemnities merely for thatOcafion, appeareth from their Enquiry about the .Continuance of them, now that Calamity was over. Some might plead long Cuftom on the one handj others with more Reaion, might plead, that the Caufe being taken away, the EfTed mould ceafe ,• as Calvin, on the Place obferveth : This cannot be faid of our Holy Days, which are appointed to Perpetuity ,• and without any determined End ; and alio for the Ends thefe are deilgned for, ( I mean our Holy Days J the Lord hath appointed other Ordinances, and not left it to Men to devife Ways to Commemorate thefe Mercies. I add yet another Anfwer, thefe Fafts were appointed in a very corrupt Time, and State of the Church, which cannot afford us a binding Ex- ample ; and we have no Ground to think, that in the Churches Reco- very in Ezras Time, thefe Fails were continued : what Light we have from Zech. 7. inclineth to the contrary. I had brought two Inftances of Solemn Times of Humane Inftitution being condemned, which he next examineth, p. 175". drc. 1 Kings 1 2. ;;. Where Jeroboam is con- demned for appointing a Holy Day, that God had not inftituted. His Anfwer to this is, that this is to Dijguife Scripture HiHory : Jeroboam is re- proved for Idolatry, and Worshipping the Calves ± but if he had appointed a Feajl in Honour of the true God, and commanded the Peo} le to ojjer their Sacri- fices at Jerulakm, he ought not to have been blamed. To this I Keply, that this is a very furprifing Anfwer, and I know not that any befide him- felf, hath ever made bold with Religious Inftitutions at this Rate: for here is a wide Door opened for all the Devices of Men that do not di- recYiy Clam with any particular Appointment of God ,• and that both, in the Jewiih and Chriiiian Church. And if this Doctrine be received,; no Ceremonies that either the Apoftate Jewifti Church, before ChrilFs Incarnation, or that the Antichriftian Church in the Days of the Gofpel hath introduced, can be condemned ; let them appoint and do what they will, only keep from a Siniiter Opinion about the Value, or Neceffity of thefe Devices of Men : And if this Principle be good, v hy might not Jeroboam appoint other Places for Sacrifices behde JerufakmA not sea. ix. (22? ; § if. not hindring Sacrifices "to be offered there too as well as appoint Feafts befide thefe that the Lord hath appointed, not condemning the Obfer- vance of thefe of Divine Inftitution. Further, Jeroboams Feaft is ex- prefly condemned on this Formal Reafon, that the Time was r De f uifed f NJ3 Created ) of his own Hearty he made it of nothing, there being no Ground for it by Gods Anthority. Now according to this Learned Author Men may Create as many of thefe Days as they will, provided they defign to Worfhip the true God on thern.fr is a Brange Dream ( to ufe his own Word ) to clear Jeroboam from Guilt on that Account, for which he is fo exprefly condemned ; no doubt he Sinned highly in his Idolatry,* but that he was Innocent in Dcvifmg this new Fealt, is a new Opinion, beyond thefe which this Author is Enquiring into. § 1 5". The other Scripture brought to condemn thefe Solemnities not inftituted by God, and yet made Anniverfary by Men, is, Matth. 1 5-, $, In vain do they Worfhip me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men . We think this a plain enough Scripture to condem all Humane Religi- ous Ceremonies, in general, and Anniverfary Holy Pays that have no Divine Warrant, as a Species comprehended under that Genus. This my Adverfary feemeth to Smile at, as Ridiculous ,- and that from the Confidence he hath in an Expofition of this Scripture, wherein 1 think he is Singular ; and may be more expofed than any Comment given by others: which he fupercilioufly rejeð : it is this, Teaching for Doctrines, in the Language of the New Tejiament, is affirming fuch a thing to be the Com- mand or immediate Will of God, when if bath no other Original than Humane I/iBitution • and nothing elfe but what pall hear fame Analogie to that, is the Crime here reproved. It feems his Confidence was mixed with fome Dif- fidence 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, unlefs he (hall pleafe, in his j next Edition, to inform us. For his Expofition ir felf, it is no way to lbe admitted, nor can he prove, by Inftances, that this is the Language I of the New Teftament : i am fure this Place cannot be fo underitood. For the things that Chrift here calleth by that Name are, find: Obfer- vance of Wa thing the Hands when they came from the Mercat- Place, Religious Wafhing of Pots, Tables, Cups, dh\ Dotations made to Cor- ban, the Church Treafure, with Negiecl of Relieving their Neceditous Parents^ now that the Jews did ever pretend, or Teach, that thefe F f were Se&. IX. ( 2l6 ) § I f« were the Commands, or immediate Will of God ,• more than our Ce- remonialifts Teach their Ceremonies to be fuch ( for both pretend a ge- neral Command for obeying the Church) I think he will never be able to prove: all that appeareth that they Taught about thefe Things (fo far as either Scripture, or other Hiftory doth inform us) is, that thefe Things ought to be obferved ,• that it isSin,and Schifm,and therefore Cenfurable, to neglect them; and that on account of the Churches Authority to im- pofe them, And do not Prelatifts Teach the fame Doctrines concer- ning their Ceremonies, and the Holy Days, in particular. He citeth Hammond. Pracl'u Catechij. p. "20;. but telieth us not what he faith, for indeed his very Words are borrowed from that Learned Author, in that Place he Citeth * where he feemeth to fpeak in another Strain, in his Notes on this Scripture, his Words are. My Commands art not Heeded by them but their own Conftiiuiions fet up in Bead of them ; this is far from Teaching that they were Gods Commands immediatly, Luc. Brugenf. docentes, id eft, fequentes ipfi, & alios docentes uijequantur. Aifo, lnter- preters'generally, and among them Hammond himfelf, look onifT^aT^ as what is* meant' by «TiJW*Aia*, they Taught thefe Commands ; their Doctrine was, that they inould be obeyed, and the Things pradifed • but he giveth us no account of their Teaching that they were Commands immediatly given by God. He hath an incoherent Paflage, />. 277. We do not pretend that we have any exprefs Injiitutton m the Mew lefia- ment for Celebrating the Chrifiian Fefii-vitieS. We know that they owe their, beginning to the Piety and Wifdom of the Jpo/lles, or their Succeffors. I glad- ly woufd know how he can know that the Apoftles gave them a begin- ning if they ^e not initituted in Scripture ; unlefs he will reft in un- certain Traditions, as a part of the Rule of our Faith and Practice, to fupply what the Scripture is defedive in. Neither Jnall we demand of him exprefs Inftitution, if he can (hew us Inftitution by good Confe- quence drawn from Scripture. § 16 His ftrongeft Refutation of another Citation, vtz,. Jer. 9. 31. is to call it a Foolry. He maketh the Argument to be Fooliih enough indeed • as a Wife Man may be expofed as a Fool, by putting on him a Fools' Coat and Hood and Bells,- but they are neither Wile, nor In- genuous Men who Treat him fo. He maketh our Argument from that Text to run thus • God did not Command the IfraehteS to burn their Sons and Daughters in the Valley of the Son of Hinnomj Ergo, to appoint a Time for the Solemn and Religious Performance of that Worflnp, which he himfelf comman- ded, Sed. IX* ( 227 ) § 16, 17." ded, falleth under the fame Cenfure, This Way of Arguing Is none of ours but his own. We thus argue, God condemneth that Worftnp of the Jews, as on other accounts, fo on this ,• that he Commanded it not, »ei~ ther came it into his Mind 3 Ergo, no WorfKp devifed by Men, and not inftituted by God, is allowable. And we have above proved the Cele- bration of Holy Days to be, not only a determining or a Circumftanee of Worlnip, which is not determined in Scripture, but mutt be deter- mined by Men ,• but to be an Addition to the Command of God 3 for fetting apart fome of our Time to his Solemn Service. If this Reafon be Foolrie, Calvin as well as I, muft be a Declared F@ol 3 ( viz, by the Wif» dom and Candor of this Author) who on this Place, hath this Paffage^ Hac ratio diligenter notanda eft ,* quoniam his Deus anfas hominibus pr#cidit % ubi hoc folo titulo condemnat , quicquid tentabunt Judtei, quia nan mandavit ipfis ; non eft igitur alia quarenda ratio in coarguendis fuperstitionibus, nifi quod carent pracepto Dei. And a little below, Ergo, magnum pondus eft in his verbis, ubi dicit Prophet a, Deum nihil tale mandajje, & nihil tale fibi ve- nifje in mentem ; quafi dicer et, nimium fapere homines, cum excogitant qua ipfe nunquam quafivit, imo nunquam voluit cognofcere. That the Phrafe, 1 Commanded them not, hath in it a Meiofis, I (hall not controvert, but this Meiofts doth not hinder, but that Literally, and in Propriety of Speedy this horrid Fa6t is condemned, as uncommanded Worlhip. No doubts this Fad was not only not commanded, but forbidden, yea greatly ab- horred by the Lord ,• but it doth not thence follow, that it was not E- vil, eo nomine, becaufe not commanded j feing that Immorality of it is exprefly mentioned, I § 17. Another Scripture for Humane Holy Days had been mentio- ned in the Apology, p. 42. John 10. 22, 25* where it is faid, that Chrift walked in the temple at the Feaft of Dedication* Which was none of thefe that God appointed. It was Anfwered, His walking in the temple on that "Day cannot be ftrained t« fignife either Joyning or Approbation s this Anfwer he is pleafed to reprefent, p* *7ecie panis reciviatur, &c. Alfo the Council of Trent 3 §efl 21. chap. 21. Recognofceth the Councils Power in this,- that though Chnft did Inftitute the Sacrament in both kinds/ yet they make a Law again ft it, which cannot be changed but by the Church it {elf. Let the intelligent Reader judge, whether here be not a harmonie of Principles, in this Matter of the Churches Power, between thefe two Anti-Chriftian Councils, and this Author who own- eth himfeit a Proteltant ; let it be alfo left to the Judgment of all who regard the Authority of Chrift,more than that of Man, whether it be not more rational to fay, that feing it is evident, that iome Rules about the PaiTover, which were at firft enjoyned to the Ifraelites in -xh&Wihhrm\s 3 were afterward not obferved by the Church, and even by Chriit him- felf ( who was a ftri fure he had a higher Deiign in this Heavenly Inftitution. Again, if there was fuch a Cuftom then in the Jewim 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 meafure of Puritie ; but it muft have had its rife in the time of that Apoftace that ufhered in their rejecting the Meffiah, and their being utterly rejeded of God, for fo doing,* for we read nothing of it before the Captivitie ,• nor after it while the Maccabees lived : Now can any Man think that Chrift, who had reproved their Religious Warnings, and other Ceremonies, would be fo fond of thefe, which ftood on the fame bottom with them? I further Anfwer, that this Tradition of the Voftcotnium is a groundlels fancie : I find no fuch Cuftom among the Jews,of taking Bread and Wine after the Pafchal Supper. Scaliger firft broached this Opinion of aPoft- cdsnium, or two parts, or Services in the Pafchal Supper. And is repre- hended by Suxtorf Tor it, but Defended by Capell de Uteris Hebra: t. 167. who out of Maimonides, giveth a long Account of all the rites ufed by the Jews in the Celebration of it : Lightfoot alfo, and Grotim, give a verie critical Accompt of their Kites out of the fame Rabbi -. Addifon alfo in his Defcriftion of the prefent 'State of the Jews inBarbarie; defcribeth that Feaft, 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 againft his Vofiasnium of Bread and Wine, and Chrift imitating of it : The 1 . Is, the Jews ufed many Benedictions at feve- ral Cups, and Morfels they took: fo did not our Lord: he Blefled the Meat that they eat, no doubt, and we read of this Blefling Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper -> but to fay that he repeated ib many Be- nedictions ( which were no fewer than Eight or Nine,- befide feveral Inftru&ions that that they read out of the Scripture,which Reading they called n W •' and other Compofers of their own ) and all thefe Be- nedictions were by a fet Form of Words. If my Antagonift will per- fwade us that our LORD conformed to all thefe Rites, he muft prove it by good Arguments, and not Authoritatively impoie on Peoples Credu- litie. The 2. Thing that 1 obferve out of the Accompt that thefe Au- Se&. IX. '. ( %%i ) § 1 8, 19. Authors give of the Paflbver is, that they begin with a Cup,, then they take the quantitie of Olive of the vkpif'ti, or bitter Herbs, and dip it in Sauce made for that Feaft, then they eat what each one lifteth, and af- ter fome other Obfervations, they take the quantitie of an Olive dipt as before, and after they may eat nothing that Night s here is no con- cluding with Bread and Wine, for a Poftcoenium, Yea, Capellut ( who feemeth to be too fond of our Authors Notion, that Chrift had regard to the Paflbver rites in Inftituting His Supper ) giveth yet a quite other Accompt of it than he doth : for he teileth us, that Chrift took Bread and Wine in Head of that Morfel of the bignefs of an Olive : whence it clearly followeth, that Chrift did not appoint Bread and Wine- in Imita- tion of the VPoftc senium, confifting of the fame Materials : If he have no better Argument to Prove the vanity of Presbyterian Speculations ( as he phrafeth it ) their Opinions will be able to ftand againft all his Affauits, I adde the Obfervation of Buxtorf Synagog: "judaic, cap.iy. who after a full Accompt of the Jewifh Paflbver, and all the Bites ofit, hath thefe Words, f, 207. ex fauciS iflU facile per fpici potefi, Jtidaos fefium pajchatis amplim ex Mfl/zJ, vel Dei prtecepto, fed juxta 8-abbinorum fuorum Iraditiones dtlebra- re quas pluris faciunt quam Dei Precepta. §. 19. His next Work is, to juftihe his high Extoling of the Holy Days : he had faid, it is certain that nothing perjerveth the know/edge of the Chrifiian Religion among the Bodie of the People more than the Fejiivities of the Chureb : and this I called raving, the Word and Sacraments being more ufeful for that End. To this he Anfwereth two things, p. 181. 182. The firft is that he did not Attribute this effeff to the Feftivities without the Word and Sacraments, to which they are fubordmate : as being the fitteft feafons for Chrifiian Exercifes. \ ftill think this is no fober Doctrine : for there is a fitter Seafon for thefe of Chrifts appointment, even the Chriftian Sab- bath. Befide, it is evident that he Spake of his Feftivities, though not in a feparated Notion, yet in a diftind: Notion, from the Word and Sa- craments ; and I not only think that GOD'S Ordinances are more effe- ctual without, than with Mans devices, I mean the Holy days ,- becaufe having no Inftitution, they have not the Promife of the Bleffing, and are but vain JPcrjlrip; but that GOD*S Ordinances ufed with the Holy daysj if any Efncacie be to be expected from that Conjunction, have a greater Efficacie toward preferving 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 Read- Sea. IX. ( *?0 S 19. er may know, that this Expreffion was not the only ground why raving was imputed to him; but feveral others of that, or a higher ftrair^which were Examined, but he is pleafed to Pafs what was faid againft them ,• with this lhift, he is not at leafure to fellow the Vindicator every -where, far lejs ts he inclined, to Examine all thefe Exceptions againft the Author of the A- pokgie. 1 find him at leafure for as needlefs Work, as it were to Clear to us the{c 3 and the like Paiiages, do we not fee all Nations agree in this, that public ke Solemnities, and annverfarie Festivities, and Fasts, are nectf- farie ts the Beeing and Beautit of He/igion, ( this is a foaring flight of his fancie ) they pre (ewe and increafe our Mortification. They oblige the most Stubborn and Impenitent to think of his Soul : and the vifible PratticcS of the Church breach Repentance more effectually, and make more Lifting Impreffions, than the loofe and definite Homilies of ftlf conceited Men ( all the Sermons of the Presbyterians, no doubt are here meant ) the Reformation of the Greek church U kindred by neglecting of Fafiing : the Holy days are the Catechifms of the People : all the Notes made on thePaiTages for expofing of them, he paffeth over in filence , the Reafon is, if ye will believe him, not that he could not Anfwer all ; but becaufe he was not at leafure. A fecond Anfwer he bringeth is, that the Fcfiivities cannot be confidered without the Word and Sacraments • and other ExercifeS of Religion, and this he taketh a great deal of Pains to illustrate .; as it is ufual in Difputing for one to fay moft when he hath leaft to fay ; and he calleth it grojs ignorance to think otherwife. I need not tell him how many of his Partie make more than a Metahyfical Precifion, either formal, or objective, of the Holy day, from the Religious Work of it,- while they Celebrate it, without going to Prayers, in idienefs or that which is worfe, I know this is not the in- tent of the Church ,• yet, it is evident that thefe Days are capable of fuch an abftra&ed Confideration ; I mean, in Practice, what ever bein the fpeculations that Men have about them : Ail that he fo laboriously fayeth about the Conjun&ion of the Holy days with Religious Exercile on them, will evanilh, if we connder, that our Queftion is not, whether the Serious and Solemn Exercifes of Religion be neceflarie to thefe Great Ules, asd Effe&s that he fpeaketh of, for that we are agreed in ; that thefe are necefjarie to the Beeing and Beautie of Religion : they pre- (erve and increafe our Mortification : \hey aiv the most Stubborn andbnpenitent 3 &c. ( that is, they are Means adapted to thefe Ends ) but that which we Debate is, whether thefe Ends may not be attained as well, by the Serious and Solemn Exercifes of Religion in the uie of thefe Means an Ordi- Se&. ix ( 235 ; § I9 . Ordinances that GOD hath Appointed,- or if the Holy days be necef- fane, or the Religious Exercifes, as performed on the Holy days, be ne ceffarie for that End, This we deny, and we require that they may Prove it. And the Quefcion is not, whether the Holy days, feparated from Religious Exercifes, are abominable ,- but whether Religious Ex- ercife, or the times of GOD'S Appointing it* to wir 9 the Weekly Sab- bath's, without the Holy days, be defe&ive ? I take Notice of a Learned diftindion he hath about the Holinefs of thefe Days, p. 18;. that they are not Holier than other Days, in themfelves, or becaufe the Sun is in fuch a part of the Zodiack 1 but fuch a time being feparated for fuch an Exercife, re- ceives its Denomination from the Authoritie, and Exercife it felf by which it is diflinguifhed from other Days, This feemeth to be (huffing, and not the diftincr. plainnefs that ought to be in Difputation ,- For 1 . Some of his Partizans afcribed more Holinefs to them than can be in extrinfick De^ nomination,even a relative Holinefs by which Religions Work on them U mors Acceptable than at other times. So Hooker, above Cited. He fhould have told us, whether he underftandeth this relative Holinefs, or a mere De- nominative Holinefs,- that they are called Holy, but there is nothing of Holinefs in them, even with refped 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 extrinfick Denomination, which is a Me- taphyseal notion not cafily intelligible ( he Chargeth others with non- fenfe, and grofs ignorance, on lefs Ground, ) a relative Denomination muft be a Denomination built on a Relation ,• which fuppofeth a rela- tive Holinefs in thefe Days, which yet he feemeth to difown again. If the Authoritie by which they are Inftituted, and the Exercifes per- formed in them, can communicate a relative Holinefs to them,* where- in doth their Holinefs differ from that of the LORD'S Days? It hath no more but a relative Holinefs, refulting from Divine Authoritie in- joyning it, and the Holy Exercifes that the LORD hath Commanded to be performed in it. Tl^e Difference then, murt be only this, that it hath a relative Holinefs of GOD'S making : thefe a relative Holinefs of Mans making : and fo Man as well as GOD, fhall have a Power to Communicate a relative Holinefs to Days, and confequently to Places, and other Things ; and how much of the Popifh Superltition, and Power of Confecration, that will bring in, I know not,- neither, Ifup- pofe, was himfeif aware of it«. I think it is evident, that the firft Day of the Week ( which we own as the LORD'S Day ) hath no intrinfick G g Holinefs Seel: IX. ( 2 H J § *& Holinefs of it felf : the Sun being in luch a Degree of any Sign of the ZoMak as maketh up tke Number of Light, from where we begin to Count, doth notCommunicate any Holinefs to luch a Day. Now if ne think the Church can give the lame lort or Hounds to tneie Days that the LORD givcth to the Chriftian Sabbath • he mult prove that luch Power is l ranted to her ; * am fure fome of his Party difown that No- tion W hi c he Objeð to himfeif from the abufe of thefe Days is con- firmed, and his Anfwers refuted, §. j. of this Section. s, 20. The Antiqnitie of the Holy Days he next coniidereth, p. 18?. He find 'in his Apologfie, required that we Jhculd tell when they t egan to be Obfervtd mid without that he will conclude that they were ujedfincethe days of the Ap« (ties ; "It was told him, this is hiejuum Poslulatum ; and the Confe- qmJeis natight Both becaufe of the Defe&ivenefs of Hijiory, and they came in by snfetMle degress. Next, it was fhewed from the plaice of Scripture, and of the Hitfory the fir ft ^r, that Chrifimafs ( for of that was the Queftion ) was not Oblcrved tor 300 years after €h r ifi • which was Confirmed by Eaiier beina much sliced, but it not ; and this was Confirmed from Cent. Mao-d panhcw.&nd ancient Hiftories cited. by them: aifo Spondan fpeaketh but^faintly for it: all this he thought fit to overlook • only he Examin- ed the A.iertion,- which he doth faifine, by Extending it to all Holy days except Easter. And laboureth to prove out o{ Origen, and fome others, that fome of the Christian Feafis were mentioned hotter than 300 years after Chr>k I am not much concerned whether it be fo or not, for if they were then ufed, and injoyned by the Church, fcripture fiience of them is enough to us • and laying fo little weight on humane Authority for them 1 fearched no further; but Iruited to them who had made it their Bufmefs to trie it. But now, when I have further coniidered that Mat- ter I find the proofs that he bringeth for this Antiquitie of Chrifimafs very Lame • he firit citeth Origen, contra Celf mentioning the Chriftian Feftivities : ' but he is not pleafed to point to the Place of that Large Work where this Paffage may be found, that it might be Examined. The like Omiffion in another, about a Word of Auguttin, he agregeth at great length, p 195- though that sentence be molt frequency cited: may not one guefs that Origen ipeaketh of the Weekly Sabbaths, which are not forbidden, Gal. 4. *Q. as tome might think tnem to be, becaufe Sabbath-days are mentioned in a paralei Place. Col. 2 1 1 , a;(o oiEafhr, that in and before Origins days, was obierved, and contended about. His other Citation, Origen on Math. Uomil. ;. I cannot rind; though I lookt Sea- IX. ( *|J ) 5. 20. lookt over that Homilie. May be he hath ufed fome later Edition which hath been interpolated, as mod: of the Writings of the Fathers have* His next Author is Hippolitus, as he is Cited by Vhotius : all his Proof out Hifpolitu* [s, he wrote Homilies in SanEiam Tbesphaniam, and a I onje- cfture that himfelflayeth no weight on: it is NIAC, is found in Cruterut his Ancient Infcription of the Works of Hippolitus, the red of the line being defaced. The Anfwer to ail this is cafie. 1. Hippolitus is an obfeure Author; I know not what weight is to be laid on his Teftimonie, if re had it- 2. PbotiuJ, who lived in the Ninth Centutie, may be reje&ed., by an Argument Ad Hominem ; which he maketh ufe of to invalidate the Credit of the Seotifh Hifiories, concerning our Converfion from Heathen- ifm, p. 232, 5. Hippclitus writing Homilies in Iheophaniam cannot prove his Point: unlefs that lie can Prove that that Word., from the beginning of Chriftianitie was not ufed to flgnine the incarnation., or GOD manifest in tbeflejh ( which is the proper Import of it ) but only the Anniverfa- rie Day of the Celebrating that Myftery ; which was its current Signifi- cation when Photius wrot. For hisJVi^^it is fo wide and groundlefs^and a ftrained Con je dure; that few wife Men will be fond of me*. Zoning it: much lefs of making an Argument of it : he fupplieth it ( I know not by what Authority) *•>•< «ap* T " f 6^?*w Ac. He next citeth the Canons oft he Apo files, the Anthority of which we cannot own; unlefs he give better Evidence that they are genuine than others have yet given. For what he fayethof the Natalitia Martyr um ; I denie not that in Procefs of time., they did degenerate into Holy Days,, fuch as he pleadeth for., and be- coming fo Numerous., they became a Burden to the Church; and were difufed 5 till the Pope reftri&ed the Obfervation of them to fuch as he had Canonized; but, at firli they were nothing but Commemorations of them., made after the ordinarie Service of the Church : and that Age 3 and fome that followed., were fo refpeclful to the Martyrs ( for Encourages ing People to be FaithHil in that Firey Tryal ) that they gave the Mar- tyres extraordinarie Priviledges ; whence it may be Inferred., that from thefe Commemorations,, to other Holy Days 5 is no good Confequence. He hath not yet Proved that the Author of Def of the Vindication is once mifiaken in bk Calculation ( though i do not think it impoflible that he may fo miftake ) nor yet that the Centuriators have not been Accurate in their Search into Antipitie, It is no eonfequence., the Firft Chriftians did Commemorate the Martyres., who Succeeded the Apoitles ; Ergo, they G g 2 could Se&. IX. ( 236 ) $ 2I# could not forget the Apoftles themfelves ,• if they underftand fuch a way of Commemoration,' the Reafon I have already given. § 21. He Jnferreth, p. 190. that the Feafi of the Nativity was early Ob- ferved ; becaufe Eafier and Pentecofi were fo. The Confequence will not hold.; and the Reafon was given Def. ofVindic. p. 28. viz. many ef the Christians were very tenacious of the old Jewifl) CuflomS (among which was the Obfervation of Eafter and Pentecofi, the Fealt of Weeks may be added) but had not then begun to devife new Holy Days of their own. He Anfwereth en Objection that was brought,that the Day ofCHRISTS Nativity «• uncertain nor can it be Proved that it was December 2 j. He Anfwereth/We was no need to determine that Quefiion • and all christians ( he excepteth fome Presby- terians ) are agreed that this Determination was not Neceffarie ■ and that Chrijiians in different Nations, make no fcruple to comply with the chronological Accompts of that Count rey where they live, they Commemorate the My fiery • but do not Impofe on the belief of People in matter of FacJ. He iayeth the Vin- dicator left this Confideration altogether 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 fuch a Day was to be Obferved yearly, it was needful that we mould know what Day in particular it is,- ail which he hath left untouched. They are, it was never heard of, that the Birth day of any Perfon was kept, but on the Day on which the Perjon was Born* That if this Determination be needlefs, the Church might appoint any Day of the year for 1 his Commemoration, which nene ever affirmed. It was alio told him that others, particularly Mafter Hooker, pleadeth with more cogencie for Holy Days ( which he miitaketh as if his a bilitie had been compared with Master Hookers, whereas no more was intended, but that Matter Hookers Arguments, which are lookt on as the ftrongeit on his Jide, are incon^ fiftent with his Notion) while he iayeth, £cclef. Polk. lib. 7. 2. 69. that GOD'S Extraer dinar ie Works have Sanctified fome times 3 & Advanced them fo that they ought to be with all Men that Honour GOD, more Holy than o- ther times ; and afterward, as CHRIST'S Extraordinarie Prefence San&ifies fovte Places, fo His E>.troordinarie Works SanHifie jome times • from this the Author of Deff. of Find, inferred jufrly that the Church in chupng another Day,acleth Arbitrarily , and unwarrantably ; and Abjurdly ; neglecting the Day fo Sanctified It was a:K> told him.that it is a probable Argument, at Lafl, that the LORD would not have a recurrent particular Day Objerved en account of CHRIST'S Birth ;feingHe hath concealedfrom w* what Day it was that CHRiST was Born; ejpecially (eingHe hath Inflituted the objervation of theDay ofCbriji's Refurre&ion Se&. IX* ( 257 ) § 22, Kefurretlio»,viz. the Weekly Sahbath • He ^i told that it was the TirsJ Day of the Waik ; all this my Adverfarie hath overlookt, as either not worthy of his Notice, or as eafily Anfwered. I look on his Citation out of Aufline as not to this Purpofe, when he fay eth, nos & Dominicam diem, & Pafcha CcelebramM, & alias ditrum celebritates • fed aula intelligimuS quo pertineant, non tempora obfervamuS,fed quec. 25*. as he doth, />. 192. For that we cannot do fo well as by fixing on fome ether 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 Caufe, probable Arguments might be brought, whic:s. may incline us rather to think, that he was born at another Seafon of the Year.'fome of no mean Learning have been at pains to prove that his Nativity wasinSe^ next that they ere not necefary, but only very ufejul to the External Profelfion of Re- ligion. Ai.d then, that External Religion needeth them only jome'times. I ur- thcr, that it may lubfiit always without them; but it will not, in that Cafe, Se Who feparate from that Par tie that hath the counte- nance of civil Authority 5 and hath the Law on its Tide; not only becaufe it is the Gofpel, not the Law of tjie Land, that is the Rule of our Re- ligion, and Church Practice : but alfo becaufe that is variable, and by that Rule, they who weie the found Partie one year, may be Schifmaticks the other ,• without any Change in their Principles or Practice • which is ablurd. Wherefore the blame of Schifm, in that cafe, lieth on- ly on them who hath the wrong fide of that controverted Matter about which they divide ; or who, though their Opinion be better than that of the oppofite Partie, yet depart from the Communion of their Brethren without fufficient Caufe • every thing that we may juftly blame not being fufficient for making a Rent in the Churcb. Hence it plainly fol- loweth, that Mens affuming to themfelves the name of the Church is not fufficient Ground lor them to Brand fuch as Schifmaticks who depart from their Communion : Where Truth and Gofpel Puritie is, there is the Church, and they who have molt of thefe are the founder!: Church. §; ;. Having laid this Foundation for Difcerning what is truly Sc&ifht and where the Blame of it lieth : I mail next enquire into the Opini- on of the ancient Church, about Scbifm ; it is evident that they did Op- pofe it ,• and let forth its Sinfulnefs, and fid Confequences,with a great deal of Zeal, and that juftly,- for it is not only a finful thing on the one fide, 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 iij (hall make no Debate with my Antagonist in what he Difcourferh * 2ii. 2i2. He is in a vaft Miltake, if he reckon it among the New' O-L fmions of Presbyterians, that they think well ofSchifm, that is truely fuch • Jj ©r Se&. X. ( 249 ) s 3. or Fpcak diminutively of the Evil and Hazard, and Fatal Effects ofit; nay, our Principle is, that a Man fhould part with what is deareft to him in the World, to Redeem the Peace and Unitie of the Church ; yea, that nothing can Warrant, or Excufe it, but the Neceffity of tun- ing Sin. It is alio evident that the Ancients were very Liberal in be- llowing on one another the odious Names of Schifmaticks, as alfo of Heretick- and that often proceeded from a true ( though miftaken ) Zeal for lovely Truth, and beautiful Unity : at other times it might a- rife from fome finful Infirmities, that they ( as all Men are ) were Sub- ject to. Good Men may be Zealous for their own Opinions, becaufe they take them to be the Truths of GOD. The Fathers called feveral Practices Schi/m, and ihewed a great diflike of them all. As, 1. They blamed Dividing from the Univerfal Church, as Schifm ; and there are many things wherein Men may be blamed, under this Head, which I {hall not now mention ,• it being my Work at prefent, only to En- quire into the Opinion of the Fathers in this Matter* I find they were not of my Adverfaries Opinion in this ,• many things he maketh a heavy out-cry about, and blameth People for, as Schifmatickj, and Sectaries, which they laid no fuch ftrefs on ,• They bare with one another, though they Differed in Rites, and feveral Cuftoms* They did not fall out a- bout what they counted indifferent, but maintained Peace, and Con- cord, notwithftanding of different f radices in one Church from ano -5 ther. Eujeb. lib. f. C. 2 5 . citeth lrenaM5 3 reproving Victor of Rome ( where Ufurpation, and impofing on others early began ) for Excom- municating other Churches which kept not Rafter on the fame Day with him,* and he fetteth before him fome Differences between Tolycarpm and AnnicttM j fo as neither could perfwade the other to be of his Mind ; and yet they did lovingly Communicate together : The Words of fan.. as Eufebius hath them, are li y-s? ya? oiivr&t yuAV n^vav . Tlvif- &t ' muft rccei-ve them , and Communicate jvith them, as of the fame M'nd ephen was by the reft of the Biihops condemned, as a Breaker of the Peace of the Church • becaufe he Anathematized Cyprian on this account. Firmilian in the Ep. above cited, hath thefe Words on this occahon, quod nunc Stephanus aufut efi facere, rumpenf adverfum yoi pacem quam Jemper antecejjores ejus vol'ifcum am ore & honor e [eruoBant. Irena. lib. 4. C, 62. Condemneth them as makers of Scbifm, who ufed fuch Crueltie toward their Bre, theren ' propter modicas & quaflibct caujas magnum & gLriofum corpus Chrijii cenfeindunt, & dhvidunt, & quantum in ipfis est, interficiunt ; pacem loquentes, & helium oper antes, -vere llqtfant.es culiccm & camdum tranfelu- tientes. §.$-.j[3ut we find the ancient Fathers with a Holy £eaL,Charging fuch as Apoftats from the Church, and breakers of her Peace, who heid O- pinions contrarie to the Elfential, and Fundamental, or any of the great Articles of the Chriftian Faith ; fo that they placed the Unitie of the Catholick Church, in a Harmonious confent to thefe great Truths jren£. lib. 1. C. i. p. fj. edit. Colon 162 5-. having given a fhort Account of the chief Articles of the true Religion, hath thefe Words hanc igitur pr<£d'iCationcm y & banc jidem adept a Ecclc/ia y quamvis di/ierfa in uni- uerfo mundo, diligenter conferva*, ae [i in una eademctue domo habitaret fimiliter lis jidem haber ,ac ji unam animam unmnque & idem cor haberet • at' que uno confenfu hoc prtdicat, decet ac tradit ,ac,Ji una ore prxdita effet.Quam'vis cnim dijjtmilia funt in mundo genera linguarum, una tamen & eadem eft % $ 3 6. Creatura Dei unm & idem eft in univerfo Mundo ; ita & prtdicatio verttatis ubiqux lucet, & illuminat eos qui ad notionem veritatis 'venire volunl. Euf- feb. Hifi. Zcclef lib. 4. c. 27. Citeth Irtna^ condemning "tatianw^ the Author of the S&£t of the Encratittc, and faying of him, aVo^f TH«itKAiV**fs he reckoned his Opinions a falling from the Churchy or a breaking her Unitie. The fame tliftorian, lib. 4. c. 24. giveth Account of Egefffm narrating^ how long the church remained a Virgin, leaching and Believing nothing but the Law and the Prophets, and what the LORD himftlf taught, and he mentioneth particularly the Churches of Corinth, Rome, and Jerufakm ,- and then Oieweth how Herefies arofe, whofe Authors he caNethfalJe Chriffs,falfe Prophets, and faife Apofiles, and of them hefayeth, iy.ef'i£w #»«* d7, e^ Chriftus unus 3 & una Ecclefia 3 & Cathedra una, fuper Pe- trum Domini voce fun data ; aliud Alt are conHitui 3 ant Sacerdotium novum fi- eri , prteter unttm Alt are , ejr unum Sacerdotium non fotefl ; Quifquis alibi col- legerit ffargit , Adult erium eft, impium efi 3 quodcunque Hum an Furore infiitui- tur 3 tit Dtjpojitio 'Divina violet ur. Here it is evident that he fpeaketh of Separating from the Church ,• alfo, Ep. 55. §. 6. Neque enim aliunde nata flint Schijmata 3 quam unde 3 quod Sacerdoti Vei non obtemperatur ,• nee units in Efde/ia ad tempts Sacerdos, & ad tempus Judex vice chrifii cogitatur. This alfo Pointeth at Deferring the Lawful Paftor of the Church 3 - and Set- ting up a Meeting in Oppofition to him, and the Church. What he faith of one Prieft, and one Judge, cannot be meant, that the Presby- ters were no Priefts ; for that was contrarie to the known Sentiments of Cyprian ; but it is to be underftood of one Church Authoritie, in Op- pofition to Setting up Altar againft Altar,- likewife, Ep. 64. §. 4. Hi (tint ortuS atque cbnatMs Schifmaticorum male cogitantium, ut fibi placeant 3 ut Vrapofitum juperbo tumor e contemn ant 1 fie de Ecclefia reccditur 3 fie Altar e pm fanum foris collocatur 3 ' fie contra Pacem Chrifii 3 & Ordinationem atque X/nita- tem Dei rebellatur. Other Teftimonies to the fame Purpofe might be brought, Ep. 69. §. 7. he calleth the Church, Plebj Sacerdoti unita 3 & Pafiori fuoGrex adherens: and Ep. 38. §, 1. faith of Schifmaticks 3 Gum Epifcopo portionem Gregis dividere ; id eft a PaHore oves 3 ejr FilioS a Parents feparare 3 & Chrifii Membra di/fipare. And de Unit ate Ecclef. §. 10. lie faith of them, Conventicula fibi diverfa conflituunt 3 - {o alfo Ignat. ad Mag- nef. p' 32. Edit. VoJJii, quarto 3 164.6. f/w /?//?*/«?, kat s^tom? 9- erikgi Sacerdotis Sacrificia mlfcere ,• cjuando ipfa maxime habeat poteftatem vel tligendi dignos Sacerdotes, vet indignos recufmidi. A fecond Caufe was- Ha~ refie, lrena. lib. I. c* i;. Opfortet longe f tiger e ab eis •' {peaking of Hech, that they mould not,, for his Scandal, defert the Faith that he Preached: But he fpeaketh nothing of their deferting his Miniflrie, nor contradið the red" whom I have cited. § 9.I now come to confider what Apprehenfions Modern Writers have had dtSchiim* And here were a large Field to Expatiating If I fliould Examine all or moil of them, fo many have written on this Subject, and fo different their thoughts are of it. Wherefore I chute one, whom, I think my Antagonift will not except again ft_, the Learned- Bi- fhop oiWorcefter, in his Irenic p. 109* The Sum of whofe JDifcourfe mp; all are bound to joyn into fome Church Societie,- and being fo joy- fned, fliould continue in that societie, till his Communion with them (becometh Sin. Now for what maketh it Sin to continue in Church {Communion, and confequentiie warranteth Separation '| he fuppofeth, ;' ; that Corruption in the Eiientials of the Conftitution of the Church, bcaay warrant it ; but where there are Corruptions crept into a true I, Church, Sed. X. ( 25:6 ) § 9 . Church, yet remaining fuch, he faith the Queftion is, whither we may fepar&te from fuch a Church, for purer Adminiftrations ,• particularly, whither we mould fifamte from a Church, becaufe of Corruptions in the Lxercife of Discipline : he determined! it, that one may feparate where there are Corruptions in Doctrine and Practice, which are avow- eu,- and owning them, is required as the Terms of Communion with the Church : he ailowech in that Cafe, not only Noncommunion, but a total and pofitive Separation : but he telleth us, that where Soundnefs of Doctrine is retained, but fome Corruptions in Practice are tollerated, bat not impoled, Separation is unlawful on that Account. He faith thirdly, where Docirine is found, but fome unlawful, or fufpe&ed Pra- ctice is required to be owned, and conformed to, denying of fuch Con- foi mitie and Communion with the Church in thefe things is lawful, but poiitive Scbi/m, or erecting Alt are contra Ait are is not lawful, Thefe are, Conceflions of that profoundly Learned Writer. Againft which I have ^ nothing to object, but what I have elfewhere Debated with him, viz,.] Where fome unlawful, or fufpe£ted Action is required to be done by 1 Miniiters orPeople,and if the Church lb impofing,wiil not fuffer them to have Communion with her in any of Gods Ordinances^uniefs the}' will conform in thefe,both they mult do (for keeping a good Confcience) and I he alioweth them a Negative, and Partial Separation: and the Chuich for- J ceth them on a Pofitive and Total Separation : what (hall they do in that J Cafe? either they mull live without Gofpel Ordinances,- or they muft fet up Meetings wherein they muft have them: the former is unreafo- nabie ,• the iatter, is, that Pofitive Separation which he condemneth. I with he, or any eiie, would tell us what is to be done in that Cafe. I. ct us then, improve that general, and indifputable Maxim,- that wel ought not to joyn with any Church, however commendable Ihe be in! many -things, when our joyning doth engage us in any Action that is] our Ferfonal Sin: and that other Truth, which cannot be denyed,- that when People are driven away from partaking of the Word and Sacra- ments with the Church, unlefs they will do that which is linfui, or that they, after their uttermoft Diligence and Sinceritie in Searching, ap- prenend to be imful,- they ought not wholly to live without the Word or Sacraments,- and it will ciearly follow, that a poiitive Separation, e- ven from a true Church ; and letting up a Church in a Church, is not only lawful, but is a Dutie^ and the bin of that bebijm doth not ly on them who io leave the Church, or are driven from her,- but on that Church Sed- X. ( 2 fj ) §. to. Church which requireth fuch unlawful Terms of Communion, and im* pofeth them with fuch Rigour. § to. Having thus Prefaced to our Debate about Schifm. I proceed to Examine what my Adverfarie bringeth to prove the Scots Presbyteri- ans to be Schifmaticks ; which he attempted! without making any Di- ftindion among them : though he knoweth there were different Practi- ces among them, with refpecft to joyning in Communion with theEpif- copai Church* He faith, there is not a Church on Earth, with which they can joyn in Communion, "without fear of being polluted. It was Anfwe- red, that we can joyn with the Churches of Holland, France, ( when the Proteftants had their AlTemblies there ) and Geneva^ &c» It was not faid by the Author whom he refuteth, that we dijlike federal things in theft Churches • but by him: and it was Anfwered, we can communicate with a Church that is not fo pure as we wijh : what we difiike we jliun the Pra- Bice of it • but do not, for that, refufe to communicate with the\ Church where it is found. His Refutation of this is., at this rate it will be hard to find Schif- maticks in aU the Records of the Church. This is molt falfe : for fome did caft off Communion totally with the Church, and fet up feparate Mee- tings,, when they could blame no part of Church Practice : but had Quarrels with the Perfons, that governed the Church. As in the Cafe of Feliciffimus, who quarreled with Cyprians Promotion, and feveral o- thers who made Schifms, becaufe they could not be made Bilhops, A- gain he argueth, we cannot be faid to be Members of a particular Church, or to hold Communion with it, if we do not joyn in their Worjbip, as it is efia- blifhed among them. This is eafily Anfwered by a plain Diftinclion ; un- lefs we joyn in their eftablifhed Worfhip, as to the greater! and chief A<5ts of it l conceditur : as to all the parts of it, even to the leaft, negatur. I may joyn with a Church in the Word and Sacraments,- and yet if they have a Holy Day or two befide the Sabbath, may forbear, yea I may, without this, be a Member of that Church ( if they will fuffer me ) which.aU the Reformed Churches do, except the Epifcopal Church of England. I fhewed before, that the Ancients did not place the Unity of the Church in an Uniformity in thefe Punctilio's, (fo they who owne them, do reckon them ) and the Modern Churches, moftly are of the fame Sentiments, and Pradice. In Confirmation of this his Argu- ment, he hath thefe Words, p. 214, 2 if. Since he forbears the Praclice of thefe things he dijliketh, why may he not be faid to hold Communion with all vifibk Churches on Earth. And initanceth not only in the Churches of K k France; Sea. X. ( 2?8 ) $ IO , n. France', but in the Roman Church. This is an Abfurdity beyond what he is aware of; for fome Churches we are obliged wholly to flee from.; becaufe of Fundamental Errors., Idolatry, and honid Corruptions of ail Ordi- nances : fo wefeparate totally from the Church of Romero the Orthodox of old refufed to Communicate with,or be Members of the Avian Chur- ches ,• yet they did not fhun Communion with fome Churches, that dif- fered from them in fmall Matters, as I have (hewed above, §. 4. of this Section. And the Learned StiUingfleet ( as I have obferved already ) al- loweth of a Partial Noncommunion, where Communion is not totally caff, off. What he faith, of our no more coming near s Liturgy than we would Sacrifice our Children in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom : thefe I fay are not the Words of Truth and Sobernefs ; nor have they fo much of Argument in them, as of unreafonable Sarcafm ,• and are not to be regar- ded. Cannot one diilike a greater and leiler Evil, unlefs his Aversion to both be equal ? § 11. He talleth next on the Doxologie 3 p. 216. and doth insinuate without any Shadow of Truth or Candor, that we turn out the Epifcopal Clergy for prefuming to retain it in Public^ Workup : all Scotland kuoweth the contrary. We do not ufe it, but we never laid iuch Weight on u- fing it, as to forbear all Communion with a Congregation where it is lifed; I called it a Humane Compofure. He faith, the Matter of it is Ortho- dox and Unauefiionable • Ergo 3 it is no Humane Compofure,* non feauitur • I faid,- there it no Warrant for con ft ant Ufe of it. He faith, there is as good Warrant for it y as there is for Extemporary Prayer in Publick Worship. This is falfe; we read of no Praying by a Book, or fet Form,- but the Spi- rits Help, not that of the Book, is the Help we muft look for, not only as to the Manner, but the Matter of our Prayers ; what we fliould Pray for; Rom. 8. 26. But I infill: not on this; he confeiTeth it to be a Di- greflion ,• and but toucheth it (lightly ,• I judge it a very impertinent Di- greffion, ( but I behoved to follow as he leadeth ) for I think neither Ancient nor Modern Divines will call them Schijmaticks , who cordially joyn with the Church where they live in all of her Worfbip, except this ,• and it feems he hath little Ground to prove the Presbyterians Schijmaticks , that he bringeth in this to help out his Proof againft us. It is falfe aifo, that all the Churches abroad have Humane Ceremonies Jo twi- Hed with their Solemn Workup , that Presbyterians cannot joyn with them. We have often (and do when occalion ferveth ) veiy coidially, and to our Edification, joyned with them; and yet partake in none of thele : nor is is fo much of thefe among them as he would make us believe.Another of his Arguments to prove us Schifmaticks is, p. 21 y. If the prefent Presbyte- rians had lived a hunder and fifty years before the Council of Nice s there was then a neCefltty {by their Principles ) to fe far ate from the Unity of the Churchy because a& the things they fcruple -were then pratlifed. It was Anfwered, that the Hierarchy was not then in the Church ; this he taketh no no- tice of, nor ihall I, for we have already Debated it fufficiently. Nei- ther do we make the Beeing of the Hierarchy the Ground of Separation ; but that Minifters, at leaft, muft owne it, or have no Communion with their Church. But he telleth us of a great many other things that were then ufed, as Anniverfary DayS 3 Significant Ceremonies , theSignofthe Grofs y &c. And befeecheth me to read fome of the ancient Atonements of the Church* I thank him for his good Advice • I have followed it, in fome degree ( though I cannot Brag of my Reading, nor Vilifie others, as if their Reading were mort of mine ) before he gave it ; and (hall yet further^, as I can ,* and though I find that fome of thefe crept early into the Church ; ( and yet, may be, not fo early as he imagineth ) I do not find that the ancient Church placed her Unity in thefe things $ and I think, by the fmall Reading that I have attained, I have proved the contrary, and therefore if we had then lived, we might have been counted no Schifmaticks. I further Anfwer, the Ancients placed Schifm, with refped to the Univerfal Church, in her Heterodoxy, not in diffe- rent Rites ; and therefore we maintain Unity with the Fathers, while we believe as they did ,• for that Unity that fhould be in a particular Church ,• we are not capable of it, but with that Church where we con- verfe, not with that which was 1600 or 1700 years ago; therefore it is improper to fay we are Schifmaticks, becauie of what we would have been in that poffible Cafe that never was. § 12. His third Confideration to prove us Schifmaticks is, that our Pre- decejjors condemned the fame Practices as Schifmatical • the Anfwer to this was given ,• this Argument was ufed by him before , and I Anjwered it before : He faith ; I leave him to Guefs where it was brought, and Anfwercd: and truly I thought it was an eafie Guefs, being but in the end of the former page, vm. %%. If he had read heedf Lilly what he undertaketh to refute, he could not have been at a Lofs here, it was there told him, that as the former Presbyterians did not feparate fi'om the Epifcopal Chursh, fo mr did all of them of late : and they who did } were driven away by the Apofia- £j of his Party, from the way that they had engaged in ; and that by forcible K k 2 changing Sea. X. ( 260 ) § I2t changing*of the Church Government, without her Confent, or my Means ufed to fatisfie the Conferences of ' them who fcrupled. I add, in former times Presbytery continued, only Bifhops were fuper induced ; therefore Mi- nifters did not le ive their Stations, till driven from them : but at the laft Settling of Epifcopacy, Presbytery was razed, ( fo far as Men could ) and what Shew of it was left, ftood on the Foot of the Bifhops Autho- rity, who Called and Impowered them to Ad. This true Presbyterian Mini Hers could not fubmit to • it being an owning of a Power in the Church, which they are convinced is unlawful. His fourth Argument is, No Schi/maticks can be named in the Records of EcclefiaHical History to whom that Name is more agreeable, than to the Presbyterians in Scotland In Anfwer to this, the Donatifts were mentioned, asSchifmaticks, morejuft- ly reputed fuch, than the Scots Presbyterians can be. And the Novati- ans might alio have been brought as another Inftance ,• to whom I con- fefs, what was faid agreeth more dire&ly, to. That they Jeparated becaufe the Church admitted the Lapfed to Repentance. His Refutation of this is a long Difcourfe of the Original of the Donatifis • in many Cir- cumftances, that do no way concern the prefent Purpofe: and in which are fome Miftakes, as far from the Account that we have in the ancient Records, as that Laplc of Memory is, alcribing fomewhat to the Dona- tifts, which agreeth better ro the Novatians ,• and yet there was ereafi Affinity between thele two forts of Schi(math\s • they both had the fame Rife.; Donatus in Ajrick • and Novate 3. Presbyter at Rome • (to- gether wit a one of the fame Name, who, upon Difcontent, came from Carthage to Rome, and joyned with him in making a Schifm) both of them were, (as they thought) diibbiiged by the Lie&ion of a Bifhop the one, that ilacili 'anus was Ele&ed,- who (as he ailedged) was or- dained by a Tradiior ', yea, was a traditor himfelf,- that is, in time of Perfecution, had given their Bibles to the Heathen to be burnt • the o- ther, that Gomelius was made Biibop,- both of them pretended a greater Zeal for the Purity of the Church, than the reft of the Paftors had -, the one, that all the Churches had fallen into Apofiacy, through their Communion with them who had been Traditors; the other, that they who fo had fallen, or otherwile,in time of Perfecution, were not to be admitted to Church Communion again, nor get Abfolution,- though he nor his Followers did not deny, that they might obtain Mercy from God, upon true Repentance, t the contrary of which ibme impute to them) both of the bedts were called **'-3-*po/, Puritans j both of them Je- parated Se&.X* ( z6i ) §ti,i;, farated from all the Churches of the World ; and managed their Separa- tion with unreasonable Rigour; efpecially the Donatifts, and among them the CircumcelUoneS', who were furioufly enraged againft all who differed from them f Both of thefe Scbifms fpread far and wide, It is obferved by fome, that there were of both forts., Men of ftrid Lives. Though fome of the Ancients tell us of their Harefies; yet others acknowledged their Agreement with others in the Faith : or the- Donatifts Crefconius faid, they confeffed the fame Jefus born, dead, and rifen again ; they had the fame Religion, and the fame Sacraments, and there was no Difference about the Pradice of Chriftianity. Augufi'me confeffeth that their Difference was not about the Head, but about the Body, not a- bout Chrift, but about his Church. AuguBin* de Unit at, Ecclef. a 4. and Epiftle 4J* faith, they 'were agreed in the Qreed, in Baptifm 3 and ether Sacraments of our Lord • alfo Ep. 162. he telleth us, that Miltiades in a Synod at Rome 3 and his Brethren, (ffered to hold Communion with the Biflwps that Major 'inus (whom DonatuS and his Party bad Jet up in Oppofition to Cteei- lianus) had ordained - t which Condescendence is alfo evident., from Col- late 1. Carthag* Art* 16. a\ud Optat, Milevit, p. 45% 6» Edit. Par if, l6;i. §. 15. Our Author tells us, that we ought to have named Schijmaticks in the Primitive (Church ; whofe Pleas when Reprefented with ail pojfible advan- tage , are not [0 fair and plait fible as thefe of the Presbyterians, I Anfwer the Donatifts and Novations were Schifmaticks "in the ancient Church; and their Pleas for their Separation were not fo fair as thefe of the Pres- byterians, which I fhall (hew in thefe Three things. 1. They had no good, nor fufficient Ground to feparate; we declare that we will never feparate, becauie the Church admitteth fcandaious Sinners to Re- pentance and Communion, as the Novations did : nor becaufe fomeMi- nifters and People, are not fo innocent as they fhould be, as the Dona- tifis did : we condemn their Schifm as much as he doth. What the DonatiHs alleged was falfe in matter of Fact, as was made appear. Firft, By-fome ] udges appointed by the Emperour, to try themattter* next by a Synod held at Aries : And laflly, by the Emperour, after a full Hearing of the Matter: and if it had been true • it was no juft ground of Separation • though it had been a great Grievance. The Novation Plea had no weight in it at all, becaufe the Church was not culpable in fuch Admiilion, which they did unreafonably bkme. Can he Charge the Presbyterians with any thing that is fo unreafonabie. What we diflike ■is, an ufurped Power fet up in the Chuchj and humane Ceremonies impofed Sea. X. ( 262 ) § 1^ tmpofed on us ,♦ and our owning of thefe formally in Words, or mate- rially in our Practice, is made a condition of our Communion with the Church. It is true, if he can Prove our Scruples to be unreafonable 5 and that what we diilike is Warrantable ,• he may blame us, for none j Complyance,* but what is the Queftion between him and us,- if wej Scruple without caufe, the blame lieth on us : if not, the Guilt of Sepa-: ration lieth on them who impoie fuch things. Wherefore the Deter- mination of this Point, who is culpable in the Separation that is in the Church at Prefent, dependeth on the Queftion now under Debate, a- bout Epifcopacie and Ceremonies. 2* We always were willing to unite with them, if they will remove the Stumbling-blocks that lie in our ways ,- which themfelves confefs to be indifferent. I mean the CeremoJ nies ,• and if they will not require our owning of Epifcopacie, directly! nor indirectly. The Novations nor 'Donatifts never offered fuch terms off Peace. It is not what they do that skareth us from them, but what they] will needs force us to do. ; . We do not Exclude any of them from our] Communion > as the Schifmaticks of old did- Who either of their Cler-I gy, 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 oi our Debate. 4. We do not condemn their Church, as no Church • as the Donatifts did to all bcfide themfelves j we condemn only fome things a among them that are of inferior moment- f. It is evident that thern-5 felves are the caufe of all the Schifm $ and they are not of the heallingJ temper that the Church was of, which had to do with the Donatifts : that] Church was willing to forbear them, even in their molt unreafonable' 1 Separation ■ and to indulge fuch as were of a Religious Converfation j but differed from the Church without caufe, in matters of leiTer momentJ The Epifcopal Church had no Pity on fuch as differed in indifferent Cc-J remonies, acknowledged to be fuch ; but drave them away from theii i Communion unlefs they would comply in thefe, which they could not! do without wounding their Confcience. If he can Prove that we den\J Communion with the Epifcopal Church, on on frivolous pretences as he] fuppoleth, p. 222 ,• he gaineth what tie contendeth for,- but he findeth > it eafier to mppofe this, than to Prove it. It was faid by his Antagoniff f that the Donatifts forfook their lawful 'JPaftorS; which Presbyterians do not : i the Bifoops being none of our Vajiors. He faith this is the very Crime of the i Presbyterians, in their Erecting Altar againft Altar. Anfwer, 1. That J- is not all that we plead for, as is clear from what hath been laid* I ] hav 1 Sea. X. C 265 ) §i? 3 14, have fhewed §. 8. Cafes in which, even lawful Pafrors may be for- foken ; and ibid, that this may be done when they require unlawful conditions of Communion with them. But I fay, z> That the Bifhops fet up in Scotland Were none of the lawful Paftors of the People over whom they pretended to Rule. And I am willing that Matter be De- termined. 1. By the ftrength of Argument ; if he can Prove the War- rantablenefs of the Power that they Claim to, we muft yield. 2. By the Suffrage of the ancient Church,, which was pofitive, plain and una- nimous in this,that the People fliould chufe their own Bifnop, and other Church-Officers ,• fee Inftances, Enquirie into the Confutation, Sec. of the Primitive Church ; c* 3. p. 63. Append* ad Catalog, Tef^ veritat. p. 33, The ancient Church did never own a Paftoral relation, in any Man,, to a People, on whom he was thruft by the Magiftrat, or any Power not Properly Ecclefiaftical, and without their own Content; This is our cafe, the Church of Scotland was in Peaceable PofTeilion of Presby- terian Government, the Magiftrat, not the Church, made a Change, and fet Men over the People to be their Bi&ops, whofe Office they could not own, and whofe Perfons they had no concern in : I Queftion whe- ther the Primitive Church (I mean the firft Ages) would have counted it Schifm to difown fuch, and to cleave to their own lawful Paftors^who had been called by them, fetled by Church Authority among them, and laboured among them, to their Comfort and Edification. His denying the Donatifts to have taken their Name from Donatus a ca(is nigris 3 is con- trarie to Petavius, rationar: temfor: lib. 6. 'p. 249. I know not what Vouchers he hath for him: his Affertion, p» 220. that Pref by terians have thrown Deacons out of the Church , is fo falfe, that it is a wonder how he could have the Confidence to Affirm it : If he underftand it of Preach- ing Deacons, he fhould have faidfo : and proved fuch an Officer to have been appointed by CHRIST to be in his Church. §; 14. His Fifth Reafon to prove the Presbyterians Schifmatickf, isfrom the Doctrine of Cyprian ; of which he is fo confident ,• that he maketh my afferting that a Bishop in Cyprians time was no more but a fatfor of a Flock or a Presbyterian Moderator , not a Diocefan 1 to be a plain Demon- ftration that 1 have never read Cyprians Writings. If I had read much more than either be or I have, I fhouid not to often, nor fo fuper- cilioufly, vilifie others. If I have read little he will find it the eafier to refute what I have Written. Another Learned Author of his Partie hath taken to task thefe few Lines in my Def, of Vindic. which he now under- ScA» X. ( 264 ) § 14. undertaketh to refute : Which Book I have Anfwered ( with fuch read- ing as. I could attain, both of Cyprian, and other ancient Writers ) in a Book Intituled the Cyprian ick-Bifiop Examined • where I have endea- voured to Anfwer all that he hath here Written, before I faw it. I am not willing to Tranfcribe it, being the moft part of that Book. He may read it, if he thinketh fit ; a«d if he, or any other, will refute what is there (aid of Epifcopacie in Cyprians Age, 1 ihall be willing to be In- formed by him. His Triumphant Conclufion, p. 22 s". evanilneth into fmoak, if what hath been faid, be duly Confidered. He begineth ano- ther Debate, about Preaching Moralitie • which he pafieth in a Word, o- verlooking all that had been faid in Refutation of his former Book on that Head : While it was told him that not all the Clergy, but he, and fuch as he, was fo blamed. Alfo, that ^reaching Moralitie was never Genfured, but Applauded, and lookt on as neceffarie ^ but what wc Quarelled was, that fome do only Preach Moralitie, and neglect holding forth to the People the aids of the Spirit, by which they fhould obey the Law acceptably, and the Righteoufnefs of CHRIST,on account of which they, and their Works that are moraly Good, fhould be accepted,- and a great deal more to this purpofe was Difcourfed, to Jhew his Miftakes in thatMattento all which he maketh no Return,but that his Antagonift had\ feen no Sermons of his in Print ,nor heard him: and therefore could not tell what fort ofDoftrine he Preached J think there was fufficient ground for thinking that he ufeth to Preach in that ftrain,feing he fo doth Defend and Ap- j plaud it,- but much more occafion was given for fo thinking, from a large Difcourfe in his Book,- that I was then Refuting, Vindicating their I way of Preaching, in which their is nothing of that which is the j Marrow of Gofpel Preaching, 'viz.. the imputed Righteoufnefs of' CHRIST, and the influence of his Spirit, by which we muft do that which pleafeth GOD. His {o often Rehearfing ( as he hath done the i Third time ) an Error of the Prefs, which maketh a PafTage that is un- j exceptionable to be Nonfenfe and hlajphemie, after it had been Solemnly \ difowned by the Author ; this, I fay, meweth the Mans temper : I am J fure this filly (hfft will Reflecl: more on himfelf, in the Eyes of thern who are not Malicious, than it will on the Perfon whom he would De- fame* SECTION Se&. XL C z6f ) '"* t SECTION XL Of the Government ofthefirft Chrifiian Church of Scotland. Nother Debate my Antagonift Engageth in, wherein what we hold rauft be reckoned among the New Opinions of Presbyterians is, what way the Chriftian Church of Scotland was at firft Go- verned 3 * whether by Bifhops, or the Pallors of the Church, ading in Parity ? We cannot give a diftind and paricular Account of their way, in this Matter, becaufe of the Silence, and Defediveneis of the Hiftory of thefe times; and therefore, it is a Mif-reprefentation when he faith, that we hold that they were Vresbyterians ; if he underftand Presbyterian Government in the the ufual Senfe, as made up of Kirk-Sefiions, Pres- byteries, Synods, and General- Affemblies • we fuppofe they had a Go- vernment in that Church ■ and that it was Managed by Church Offi- cers, and directed by the Word of GOD, as they then underftood it • for this we can bring no other Proof,- but that they were Chriftians, and we owe them that Charity, having no caufe to think otherwife of them : and I think this will not be Contefted between him and met All theQueftion that rem aineth is, whether the Teachers of the Church had equal Power, and Ruled in Parity, or had Biiliops fet over them, who had the Power of Ruling the Church ; the reft having only Power to Teach. We are for their Equality of Power,- my Antagonift for Epifcopal Jurifdidion to have been, even then; in the Church of Scot- land. I do agree with him that this is queftio fafli, and muft be de- termined by Teftimonie ,• and that of Credible WitneflTes, who might know the Truth of what they Affert. I have brought Credible Hiftory for what we fay ; all which he Rejedeth as fabulous ,- fome of his Party ( particularly Splfwood ) bring Inltances of Bidaops in Scotland, at that time, without any to Atteft the Truth of what he Writeth. Which of us,then,goon the beft grounds? Our Author had in the Apology ( which I take to be his ) pretended to Refute what I had Written on this Head; First VinHic. Que f ion. I. p. 4. 5-. all that he faith in the Apology, I An- fwered; Deffi of Vindic. f. ;6. 57. he doth in the Book now before me, endeavour to Anfwer part of what was faid ( as he had alfo done in the Apology ) overlooking what he thought not fie to touch. I ihall now Coniider what he here faith ,- omitting nothing that is Material : He L 1 hath Se<5t. XL ( 266 ) § 2. hath not yet cleared his Affertion that blonde! took that History of the Culdees rulhig the Churchy from Buchanan and his temporarie Monks , BoetiuS and others, or ftich as were little removed from his own Agc % For B Ion del doth not mention or. Monk ccntemporarie with Buchanan ; nor any Monk fave Fordcv, who was far removed from his Age; wherefore theObje6li- on from the Word C ont emp or arie is not Obviated, nor Anfwered, b}' any thing faid in this, or his former Book. It was Objected that his Rejc- i?ig the Writers whofe Tejiimonies were brought, as incompetent Witnesses, was to Raze the Foundation of the H/ffory of our Nation, which he Anfwereth, by file wing that it is the E\labli(lring, not Raz,ing of Hiflory , to require Competent Witneftes for what we Believe : This is to divert into another Queition ; what was blamed in him was not, that Witneffes whofe Teftimony we receive, muii be Competent,- but whether thefe adduced by me, in the Debate, were luch. I oniy Mark here,- not Examine ( being afide from ourprefent Debate ) what he faith, p. 230. that if History be De- ftroyed, and the Moral Certainty that is cenveighed by Tejiimony ( he muft mean Humane Teftimony I thtn the Authority of Revelation falleth,and Atbe- ilm is Introduced; at lea(t hundlefsSceptecifm, and uncertainty. Whether this tendeth not to make bcripture, and ail our Religion to Depend on the Churches Teftimony, let it be Coniidered. If the Vindicator faid, that we may believe a Matter of Fact without Jufficient Evidence, let him be load* ed with as many Epithets as he can Invent; he Pleaded that Buchanan, Boetius, M-ijor, For don, Ujher, the Centuriators, Baronim, Beda, andProJper, had given Account of the Affairs of the Scots Church, and if none of thefe be Competent Witneffes, our Hiftorie is loir ; and cannot be made up by the Collateral 'teftimony offome of the Roman Historians, who fpake of our All airs obiter. § 2. Our Author is at a great deal of Pains, from f. 2;r. to Prove, that no History u to be Believed unlefs it be Attefted by fufficitnt Witnefjes, who bad occafwn to k,non> what they Affirm ; I would gladly know who Op«» pofeth him in this ; he fully Proveth what was never Denyed by any Body, fo far as I know ,• nor can it be Denyed by any Man in his Wits,- I mean, without this Hiftory cannot be believed upon the Faith of thefe Witneffes, which are thus incompetent ,• for by other Topicks a Matter ofFacl:, done 1000 years ago may be lufficiently Proved ,• as the -Lear- ned Heideggcrus Proveth both many Antediluvian, and Poftdiluvian, Paffages, by Confequences drawn from Scripture, iahis Excellent Book, Hiftoria Patriar char urn,- Wherefore I look on Du hamfs Work, de Au- tloritate Sea. XI , ( 267 ; s 2s tboritate Argument? negantis in Quafilonibm jaBi, to be of good ufe,, and that the Popifh legends are by that Argument folidiy rerafed. I con- fefs alio, that there is much ftrength in Eufehhts hk neglcBiing of fomt Boskj as Spuroius, becaufe not fuffidently Atttfied, Only 1 lhall take Notice of a few things in his Managing of this his Difcourfe 3 though I fully af- fent to she Conclufion of it, iftfc. that Hiftory muft be fufficiently Atteft- ed : and then I fliall State this Queftion about the Credebility of Hi- ftory,a little more clearly than he hath done. And,iJ obferve 3 that^>.2;$. he denyeth that quafiio facli can be othervSife Determined. The contrarie of which I have already Viewed, viz.. that it may be Determined infoms cafes, by Confequences drawn from unconteited Matters of Fact. Next he faith, ibid, that the Presbyterians hold the Affirmative in the prefent De- hate, about our ancient churc ^Government • this is QueiKonable, if it be not downright a Miftake : it is confeffed on both hands that the Culdees taught the Church at that time ; the Queftion is either, whether they were Bifoops, or not ,- we hold the Negative ; or if he Word it thus, whether they were any more than Presbyters, we fay, no : or, whe* ther there were Bilhops fet over thefe Teaching Culdees, or not ,- we are frill for the Negative , ;> wherefore we might put him to Prove his Affirmative. I further Object, that, in the end of the fame page, he in- finuateth, that they againft whom he Debateth do believe M things with- out Examining the lefiimonies on which their Credibilitie is founded. We do not fo with any thing of Moment ; far lefs with all things. Yea, we do not fo in the Cafe now under Debate. Another Remark I make on what he hath, page iff; and 2\<$. If a Matter of Facl be not Aitefied by any Gredible Author living within 200 years of the Period in which fucb a thing U /aid to have happened, it. is to be lookt on as a Fable J and he addeth that Du.Launy fuppofed that Orati Tradition could not carry any Matter of FaU further ; and to Ridicule any who might think otheiwife, he hath devifed a Ridiculous Storie of the King of China. This may fuffer a little Correction ; and muft not be taken as a Principle, neither on his Authority, nor Du Launfs; more than a Storie of 200 years old can be. i« It is hard to fix a Period, how far Orall Tradition can hand down a Storie to Pofteritie ,- efpecially, if it be not about the Credenda of Religion : If I can believe a Storie of 200 } ears old, from, a grave and wife Author, whofe veracity i do not Queftion;,- I know not why the Addition of $0, or a 100 years more, ihouid make it incredible,, if it come from the fame hand. Wherefore this is too peremptorie a L 1 2 . Decision : Sea. XI. ( 268 ) § 2 . Deciiion : there are on the other hand, many cafes in which, Oral Tradition may be very doubtful in far lefs time than 200 years. 2. If this Doctrine be received, what (hall we think of the Hifiories of EufebiuS, Socrates , and otheis, which our Author, as weii as others, Cit- eth often and Confidently ? It is true, tney give us Vouchers out of ancient Writings ^ but many of thefe may be Proved to be Fabulous, by this fame Argument : and this they do not always* 3. He forgetteth and contradicteth himfelf, in the very next^^g-e^ while he fheweth, out of Sir George Mackenzie ; that the Bards repeated the Scotijh Genealogies fit their Marriages, Births , and 01 her Solemnities , and calleth this an infal- lible Conveyance oj true, con fi ant, and perpetual Tradition : here is but Oral Tradition;; and it went beyond the Limits of 200 years,- otherways, it could not be a fufheient Evidence for all the Kings that were before Fergus the Second,- which is the Dengn for which air George bringerh it. 4. Good Hiftorians,who make it their Buiinefs to Search into the Aftairs of former Ages, may attain to ibme probable knowledge of what palled for more than 200 years, by Comparing one thing with another,- which others who have not made that their Study cannot ealily reach^ yea, they do not always fet down all the Grounds of what they Write, for that would oblige them, fometimes to write a Controverfie, inftead of a Hiftorie. I lay not this to Oblige any Body to take all on Truit that Hiftoiians, even of the belt Note, do Write ; but to ihew the un~ warrantabierieis of Determining fo dogmatically about the Credibility of Hiiiory ,- Neither do I think Defending our Opinion about the anci- ent Church-Government in Scotland needeth the help of this Obferva- tion. Before he had peremptoriy Condemned the Hiltorical Evidence that we bring ; he fhouid have Anfwered what Sir George Mackenzie ( an Author that he feemeth to value ) hath Written againit the Bilbop of St. A[aph, p* 311. that Hijtcry requires ,nor admits , no Mathematical, nor legal Vr oof . But is J 'atisfied iviih Moral certainty inj erred from probable 'lra- dition, oldManujcripts, credit le Hifiories, the lejiimonie of J- or reign Authors ; and probable Reafons. 2. That our Hijtories being already acyuiejced in, and received by the Generality of Mankind, and ejfeciaily by Lriticks, Antiquaries 9 and HifiorianS, the best judges in Jucb cajes, need no Conyrmation i nor furs, ther Proof And he Jheweth, /»« 6. that Livies Hijtory hath no jurer Grounds than 'lradition, he Writing long after the time he Jfeaketh of. All this he ful- ly Proveth. S %■ He Sea xi. , ( 269 ) §y. § %. He doth, p. 236, unjuftly fuppofe, that I had afferted, that the Hiftory of our Nation mujl peri(h, if there wat no Presbyterian Church in Scot- land, fo near the Apoftolick Age. I laid not fo, nor had Words to tha\t Ef- fect What I did, and do affirm is, that if none who have written the Hi- ftory of this Nation, are to be believed, our Hiflory is loft ,- for the Collateral Proofs from the Roman Hiftorians ,• that he talketh of, could give us but a very lame Account of our Affairs. He. maketh, p. 237. thefe Recita- tions of the Bards to be twifled with the Practice and Custom of the Nation ; and that by a constant, and uninterrupted Practice $ and that from the first Co- lonies that were planted here : now let me ask him; what Authority he hath for this ; is not here an Oral Tradition ( for thefe Recitations are not extant, but are perifhed 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 affert. He telieth us againft Saint Jfaph, p. 129. that thelra- dition of our Nation might well be preferred for fix hundred years ^ which is far beyond our Authors Period. That I Reafoned againft Chrirtmafs from the Silence of the firft Ages, is no way inconiiftent with what I -have, on this Occafion, written,- for if our Author can prove it from any other Topick, we (hall not rejeft it. We ihall tell him, whence the Hiftori- ans had what w© receive, and affert from them,- when we come to De- bate with him, the Truth of things we hold ; we are now upon the general Argument, of the Credibility of a Hifiory. We are not obliged to give him Inftances of other Presbyterian Churches before Calvin and Bez,a, others have done it. What he faith of the WaUenfes I have dif- proved, Section 1. §. 1. I promifed, above, to ftate this Queftion, a- bout the Credibility of Hi fiory, more clearly than he hath done,- for which there is much need ,- for he neither diftinguilheth Matters related, nor Perfons relating, nor the Weight that is to be laid on what is related in Hiftory- 1. Then Matters that are of no great Moment, whither they be true or falfe, we may receive with a Hiftorical Faith, on more (lender Grounds than what is of great Moment, or, the Confe- quences of Believing which is of great Advantage, or in Convenience. Matters that we buiid an Article of Faith on, or that our Chriftian Pra- ctice, yea, or that any great Worldly Intereft dependeth on the Truth or Fal&ood of what is told us, have need to have Credentials proporti- oned to the Streis that is to be laid on them. And therefore I yield fo far to this Author, that he &all not be obliged to believe what we affert in Sed:. XT. ( 270 ) $ . * in this Matter^ unlefs vvc bring fuch Evidences as the Matter requireth and is capable of. 2. The Credibility of a Hiftorian, mult bear fome Proportion to the Degree of Affent, that we are to give to the vinely Infpired. As I have mewed Section ;. §. ;i, gy. on the other hand, we talk not (b high of the Hiftorical Evidence that we bring, and therefore, a Probability of a lower Degree, than what he talketh of may ierve. 3. Tho the Credit of a Hiiiorian be not, by it felf, fuffici- ent to perfwade us of the Truth of what he faith, yet if it befupported by the Probability of the Thing, by Circumftances that favour it, or the Teftimonies of others,- or by any good Topick, from which 'the Truth, or the Probability of the Thing may be inferred, the Hiitory is not eafily to be rejected. 4. The Perfons who write the Hiitory are to be diiringuilhed, fome of them have given Evidence of their Ignorance Negligence, Fooliih Credulity, and Liftening to Fables,- others have manifefted great Learning, Induftry, Care to Examine what they nar- rate ,- or are Attefted by others to be Men of Probity, Learning Wif- dom, and Exactnefs : certainly more Weight is to be laid on the one tho living at fome Diftance from the Period he writeth of, than on the other, tho nearer to it. 5. They who live at great Diftance from any Period of Time, may give great Light concerning what was done in it if they do not barely Ailert what they Fancy, nor Meafure the Things of that Period according to the Opinions, Cuftoms, the Dialed: of their own Time ,• as many of the Hiftorians that our Author layeth much Weight on, have done,- but confider Things as then they were Stated and bring probable Grounds, either from the Hiftories written by ere' dible Peri'ons in, or near that Time, or from any other Medium. § 4. J now proceed to the Vindication of our Argument from Hifto- ry, for the firft ChrilHans in Scotland being Governed without Bilhops. Fie miltakes when he faith, that I bring Blondel as a Hiftorical Witneli of this : I mentioned him only, as Citing thefe Authors which affert it Which are, Joan. Major, de gefi. Scotor.lib.2. c.z. Per Sacer dotes & Mona- chos 3 fine Epi/copis } Scoti infidejunt eruditi • and before him, For don Scoto- Chronicon, lib. 3. c. 8. Ante Palladii advent um 3 habebant Scoti fidei Dotfores & Sacrament or um M'mijlratores y Presbjteros Jolnmmodo 3 vel Monachos Kitnm fecfuentes Ecclejia Primitive. It is true, Blondel citeth alio Boet. who was later Se& XI. t ( 271 ; § 4- later than either of them : But what he citeth out of him, feen 'ietb not to be fo much to his Purpofe ,• wherefore I wave that Teftimony. Our Authors Anlwer to the other two Teftimonies is, they were not com- petent Witneifes, living at fo great a Diftance from the Time they fpeak of. To which I Reply., Fir/l, they cannot be efteemed Partial Witnef- fes, being both of them Papifts, and not Presbyterians : and it may be rationally thought, that if they had no fufficient Ground for what they faid, they would rather have either faid what made for the Way they owned, or at leaft fupprelied what they had no good Warrant to alfert, againft their own Way. To this he faith 3 p. 24 y , that the Monks ad- vanced this Fable to gratifie the Topes Defign of Exempting theReligious Orders from Epifcopal Jurijditlion. Reply, This doth not meet with cur Cafe ; for Major was no Monk ; and fo not concerned to tell a Lie to pleafe the rope in that Defign. And for For don ; whatever Temptation he might have., to endeavour the Leifening of the Extent of the Epifcopal Power ,- he would not delign to root out Epifcopacy wholly out of Scotland, ( which this Teftimony tendeth to, for the Period he fpea- keth of) contrary to the univerfal Sentiments of that Church, where- of he was a Member. Wherefore that Confide ration doth no way de- rogat from the Credibility of his Teftimony. Secondly, We have no Ground to think that theie Hiftorians fpake by Guefs., or that they in- vented chis Story ; for the contrary of it cannot be proved : and the thing it ielf is not impoiIible 3 - yea., Sir George Mackenzy, in his Adver- tifement before his Book againft Saint Afaph, maketh it appear, that in our Countrey there were very Ancient Manujcripts, and that the Friefis learned our ancient Hi (lory from the Druids; and he maketh it clear, p. 2. &c. that our Hifiories ( of which that of For don and Major are a part ) being received by the Generality of Mankind, ejpecially by Criticks, Antiquaries, and Hiftorians, ought not now to be called in Quefiion. ' And I muft ftill think, for all that hie hath laid in Oppofition to it, that the Hiftory of our Nation ralleth, if thefe Authors are not to be believed ,• feing without therm, he (hail never be able to make up a Scots Hiftory out of Roman Authors. Thirdly, The fame Author p. 5. iheweth that Men Jatisfe themj elves in mofi things, with the general Belief and tradition of a People • that Manufcripts infer no Mathematical Certainty • but the Authors of them might mi\iake $ that the Hijiories of all Nations are no better founded. All I which fheweth how unreafonable it is to Queftion the Authority of ! thefe Hiftories ; efpecially when none do fc>, but one who is ftrakned with Sea. xi. C 272 ; $ y. with an Argument brought from their Teftimony, againft a Caufe that he is fond of. It is alfo much to our Purpofe, that the Learned Ujher de priword Ecclef. Brit. 808. citeth the fame Paifages, with Approbation • he citeth alfo %aUus defcriptor* Brit an. affirming that Palladius was fent tit Sacerdotalem Ordinem Romano Ritu inslitueret, which we may rational- ly think : was to fet up BiPnops, Alfo the Learned Do&or Forbes Iren. f. 1 p. citeth the fame Paifage of Major, and addeth of his own adeo ut Ecclefia Scoticana plus qtiam 250 anno s erat abfjue Regimine Epifcopali'. and Forbes was Zealous for Epifcopacy. § j. The Teftimony of thefe Hiftorians is fupported by other Hifto- rians, who mew Palladius was the firft Eiinop that Ruled in the Scots Ghriftian Church ; and that Church had Subfifted, and had Govern- ment, and others of Chrifts Ordinances in it,above two hundred years before Palladlus came among them. This is Attefted by Baronius and his Epitomator Spondanus, ad ann t 42.1. and by them taken out of Pro- ffer, fee Spondan. p» 5-92. this is more fully cleared, firfi Vind. p. 4. His Anfwer to this I now confider. He faith, p. 244. that the Control verjie comet h to this, whether Proffer faith, that two hundred years before Pa/la- diuf was fent to the Scots, there was a Presbyterian Church in Scotland this is a ridiculous State of the Queftion, and made by none but himfelf : we affirm that ?roJfer faid, that Palladius was the firfi Bifoop fent to the Scots : and we, aliunde, prove that there was a Chriitian Church in Scotland two hwndred years before that time. Whence the Confequence is clear* that during that Space, the Scots Chriftians had no Bilhops. I mult 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 attemptetht Baronius faith in the fame Place of Palladius^ Quern per- duclum etiam ad Hiberniam Injulam, fed cito mortuum, Probus in rebus eeftis Sancii Patricii fcripfit,diclum eft fuperius . Hibernorum ejuidem Converfonem Deus Sancio 'Patricio refervavit. 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 Tranfcribe this. For it was no ways to the Pur- poie in hand ,• it might as well be fo Conftrufted, that I did not write over all that followeth in Baronius, about Saint Patricks Deicent about his Ordination, his inftru&ion in Divinity, &c. But the Weight of his Objection iyeth in this, that Baronius and Spondanus underftood Pro- ber io, as that Palladius was lent to Ireland ; and not to that part of Bri- tain that we call Scotland* Here the Enquirer giveth me Occalion to re- turn Se^. XL ( 273 ) § ?, & turn the Civility of a good Advice to him,* that he would confider what he Readeth, and what he Citeth out of Authors : for it is againft all Senfe and Reafon, to make Baronius and Spondanus, either mean this iii this Paffage, ( or 10 to underftand Proffer ) of a Million to Ireland, I and not to Scotland. It is to make a flat Contradi&km between their .Meaning and their Words : Whereas they fay, S&ntius Proffer miffum ah Palladium ordinatum Epifcopum ad Scotos • quern pmhiSium ctiam ad HihmU am 3 &c The Meaning then nmft be to our Author, tho he was Mif- fus and Ordinatus ad Scotos ; he was not lent to the Scots, but to Inland, Do not the Words bear it in their very Face, that he was fent to Scot- land, and was their firft Biihop : and afcer he had been there for fome time, he was brought over to Ireland • it is not fmdMiJJus, nor Ordinatus; but Perduclus : his Miffion was to Scotland ,- what Caiuaiity or Defign led him to Ireland, is not told us ,» neither is it Proffer, but Probus that mentioneth his going to Ireland : and that he never was in Ireland, I have f hewed in the Place Cited. § 6. He further endeavoureth to overturn our Argument from Pro- /per, as he is Cited by Baronius • where he attempteth two things, r. To ftew that Palladius in Proffers Senfe, was not the firft Bijhbp, that was in Scotland ', but the fir si Bijhop that 7vas fent to them by the Pope. This he buildeth on Profpers Words, both as they are Cited by Baronius, and al- io are in the Auguftane Copyj the firft are, Bajfo & Antiocho confulibus, ad Scotos in Christum credentes, ordinatus a Ctslejlino Vapa Palladius, primus Epifcopus mittitur. And the other Copy is, Bajjb & Antiocho confulibus, ad Scotos in Lloriftum credentes, ordinatus a Calejlino Papa Palladius, primus E- pifcopus mijjus eft. I fee not what moved him to tranfcribe the Words twice ,• unlefs he fee a Myiiery that others cannot obferve, in the Dif- ference that is between mittitur, and miffus eft • but he will have mitti- tur, or miffus eft, primus Epifcopus to fignifie that he was not the firft Bi- fhop ,• but the firit Bifhop of the Roman Mijfion ; if he be allowed to put what Senfe on Mens Words he pleafeth, it mull be lb: Baronius and Spondanus did not lb underftand the Words,- neither can any Man fo un- derstand them,uniefs his Preconceived Opinion do Darken hisMind,that he cannot fee things as they are. If Vrofper had thought that there were Bilhops in Scotland before, he fhould have fpoken more plainly, and told us, that the Pope lent him to Rale over the Sett $ Bilhops, or, that whereas Scotland was formerly Governed by their own Bilhops ,• the Pope would have them thenceforth Governed by fuch as he fet over M m them. Sea. XI. ( 274 ) .. them. He relleth us of feveral Bifliops fent to other Churches • r ' ' introduce Epifcopacy ; but to bring them in Subjetfion to the 'p 1° This I deny not, ( tho he inftanceth only in dujkm the Monk w lo was fent to England) but this furniflbeth an Argument againft himf If for none of them is called primus Epfcopn of fuch a Nation exceDt 1 ' who was fent to Scotland. Jugufiine is neither called primus MonlchTs nor primus Epijcopus, though, as Beda } hist. lib. j. c . 22. hath i I was ordinandi!* Epifcofus, fi a Gente Anglorum fufciperetur. He fa'H *• • not evident from Profpers Chronicon, whether there was any Formed U * ** z,ed church in Scotland, when PaSadius was fent by CaleiUne ' Tl '" wholly befide the Purpofe : for Profpers Teftimony is not brought "for that End.Is it not enough that it is clearly proved out of Authentxk vo- ters : that the Scots were Chriftians anno i 99y and Palladia came ro them about 451. Now can he imagine, that the Scots Chriftians all that time, were not an Organized Church i if he think that therefore they were Unorganized, becaufe they wanted Biihops, this is to bet the Queftion. § 7. His other Anfwer is not a Refutation of me,but of & felf confeffeth that Chronicon per confutes dige/hm, hatlenus inomn&» s ™\ ronsmiani Chronici editionibus Profferi nomine fubjungitiir. All the C * 1 he hath for denying it to be Probers is, that the Stile differed from what he calleth the true Chronkon, whereof a Fragment onlv neth. He telleth us alfo, that Dodo r Cave faith" that the q^^ 1 " confulare is much Interpolated : but that doth not prove th ous ,• neither doth it derogate from the Teftimony we brh. unlefs he can fay that it is one of the interpolations, may^e^F' 1 '^/? in by fome Presbyterian • which if he fay, it will make the Presbyteri ans older than our Author will allow. He quarrellerh that I had f ferted, that the Chrinian Faith was received in Scotland in the be^inn ' ~f the feeond Century; and calleth it a Dream ; becaufe we have no certain R cords of anyProgrefs ofCbrijlianity made in the lfland at that time. He, {hoi M not have been fo confident in this Matter, without Anfwering wl was brought for that Aiiertion, or Dream, whatever he will call T« He flhould have dilproved that Donald was our firft Chriftian K" * .' that he began to Reign anno 199, that Palladia came to Scotland *aiV in SeA. XII. ( .275* ) § i. in all which Space the Scots lived without Bifhops* If I have brought our Chrifrianity any nearer to the beginning of the Chriftian Mra. ; I frail confefs an Error in Calculation, which I deny not that I may readily fall into. What he faith of Squeezing of his Words i I cannot Anfwer, for he neither tells where, nor wherein $ for my Book lying ofen to his Remark* ; the Reader muft judge whether it be fo, or not ; and what Advantage he hath got agiifiil itj the Err@r of my Title Page., putting of in ft§ad of fir m &Urgy> !§ not fueh ii m would repre- lent,' if they do not owne it, he fhould crave Pardon for making it$ if they do, I have not Mifcalled it ; tho i confefs changing his own Word was an Overfight ,• but I hope it is not a Beam % but a Mote that he hath difcovered, by his Critical Skill. SECTION XIL Of Ceremonies, and the reft of the Enquirers Quarrels with the Vresbyterians 3 which have not yet been touched, THe laft Effort made by this Author againft the Presbyterians in his fifth Chapter, is made up of his Effay againft our Opinion about Ceremonies, and other Mifcellany Purpofes, which hardly can be re- duced to one Head : which I fhall confider as his Difcourfe ihall bring them in. Before I Examine his DhTertation, I obferve two things in general concerning it. The firft is, the courfe 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 called^ our Opinion (or rather his own miftaken Apprehenfion of it,- for it is none of ours, as will by and by appear) a filly Theorem, on which he faith, we have broken the Unity of the Ghurch, and filled the Heads and Mouths of People with a thou/and Airy and Unaccountable Fancies : he calls what we fay on this Head, Raveries, and a Labyrinth of Idle Talk, Foole- ries. My other Obfervation is, his odd Reprefentation ©f our Opini- on, which he maketh to be altogether new, and our own : and indeed as he reprefenteth it, it is wholly new, and none of ours, but his own : it Is, that a Significant Kite in the Worfhip of God, not founded upon Divine i»- ftitution, is Superstitious, Unlawful, and Abominable, and fuch as may Jjg 1 " timate a Separation fiom any church, where it is enjoyned ts preferve Order and Uniformity. Againft this I have two Obje&ioris, i. That we did ne- M m 2 ver Sea. xii. ( 276 ; § t> ver condemn all Significant Rites in Religion, even tho they be not founded on Divine Inftitution. Uncovering the Head is a Significant Rite, and we know no Divine Inftitution for it • and yet we ufe it in the Worfoip of God, viz,, Prayer, and feveral other Exercifes ,- and will feparate from no Church becaufe of it. That a Minifter Preach in a Decent Garb, and not in a Fools Coat, is a Significant Rite ufed in Religion, not founded on Divine Inftitution, yet we mall not fepa- rate for enjoyning that. This loofe and indiftinct Way of Refuting an Adverfary, cannot Inftruct, nor Convince any Body. 1 frail not Reta- liate his Harm Words, by giving this Way the Epithet it deferveth. They who write on this Subject with Judgment and Underftanding, ufe to diftingurih three forts of Modes of Mens Actions j that are found in Religion, viz,, Circum 'fiances, ?\ites, and Ceremonies. Cir- cumftances are Modifications of Aclions, as Time, Place, Perfon • or a Circumstance is any thing that accompanyeth an Action which is not of its Eiience, but is ufed with it, relateth to it, and is an Acci- dent, or Adjunct of it: and it may be fuch, either with refpect to the Phyfical or Moral iieeing of the Action : Circumftances ufe to be forted in thefe Memorial Verfes, Qjtis, quid, ubi,quibuS auxiliis, cur, (Jucmodo, yuando. And forma, figura, locus, tempus, Jtirps, J atria, nomen. Circumftance 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 Pubiick or Solemn ) confirmed by Law or Cuftom. In a more large Senfe j it is taken for any 'Action or Thing that belongeth to the Mode or Solemnity of another Action* rather than to the Sub- ftance of it: fuch Rites are ufed in Judicatures, Marriages, Burials Inaugurations, c v c fome of them are Civil, fome Military, &c» and fome alfo are Sacred ; when they are appropriated to Religion. A Ce- remony is a Sacred Rite : the beft Authors that I have feen, whether Heathen or Chriftian, Popith or Proteliant, agree in this, that a Cere- mony is peculiar to Religion : however the Word be ibmetimes, in com- mon Speech, more largely taken. This apply ed to our Purpofe fhcweth that our Author doth widely miltake, when he repjefenteth us as againfr Significant Humane Rites in Religion: we oppol'e oniy thefe of them which are appropriated to Religion, and fo are Religious Rites, or Ce- remonies* He cannot but know that there are many Actions ufed in Religion, which are not Religious § 2. The Sea:. XII. ( 277 ) § 2. § 2. The fecond' Thing thrc I Obferve in his Reprefentation of the Opinion of his Adverftaries, is, that they found reparation on Ceremo- nies impofed to prefer ve Order and Unity*. It is no (o. Let them de- vife what Ceremonies they will (which are not down-right Idolatry ) and impofe them on the mod plaudble pretences they can think on : yea, iet them ufethem as much as they will j we do not think all thisafuffi- cient Ground of Separation from a true Church whereof we are Mem- bers; but if they impofe on us Religious Rites, or Sacred lignincant Ceremonies • fo as we cannot be fuifered to Worfhip God with the Churchy unlefs we either approve them, or ufe them, this we think a juft Caufe of Separation:feing fuch Complyance were our Perfonal Acti- on, and finful in the fight of God. And yet the Separation of them who thus fcruple, is rather a pa dive Separation, than a6Hve °* they are driven away, rather than run away. Let us now hear what he hath to iay in Defence of the Ceremonies, the Queftion about which he hath fo Stated. He will not gather together all our J\a lick Church Worfhiped GOD without Reigious Ceremonies not Inftitut- ed by CHRIST j and 1 hope he will own thefe as Societies of Men, who are to be more Confidered than others* A fett of Arguments. he next bringeth. SeA.XIL ( 278 ) §2. bringeth. 1. 1 'he Light cf Nature teacheth us to Wc-fhipGOD, and all Men have Agreed in this, that Solemn Werfhip eftbe DEITIE ought to be performed in Unity and Society. A. If he make the Confluence ( which he hath Suppreffed ) to be, Ergo } we muft have humane Religious fignificant Ceremonies j we deny this Confequence, as not having a fhadow of Reafom Again, if this Argument have any weight, humane Ceremo* nies muft be neceftarie : And GOD cannot be Worshiped without them : and all the Presbyterians are not only Defective in their Worfhip ; but there is a Nullitie in it through want of fuch Ceremonies : which looketh more like Reverie than any thing he" can Charge us with. 2. Saith he, This publick Worfliip fliould be freed and JLflahlifljcd by the Wifdom and Authority of Competent Judges i as to the Manner and Method. Anf, i. Are the Manner and Method of Worfbip Religious fignincant Ceremo-i nies? The Method is a Circumftance^ neither Rite nor Ceremonie J for the Manner, it is either fome-what that is common to Religion, and'j other Publick and Solemn Actions ,• and it confifteth in fome civil Ritesj; therefore ufed in Worfbip becaufe they have by Cuftom, Obtained inl other publick Solemnities : this manner of Worfhip is not to be Deter-! mined by the Wifdom and Authority of any particular Judges • but the Tacite Confent of the Nation bringeth it in by uiing it in all fuch A&ions : So in the Apoftles time, for a Man to Prophefie -with his Head uncovered, and to wear long Hair 5 was a Manner of Worfbip not deter- mined by any Council, but brought in by civil Cuftom,andfo made de- cent, that it was a fault to do other ways : fo it were a fault among us, for a Minifter to Preach in an Antick and ridiculous Garb, which Cu- irom hath made fuch. Or the manner of Worfhip is fomething that is pe- culiar to Religious Worfhip,-and in that cafe it is Religion,or Worfhip it felf; being Defigned,that by it GOD may be Honoured: tho it be aModc of that Species of Worfhip: ( V. Gr. the Crofs is aModeofBaptifm )yet it is a piece of Worfhip it ferf; being devifed for a Sacred fignification,andi being peculiar to Religion: this fort of Manner of Worfhip muft be fixed and) Eftabli&ed by the Authority of CHRIST, neither do I know any lowen Authority of any Judge that is Competent for it. §. ;. His Third Argument, or Axiom, is, that we ought to exprefs cur Adoration in the publick Worfhip of GOD } by fuch fignificavt ^igns of Piety, and 'Devotion, as are known in that Nation where we live, to expre/s our Reverence^ and Efieem. The former Diftin&ion will eafily (hew how little this will make for him. If he fpeak of natural or civil Rites 7 that is, A&ions,or Geftures, Se6t. XII. ( 279 ) |. Geftures, or Things, that Nature or civil Cuftom hath mads fo r xp:.;i~ five; we yield all that he faith, but if he mean Religious Pates, or Ce- remonies ; that is, fuch Things, Actions, or Geftures as have no place, nor are not lookt on as fo Expreffive, in any other Solemnity but in Re- ligion ,- I deny his Affertion : for what ever Cuftom hath crept into a Church or Nation, which is peculiar to Religion i and tho it be never fo well known in the Nation that the Church hath introduced it into Worftiip meerly by her own Authority; So as it is neither made decent by Nature, nor by Cuftom, in other Solemnities or Actions ; nor en- joyned 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 Worihipj Nature hath made them Expreffive: alfo a grr^e and decent Garb; becaufe civil Cuftom hath made that fit. Alfo ufing Water in the Baptifm, and Bread and Wine in the LORD'S Supper ; becaufe Divine In- ftitution hath made them Significant and Ufeful ; but the Crop in Bap- tifm, the Surplice, &o we cannot allow, becaufe their' Signification and Ufe in Religon arifeth from none of thefe ,• but only from Mans will. His Fourth Affertion is, thefe fignificant Signs being indifferent in their Nature 0Te 'variable according to the Age er Country with whom we have to do ; md may be Changed by the Authority and Wifdom of our Superiors, as oft as there is (sufficient Re a fen ,• of which they only are the Judges. Other Ceremo- nialifts ufe to Plead for the Churches Ceremonie-making Power with a little more Caution and Limitation ,• fo as they are careful to Shut the Door againft the Popifh Ceremonies : Some becaufe of their ineptitude, the Bulk of them, becaufe of their Number, being a Burden: but this Author is troubled with no fuch Scruples, or Fetters, he fetteth the Door as wide open as the ?ope, or any Church-Rulers ( yea, or Rulers of the State ) pleafe to have ft : no other thiiig 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.fuppofeth; but this is not to Inftrucfc, but to Hood- wink the Reader : for he mould have Diftinguiuied the Nature of a Significant Ceremonies : It hath a general Nature, as it is fuch an Action, V* Gr. the Motion of the Finger, whereby the transient Sign of the Crojs is made on the Fore-head of a Child ,- let that pafs for indiffe- rent. It hath alfo a particular Nature, as it ftandeth in iuch Circumftances, viz. as it is appointed to be annexed toBaptifm ,• as it is Stated in Religion, and appointed to it : and as a Religious Signification for a Spiritual Sect XII. ( 280 ) § %j 4> Spiritual end is put on it, and all this., not by CHKISTS, but by Mans Authority ,- we deny it to be indifferent in its Nature, while it is thus Considered : as it muft needs be in this Debate. But fuppofe we (hould allow an Jndifferencie to be in the Ceremonies, as they are humane Actions to be ufed in Worlhip,- it is faid without all Warrant that our Superiors may Dctermine 3 and take away thh indifftrencie^ and Chanve their Injunctions about thefe AcUons whtn 3 and as often as tkey fee Reafrn [i> to do- tho no Body elfe can fee any fuch fteafon. This is to make our Superiours abfolute, and to give- them an arbitrarie Power, in thefe things that we can make appear to be parts of Religion ,• and which himlelf cannot deny to have a great influence on Reiigion,and in which it is nearly .concerned. 1] elide to fay that Superiors may Determine every thing that is in its Nature indifferent, wherein Religion is concerned is to open a Door to fo many Im portions as might make Gofpel Worfhip a greater Yoke than that which the Jewiih Church was not able to bear,- as the Apoitle faith, AGs 1 f» 10. For Circumirances of Aciions are innumberable, and few of them are Determined and Enjoyned by the LORD. We know the Church may determine the Actions in and about Woriliip, which are not Determined in the Word, and yet muft be Determined : but that (he may Determine what ever (fie thinketh .fit, is not to be Admitted. § 4. He telleth us, p. 1 52. that it is imfojfible to make Objections again]} the decent vifible Motions of the Body in publick Worship which may not be improved againH the vocal ExpreJ/ion* of the Tongue* If he muft be allow- ed to Determine what Motions of the Body are decent,- this his AfTer- tion could be not Oppofed : but there are who call molt of thefe Bodily Motions decent, even in Worlhip, which are Learned at the DancingSchoel: which yet it were hard for the Church to Enjoyn: Wherefore thefe Motions that were made decent in Worlhip by Nature, by civii Cuftom other grave and ferious Actions, or by Divine Inflitution, we make no Objection againlt them, but blame them who neglect them i but for Motions that Men will call decent, without ground from any of thefe, we make Objections { whichyer have not been fufficientlyAniwered j a- gainit their being Injoyned in VVorfbip, which he lhaii never be able to Improve againlt all the Vocal Dxprelhons of the Tongue. He faith we allow ail thefe. What he nieaneth by fo faying, I cannot Divine, we allow Vocal Expreflipns, and Bodily Motions too, that fuch of them .as are fit (hould be ufed. But we do not allow that the Church, by her Se6t. XII. ( 28r ) § 4 her own Authority, without fuch Warrant as is above-mentioned,, ftould enjoyn her Determinations either in the one or in the other. I hope he hath no ill meaning when he faith Nature led m at firfi to the Worjhipof the DEITIE. I think Revelation had as early, and as effectual a hand in it, after the Fall. I confefs Nature alone will lead Men to Worfhip the DEITY ; but that WorJhip will not be fuch as even this Author will think futable to Gofpel Purity ; but will have worfe Mix- tures than thofe that we Contend about. He concluded!, that the Re- wtrence we owe to GOD, muH needs bring along with it theje outward Signi- fications of r effect that are made Decent by Luflcm and Authority , to wbofe Decifun alone GOV left thefe exterior Rituals of WorJhip. Thus he ftili en- deavoureth to lurk under ambiguous Exprefiions : we confefs the Decifi- on of fome exterior Rituals in Wodhip is left to civil Cuftbm : and ci- thers to Divine Authority : but that the Decifion of any Rituals in Worftup is left to Church Cuftom, where the Thing hath no Decencie but in Religion; or to Humane Authority : this is what we Queftion,» and he fhould Prove. He fpeaketh, p, 15-5. of Rites in the Worflrip of GOD ( among the "Jews ) that were only Significations of Reverence and UnU formity which were Hill retained, as they were tranfmitted to them by Patri- archal Cufiom, and Traditions, though only founded on Humane Appointment* But he hath not thought fit to give us any one Inftance of fuch Rites. If he mean Religious Ceremonies ; that is. Actions peculiar to Worfhip J I think he can give no Inftance of fuch in the Jewifti Church, before its great Apoftacie, except thefe that were Inftituted by GOD, and taught in the Law of Mofes. § t 5-. He cometh next, p 9 15-4. to renew the Arguments he had man- aged in his Apology, p. iyy. &c< and were Anfwered, Defi of Vindic. p. 58. He telleth us of a General Medium he had ufed, that there are fe* veral fgnificant Ceremonies mentioned in, and alluded to in the Scripture, which were Traclifed in theWorjhip of GOD under the Patriarchal, Jewijh,and Cbrifiian ♦ 277. is left naked, and J ft't te of all fuch Arguments 3 as might excufe the Ordination of other For- € ' It Churches. And he doth more than infinuate that Presbyterians have no Ordination. His Arguments ( fo far as I can pick them out f his Difcourfe ) are, 1. Ihey were under no necejfity to feparate from their Bifhops in the IJk of Britain, A. 1. Want of B^ihops might be the fame Excufe for the want of Epifcopal Ordination, that it was to other Protectant Churches for whom he pleadeth it: they might have had Bifhops if they would, in France, Geneva, Switzerland, &c. as well as we might. 2. The Neccffity lay in this, that we thought, ( and (till muft think, till he, or fome elfe, initru& us better) that Biihops ought not to be in the Church. 3' He fpeaketh of [eparating from our Bijhops in the Ifle of Britain : that plainly inlinuateth, that not only the Biikops in the Churuh of Scotland are ours, but the Bifhops of England aifo, and that we are under their Jurifdi&ion ,* as fome of them have plea- ded* this from a Minifter of the Church of Scotland, is Unworthy Flattery of that Clergy that he now dependerh on for his Bread. ;. If Minifters in Scotland have no Ordination, becaufe, in want of Bifliops 1 " O o 2 among SeA. XII. f 292 ) 5 l0i IIt among themfelves, they Went not to the Englifl) Bifhops for Ordinati- on, why is not the fame Defedtivenefs imputed to thefe in France, who might have come over to England for the fame End- But the Scots Presbyterians are the Men of his Indignation « and therefore, any Wea- pon that cometh to Hand, muft be ufed to beat them down. Before I leave this Point, I lhall make it evident that the other Reformed who arc without Bifhops, can no more have a lawful Ordination than Scotland hath, i. Becaufe they might have had Bilhops to rule them • for what could hinder them ? their Magiitrats did not ,• for they are oi Opinion with themielves: except in France, where the Popiih Magi- itrats did not, nor would oppofe that piece of Confotmity with them- feives. Yea, Ihuan. blameth the Proteftants for not fetting up Bilhops : the Primitive Church under Heathen Magiitrats, had 8ilhops in our Authors Opinion : and we think they wanted no needful Church Offi- cer, even in that State. 2. It is plain that the Reformed were againft Epifcopacy, as no Ordinance of Chrift, as I have (hewed : and it is e- vident from Confetfion of the French Church, Art. 30. and of the Bel- gick, Art. 31. which being read in the Synod of Dort } was not difliked by any of the Externi, fave thefe from England. § j i. His fecond Argument that the ±>cots Presbyterians have no Ordination is, It is very uncertain, -whether they retain Juch Solemn and For- mal Words 3 when they impofe Hands, as exprejly declare, that the Prieftly Power of Administrating Sacraments, and Abjolving Pcenitents, is then Conveyed to him that is Ordained. If there be no juch Conveyance, there is no Ordination • and if the Words made ufe of, doth not plainly and formally fignifie juch a Tower, then there is no fuch Power Conveyed. A* This Uncertainty can be no good Medium to prove his Point. For fuch Words may ready be ufed, tho both he and I be uncertain, whether they were ufed or not. Again j how can he prove the necefhty of luch Words.what if W crds be made ufe of, which do really and materially iignifie the thing deligned • tho they do it not formally and plainly ? He is the firit that J have met with, who layeth io much weight on the Form of Words. It is one of the new Opinions he hath broached, while he pretendeth to refute new Opinions. Againft it I thus argue, 1. No Words are enjoyned in Scripture.* which muft needs have been, if the Nullity of Oidination and confequently of the Ordinances Adminiftred by fuch Minilrers had been the necellary Confequent of Words not lurhcientiy formal and plain. What a fad Uncertainty and Confuiion tbould follow on thin Neceftty sea. xii. ( 293 ) § it. Neceflity of fuch Words? not unlike that which, in the Vepifh Church, followeth on the Opinion of the Necefftty of the Priefts Intention in his Administrations, i Can he tell us what Form of Words the Apoftles ufed,when they Ordained Minifters^ how plain and formal they were? if Uncertainty about that Nullify the Scots Presbyterian Ordination, it will by good Confequence, make void all the Ordinations of the Apoftoiick Church : I am fure he can give us no Accouut of their Words from any Authentick Records. 5. In the Administration of Baptifm, no Church that I know of, ufeth Formal and plain Words that exprefs either Admiffion into the Church, or Communication of Chrhlian Priviledges, or Covenan- ting with GO 3, or oar Renouncing the Devil, &c I am fure. I Baptije thee in the Name cf the Father, &c. are not Formal, plain . Words, to exprefs thefe Things ,• tho I doubt not but that they Include them ail ; and if Baptifm be valid without fuch a Form of Words, why. not Ordination aifo ? He faySj p. 278. that there are many of their "Number in the Weft, who think Jmpofition of Hands unnecejjarie. I fuppofe he hath no Perfonal knowledge of this : and he floould be fure of his In- formers before he cait fuch a Reproach on his Brethren : for my part, I know no Minifter in Scotland, Weft, Ea(i ; South, or North, who pro- feffeth 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 156^ C» 6. Q^ick. Synod. j>. 62* but I far rather agree with Mr. Firm'm^ who hath Written a Treati'e to prove the Neceiiity o£it. He inferred.! likewife, p. 279. from what he had Difcourfed, that -we have ns Orgaaical . Church. We are not afraid of his Cenfures : we can Prove;, not only that we have the Eifentiais of Ordination ,• but that, for the Manner of it, it is nearer to the Gofpei Pattern than what is Pra&ifed in that Church which he owneth. 1 find him to be of the fame Sentiments with that . Bi/hopin England that was mentioned to him, who faid of a Presbyte- rian Minifter that he was no better than a Mechanick, tho he had never been Bred to any Art but the Liberal Arts, and had Presbyterial Or- dination. It is ftrange that he iliouid Infinuate, that we. derive our Vomer from the People : he cannot but know that we Difown that Principle : but Calumniare auda&er, ah^uid adbarebit. t he hopeth that fome will . believe what ever evil he faith of us. §. 12. His next Controveriie is about the Presbyterian Church Difciplimi which he had moil Abuiivly and faifly Reproached, 4polog, />♦ 22, 23-. and. Sea. XIL ( 294 ) § t 2 . and was Checkt for fo doing by a Modeft Anfwer, Def Vindlc* p. ij In which that which is moft Material he wholly pattern over : banging fome what like an Anfwer to Tvo or Three Things. It was asked. whal is that Difcipiine of the Antient Church ( which he wijhetb were Re- tt or ed ) -which is not either the fame with ours, or far more (trici and Severe t He Anfwereth that he never found fault with our Di/cipline for its beinv ftriS • hut for being faciicufly Traumatical, and endlefly Inquifitive, and from its having no Tendency to ^difie the GhriBian-Church, or to Reclaim wicked People. What can an u 1 by ailed Reader underftand by thefe Words but that the Man- is angry, and hatcth the Presbyterians, and their Way: and would fain c^ft Dirt on them, if he could find it# Thefe indefinite and grofs Accufations rauft either be Proved, that thus the Presbyterians do Manage the Difcipiine of the Church ,• and this muft be in many Inftances, and many Minifters and Eiders ; and all this well Attefted • or the Man who thus Writeth muft pafs for ^Slanderer, rather than a Dif futant. Our Difcipiine we Manage by the Rules of the Word, and the Principles of found Reafon ,- we do not Indulge Sin in thefe of our own Way ,• nor medie with Things that are without our Line : nor do we enquire into Scandalous Sins till they become fuch, by being openly known : and if Oecafion be given for Enquirie, and nothing be found we Deiift, and leave Secret Things to GOD, to whom they belong * for the Tendency of our Exercife of Difcipiine, we are fure it is for Edil fication ; and we can make it appear that fometimes it is Bleifed with Succefs ,- and if it Irritate fome, or Harden others, or have no Fruit on many, we Lament its but are not to be blamed for it,- for the fame Thing may be laid of Preaching the Gofpel, and that in a Commendable manner. I Deny not but that fome are (hort of that Dexterity that others have,- and that there is Imperfection in the belt of us : and if rhev rhat blame us can fay otherways of their own Church, either they are ftrang- ly Deluded, or the World is generally Deceived about their Way. He commenceth a new Debate, p. 28;. about Non-refjhnce which he had raifed, Apolog. p. 20, and yet waved, and of which very little was faid Def of Vindic p. 16. he now refumeth the Debate, and talketh more freely than before ,- being behind the Curtain, and not in Hazard of Ceniure. I was then unwilling, and am ltiil more (o, to medle in that Matter ; both becaufe it is a Controuerhe that belongeth to the Politicks rather than to Divinity ; and Lawyers are fitteft to Mannage it. /Mfb becaufe it is not now between VreUuji* aud 'Presbperiansi the Generality Sed, XII. ( 29 $• ) % 12. of both having of late years Agreed in what is Incoiififtent with the Fre- latical Dodrine that was Current fome years ago. § 13. Another of oar new Opinionshz will have to be, f, 289. that they ( the Presbyterians ) abhorre and ca[i off all Eftablijhed Forms and Rules in the Wcrjlnf of GOD, &c. we have under this Head a parcel of themoft Falfe and Impudent Aiiertions, in Matters of Fad, and the molt unjuft Calumnies., that ever the Prefs groaned under. And' it is a wonder that a Perfon pretending to Conference, or to C hriftiamty, could give fuch Scope to his Pa (lion, 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 Afferteth without any Attempt to give Evi- dence for what is AfTerted. I Deny not but that there may be found fome few among the People that own Presbytery, who through Igno- rance, and a miitaken Zeal, run into fome of thefe Exceffes that he Taxeth : but I know none who are Guilty of all that he Imputeth to us, fine difcrimine : and I am fure the more Sober and Intelligent fort of Presbyterians, abhorrerh many of thefe things that heChargeth them with. He AiTerteth that the Presbyterians of Scotland abhorre And cafi cff all Erfablifhed Forms and Rules in the Worfoip of GOD. I Challenge him to Prove what He faith : it is a palpable Falfhood. For, l. We neither abhorre nor call: off the Form of Sound Words, I mean the Scriptures of Truth, recommended by the Apoftle for us to hold, «x* (I '- 1 Him. i v 1;.' nor do we abhorre or rejed the Form of Baptizing, and Adrnini- ftring the LORD'S Supper,- nor of Bleffing the People at the Difmif- fing of the Aifembly. 2. Even fome Forms that we Reject, as needles,. and therefore unfit to beufed in tins ftate of the Church, yet we do not abhor them ; fuch as Forms of Prayer, we think they were both Law- ful, and neceffarie, when the Church was not Provided with Qualified Minifters: yet we think they fhouid now be laid afide, when they are not fo needed : as a Man mould not ufe Crutches when he is well Re- covered from his Lamenefs. 44 To fay that we abhorre and rejed Rules in the Worthip of GOD is beyond ail bounds of Truth, and Modefty. We own, and ufe the Word of GOD as the Rule of Worshiping Him : neither do we abhorre or rejed the Help of Humane Rules which are drawn out of that Supreme and Divine Rule: we have our Direfiorie, and many Good Ails of General- Afemblies, yea, of Synods, and Presbyteries, in their refpedive Diftrids. His next Aifertion is fhanieies above meafure : ions 9 -"> th&tfnce the Re-volution, tkey 1 urn out the Efijcofal €lergy out of their Living if they retain any of the Ancient forms, tho never fo Jhcrt, Catholkk, or Qrth ScA. xir. ( 296 ) § I4 . Jox. Pray Sir, when was this done , by whom, where, or to whom? none of them were ever Turned out of their Livings on thefe heads, ei- ther by Church or State • and none by the Church except for Ignorance Error in fome Great Point of Faith, fupine negligence, or Scandal in Things that are not Controverted among us whether they be Sins or not. Jt is true, Uniformity, even in thefe little Things, is required of thefe who will joyn with us, be Received into Minifterial Communion and have a Share of the Government of the Church with us ( and much Tendernefs, and Forbearance hath been ufed even in thefe, for fome time ) but they who think not fit to Joyn with us, are fuffered to follow their Minifterial Work in their Pariihes, and Enjoy their Livings, with- out fuch Uniformity with us, as he Taiketh of. And if we had Requir- ed 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 periifts in his falfe Affertions, while he faith, the Epifcopal Clergy are Enjoyned to forbear the LORD'S Prayer, Reading the Holy Scriptures, in their AJJetnblieS 3 the Apojiolick Creed, and the Doxology. This is far from any Semblance of Truth : no fuch Prohibition was ever given. He in- iifreth a little in Pleading for the Ufc of fix? LORD'S Vrayer.but taketh no Notice of the State of the Queftion about it, as it hath been Propofed by his Antagonift. His Bufinefs feemeth to be, not fo much to Convince as to Accufe. It is Falfe that we have Banned that Prayer. We duely ufe it as a Directory, and Pray according to it ,• we Teach it to our Catchu- ■ wcni, we do not j udge, nor Blame any Man for uiing the Words : and if he can iliew us a Command for uiing them, we mall Obey it. He faith, it was Enjoyned by CHRIST to his Difciples. If he mean, that the Words mould be Recited, we defiderate the Proof: nor do we find that any of the Apoftles, in their Publick Adminiftrations fo ufed it. It is true, the Presbyterians formerly ufed it ,• and if they mould do fo Hill, I mould not Reclaim : but I know that his Parties making it their Skib~ Ifoleth, together with Conviction of the Indifferency of lb uiing it, gave the firft Occafion for difuiing it. It is an unaccountable Fancy, that the Omijjion of thefe have no 'tendency but to promote Atbeifm: this is the general Gent of the Partie concerning what ever is out of their Road. As this his Aiiertion is moft unreafonable, and groundiefs in it ieif,- there being other means far more Effectual to keep Out Atheiim than the Ufe -of thefe Forms can be tu^poied to be; fo Common Gbfervation and Experience Se#. XII. ( 297 ) f 14. Experience flieweth, that the Atheifm that we all fhojild I ament, h no more vifible, nor common, among that Party of Chriftians who do not ufe thefe Forms, than among them who are fond of them. I can draw no other Conclufion from what follows, p. 290, 291. but that the Au- thor was, when he Wrote thefe Things, in the "Paroxifm that he profcf- fed to be in when he Wrote another Book, . provocked to the Inde- cency of Pajfion, to fee his beloved Forms neglected. Hence he telieth US of the Madne/s and Dreams of idle People, and the Humour of Schifmi bin- dring the Holy Scriptures to be Read in the A^emblies &s heretofore, whereas it is evident ( and the Reverend Mr. Boife hath made it appear, on oc- cafion of the like Accufation againft us by the Bifhop of Londonderry ) that the Scripture is more Read in ourCongregations,and People is made more acquained with them, than heretofore in the Epifcopal Meetings. I mean where theOrders of our Church are obferved: for them who Read but a verfe or two for a Lecture, I cannot Anfwer for their Practice s and we make the People underftand the Reading, as Ez,ra did, Neb. $. 5-. which was not done in the Epifcopal Church of Scotland : but Men who had no Authority, nor were Teachers in the Church, were fet up to difpence this Ordinance of CHRIST, the Reading of the Scripture in the Congregation. ■ He next blameth us ( under the fame Epithets of Ma.dnc.js, Dream* j Humour of Schifm ) that when Children are Baptized, the Parents are not avowed to know into what Religion or Faith they are initiated • and this, becaufe they are not made to repeat the Creed, J rlrft ask him, what Faith do the Generality of Parents of his Partie underftand their v. hil- dren to be Inflated into by their Repeating that which we call the ApoHles Creed, which they cannot underftand by our Conduct : feing fome of them underftand it not ,• and feing it doth not fufiriciently Difcriminate the found Faith which we own, from Sociniartijm, Foperie, Antinomidni m f and feveral other grofs Errors. Next, I Anfwer, that it is falfe and Ca- lumnious that heAfferteth: they are not only allowed to know the Faith that their Infants are Baptized into • but pains is taken io far as Mini- fters can, to make them underftand that Faith.* and they are So- lemnly taken Engaged to adhere to that Faith, and to breed their Chil- dren 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 Confeilion of Faith of this Church,drawn out of the Scripture. If any have no other Notion of Baptifm but that?? is an Engagement to be a Covenant er (which he would have us believe, tho I am perfwaded he knoweth better things.) i J p we Se&. XII. (298; . we give no ground for fuch a Thought, but endeavour to prefent thines Otkwvvife to them. ° 5 1 5*. He faith we are fo unfixed and variable, that not two in the Nati- on in publkk follow the fame Rule, &c. This is a horrid Abufine of the Reader, and can have no other Defign but to make the Presbyterians odious where they are not known j for in Scotland, even among his own Party, the contrarie is well known. But all this Noife is/ becaufe we have no {tinted Liturgie : without which we follow the fame K ules both Divine and Humane,as I (hewed before, we all teach the fame Truths • and Adminifter the fame Ordinances ; and in the fame manner except that we ufenoc the fame Words s wherein yet we do not ftudie a diver fitie, as he injurioufly AiTerteth.^ His Apology for the Epifcopal Church v " 4 "" *x v.**, U x*~ M .~«.~x~j ^ ^^^wxwxj . ^^l j. cuii iuic ucicner tne greater! nor the beft part of them did io : but what ever be in that both o I '' fide, and on ours, they who did not tie themfelves to the fame W^ 15 at ail times, managed their Work with as much flainefs, gravity J S ' kerence of their Words, and left the People as little in the Dark as^th Iva whom he fo much Commendeth on thefe Accounts. His calling P ing without a fet Form, Rambling, and Afciibing to it no Order n 0r ^e' fe'ndence, but what is caujed by the heat of the Animal Spirits ; J nep-1 /)- ih«wing a Temper of mind that is to be pitied rather than Redargued hv Argument. He^waveth the Debate about (tinted Forms, p. 2c? & w iy u any who Readeth this Difcourfe mull underitand that he intendeth to Difpute by Scripture, or Reafon, againlt him whom he Oppofeth 1 ** this,but to Rail at him: And becaufe I intend not to engage with h' that Weapon, I (hall wave it too. Yet he bringeth Calvmes TeU-im" ^ for the Preference of a well C 'ompofed Liturgie g out of one of his F '{\^ which he fo Citeth, as no Man /ball hnd it, unlefs he happen to*! the fame Edition of Calvines Epiftles that he ufed ,• which J have ^^ had he named the Epiitle by its Number, or the Perfon to whomX^ drelTed,! might have found it by fome pains. I oppofe Cahine to c I vine-liQ faid of the Englijh Liturgie (and i fuppofe that will p a f s w i t h *" Author for a Well Compojed one ) that it had in it fome toller abiles i » He bringeth fome what that looketh like Argument, even in this D h *** that he waveth. The great things of Worship is not to be left to the IV' T^ And Difcretion of every private Adminijlrator. A. This is provided ap # Sea. XII. ( 299 ) § if. by the Churches trying Men well before they belntrufred : by fetting the Word, and the Ads of the Church before them,, as their Rule and Dire&orie, and by Watching over them, and Correcting them for mif- management. Thefe are GOD'S ways of preventing Inconveniency ; a fiinted Liturgie is a way of Mans devifing, without any Warrant, or Footftep of it in the Scripture. Another of his Arguments : every Trieft isnot ivife enough to manage an djfair of fuch great Importance. A« 1 hat is fo true that none is wife enough for it, as the Apoftle faith, 2 Cor. 2, 6. And if fo, who is fit toCompofe a Liturgie for others,- which all Men muft be tyed to ? On this Confideration, the Church ought to chufe the fiteft Men fhe can get ,- and when that is done,- both the weaker, and ftronger Sort iiiould beware of leaning to their own Wit and Parts in that Great Work ,- and mould take the Word of GOD for their Di- re&orie, and Depend on the Spirit of GOD for His aiSfience : and this is a better Remedy of the Evil feared than a fiinted Liturgy is ,- and hath more Countenance in the Scripture, Rom. 8, 26. Another Argument. though a Minifier jhould be very Wife i yet at all times he U not in the {ante Temper , and it is not reafonable that the Worjliip of GOD jlwuld be lefs decent •when his Intellectuals are clouded than ivhetl be k in perfecl health, A« I. if this Argument have any ftrength, we muft have a Form of Preaching, as well as of Prayer ,- and always tyed to it: for a Difordered mind may make fad 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 muft have another Remedy againft it in both, than a Liturgie. 3. I confefs a leffer Degree of de- cency in the Worfhip of GOD than &ould be, or hath been, is never reafonable : 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 fo clouded^ whether by a Hypochondriack Diftemper,or by Drinking too liberally ,or by any other Sicknefs,- as that it is probabie to make the Worihip of GOD to be unduely Managed, that Man ( what ever have been his Wifdom or Abilities ) mould not be fuffered to Officiate at that lime ; whether with, or without the Book : I am fure there was never any Church, Ancient or Modern, which appointed a Liturgie for fuch Men; nor to countenance the Putting, or Keeping, fuch in the Sacred Fun- ction* 5. There is another Caufe of Worihip being better or worle f p 2 Managed Sea. xii. ( *oo ; § [6. Managed at diverfe times, which our Author hath not thought on, nor will his Litui gie ferve for a Remedie of it ,• that is the better or worfe Frame of his Soul, with refpe& to Heavenly things, and the Decrees of the Prefeiice and Aids of the Spirit of GOD : therefore,however unreafo- nable it be, yet it is manifeit, that there is not the fame meafure of De- cency, and Spiritual Lufter on the W orihip 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 prefence : I know this will be flouted by fome : but the Apoitle himieif had his unuiual Jnlargements, 2 Cor- f. u. and found it needful that the People Ihould Pray for afliitence to him, Col. 4. ;. §. 16. He bringeth yet another Reafon : the Jfiritual neccjjlties of the People ought at fill times 10 be equally Provided for* A* 1. That is impoffi- ble for Man to do: unlefs we can find unchangeable Men to be Mini- flers. It is fair if they be always well, and fometimes, if they be tol- lerablly provided for 2. This is the impropereft Reafon that he could have fallen upon ,• for it cutteth the Throat of his Caufe : becaufe the Spiiitul Neceilities of the People are very various : diverfe People have diverfe Neceflities ; and the fame Perfons Needs may be far other, or greater, at one time than at another : they know little of the Spiritual Hate of Souls, who know not this ,• now a fiinted Liturgie can never reach thefe, half fo well as a Miniiter may do, who hath the Gift of Prayer,- and who endeavoureth, as much as may be, to be acquainted with the Cafes of the Peoples bouls. Next, he Pleadeth Uniformity for the ufe of a (tinted Liturgie, which is a weak Argument : for Uniformi- ty in Words ( and that is all that we can have by a Liturgie, which can^ not be obtained without it ) is not fo valuable, if we all fpeak the fame chings what great Matters is it if they be expreft in diverfe Words. A- gain, what heafon is there for the Neceflity of Uniformity in Prayer, more than in Preaching ? which yet our Brethren do not fc.njoin. That the Forms he mentioneth are the Tefieras if Uniformity, is an abiurd and groundlefs Afiertion : there was Uniformity in the Apoilolick Church, and is in our Churches,without them, if he deny this lafl, let him ihew what Diftbrmity is among us, further than in Words, which he cannot fhew to be among his own Partie ,• yea, it is evident that luch Dif- ciepancie is in their W orihip, in one Church fiom another, that he can- not Charge us with the like : for the Cathedral Service, and that in Countrey Churches, are more unlike to one another, than the Latter of them Sea. xii. ( m ) i. 17. them is to the Meetings of fonie Difienters. He next Argueth, that a Liturgie obviates Mens venting their own Conceits. A. This is far more readily and frequently done in Preaching than in Prayer : and there- fore will either Prove that free Preaching, without a Book, fhould be Reftrained ; or it Proveth nothing at all And indeed the way to pre- vent Inconveniency in both, is not a Liturgie , but to be careful that none but well Qualified Men be in the Miniftry, and Watchfully to look to the Adminiftrations of them who are in that Office. § 17. Our Author, p. 295-. & feq. Haleth in a Difcourfe by Head and Ears, without Occafion given, or Coherence with what he was up- on, concerning Superftition ; 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 Hypothefis, he Declaimeth againft the Presbyterians as the moftSuperftitiom, yea, the mofi AtheiBical Men in the World. This is an eafy Way of Running down any Adverfary whatfoever. Whether a Groundlefs Scrupulofity, either in Matters of common Practice, or in Matters of Worship, be SuperJHtion or not, I know is controverted by fome: I (hall not now enter into this Debate ; knowing that it iffueth. into a mere Logomachy. 1 ho I think Super fiition, being a fort of falfe Worflsip, or a bin againft the Worihip of God, in Stricknefs of Speech, nothing Ihould be called Super ftition^ but that whereby People intend, or pretend to Worihip God. Scruples about what is not Worihip may be very Sinful, becaufe Unreafonable and Groundlefs, and yet not be Worihip, nor Super ft it ion. If he can prove that our Scrupling the Holy Days, Liturgy and Ceremonies, is without all Ground, arid that thefe things are well Warranted, and Approved of God ,• and that there is no Sin in Uiing them : we ihall ciiange our Opinion, and fubmit. to what Cenfure he Ihail put on us. But while that is not done, ( as I am fure it hath not hitherto been performed ) we regard little his Railing Accufations that he rilleth his Pages with. Moft of what he here Loa- detn the Presbyterians with, may be evidently, and with good Eeafon, Retorted on himfelf, and his Party. For Jnitance, he faith when we re- prefent the Deity } as one that is pleajed with the Imaginary. Notions that we Gr oun die Jly 'entertain of things • this is Super ft it ion, that Poyjons the Soul and all its Faculties. Now whether Presbyterians or Prelatiib be more guil- ty of this-, let the Reader Judge. The one think that God is pleaied with nothing as Worihip,. but what He hath Prefcribed in His Word : And that Hehateth.Will-Worlhip, and all Notions about that, which have Sect, XII. ( ;o2 ) «. 17. ] have no Foundation in Scripture. The other think God is pleafed with \ a great many Things that Men have have Devifed for Adorning His I Woriliipj and for an Order and Decency that they imagine to be iuchj I but the Lord hath never declared it to be fuch. Whether of the two 1 entertain thefe Groundlefs Notions of the Deity, which are the Super- I ftltlon that Tojfoneth the Soul and all its Faculties ? Another Inftance : to I fay that \uch a thing is forbidden of God, only because ive forbid it our felves I is to teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men : but to regulate our Acli- I ens i?i themjel'ves indifferent, according to the Prudent Determination of our Su- periourS, cannot fall under that C en fur e. Let us fee whether we, or his own Party be thus guilty. We difowne that we lay of any one thing, that it is forbidden of God, becaufe we forbid it: if we lay of any thing, that God hath forbidden it, and do not prove that it is fo ,• we refute not to bear the Blame of fuch Impiety: but it is manifeft, that his Party ufe fomethings, as if God had enjoyned them, when they can- not prove that it is fo ,• but only the Church hath enjoyned them : they Command People to obey, to Ufe their Ceremonies, they Urge them withRigour,they do morefeverely Ceniure the Neglect of them,than they Punilh Breaking of Gods plain Commands. And yet they cannot (hew, nor do they pretend to, any other Warrant for them, but the Authori- ty of the Church ,• which he calleth the Prudent Determination of our Supe- riors. It were needlefs, as well as endlefs,to take notice of all the Fanta- ftick Notions that lie exprefleth about Superflthn, and h?s Ungrounded Suppositions, that the Presbyterians are of thefe Sentiments, in which he placeth it: what is faid may give a fufficient Tafte of his Way of Re- futing his Adverfaries: only 1 cannot pafs, that p. 29.,. he iniinuateth, that the Presbyterians efkeem the Means more than the End ; and feparate the Ecclefiaflcal Laws from their Subordination and Relation to the Laws ef God. It mult be a itrange Degree of Prejudice, that could feduce him into fuch Distorted Notions. Do we efteem the Means more than the End 3 be- caufe we would have the End, Edification, carried on by Means that God hath Appointed, and that He hath Promifed a Bleilmg to, rather than by Means of Mans Deviling, which have no Promife of a Sleffing or Succefs ? It is not only Conlcience of Plealing God, but Concern for that End, that maketh us fo Careful, that the Means we ufe be Ap- proved of God. Or do we feparate Ecclefiaftlcal Laws, from their Relation and Sabfervlency to the Lau>i of God 1 we are fo fir from it, that we owne, no Lccleiiaitical Laws, which are without the Relation of L ependency on Se<5t. XP. ;'..':(,#>?; § 17, 18. on the Law of God ; or without due Subordination to it: and it is on this Head that we rejed the Church Laws,, that enjoyn Humane Cere- monies peculiar to the Worfhip of God ; becaufe the Church hath no Warrant to make fuch Laws, (if he fay that Hie hath, let us fee it) and becaufe thefe Laws are not Subordinate, but rather Co-ordinate to the Laws of God,fetting up the Churches Inftitutions bcfide his. That the "Negative Scrupulcfity that he mentioneth from Colojf. 2. 21, 22, 23. is a great Evil, we doubt not: and if he will call it Super Hitkn, we will not contend about Words ( tho the Reafon of that Denomination is doubt- ful • the Will-Worftip that is mentioned, being rather to be referred to the' * Worshipping of Angels, fpoken of v. 28. which is there, and alfo in' Conjunction with this Will-Wor{!up, called Humility • that is a vain Shew of it, ) But nothing of this maketh for his Purpofe, un'efs he can prove that our Scruples about the Ceremonies, are wholly Ground - l.fs as thefe Scruples were ; and as the reft of the Abftinences are, that he mentioneth,-wherefore all that he,at great length Difcourfeth on this Head, is wholly impertinent, if he can prove the Ceremonies to be Excellent and Vftful, as he infinuateth, p 297. our Caufe cannot ftari before him. & 18. He undertaken! to prove our scruples to be more dangerous "h n thefe in that the Scruples there mentioned, had a Shew of Wifdcm ,• but h Presbyterian Scruples have more dangerous Conferences, in that they con- 7 t j J0 f e Solemnities of Religion, which have a direB Tendency to promote Re- in all its moH Excellent Branches, The import of this Ratiocinate rion \ are the Way of the Ceremonialifts is right, Ergo, the Presbyterians to be condemned. All this is purely Begging of the Queftion, We deny v fuch Tendency to be in the Ceremonies ,• and cannot be perfwa- ded of what he faith, by his Confident AiTeverations, and Big Words. If I could find any thing in his following Pages, that is worth Anfwe- • an d hath not been already Anfwered, ( for he repeateth ad naufe- an i) I. fhould confider it. The Perfons that he knew, who werefo Fear- ful and Superfluous, that they would not Break up a Letter on Sunday, we do not approve • nor do our Scruples Countenance fuch Mifapprehenfi- ons -if we meet with any fuch, ( for I know none of them, but rather obierve that an undue Liberty is taken generally, on the Lords Day ) we fhall endeavour to inftruCt them better. He telieth us, p. ;o2. the fifth' or frxrli time, that Superfiition leadeth to Atheifm^ and addeth, that I the V offer of Prejudice, and Faction, it maketh a Man Dejpife the Qmnifci ence. Sect. XTT. ' C ;o 4 ) § ^ ence of God, and to Vtnture upon the mo(l Darin? Impieties, Tho I will not be an Advocat for Superflition, nor for Ignorant or Groundlefs Scruvulo- frty. vet this his Affertion> 1 cannot underhand : for it is the Apprehen- sion of Gods Omnifcience, that maketh thefe 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 juft Ground, that maketh People Venture on the moft Daring Impieties ,• it is becauie they arc Stout Hearted, not becauie they are Fearful Hearted. And how Faclim cometh in to make up the Scene, I cannot fee; but that Presbyterians whom he hath concluded to be Fa&iotts, muft be the Perfons to be thus Loaded. His Probative Inftance of what he had faid, is yet lefs Ac- countable. It is, that the Covenanters , when they in their full Career a- gainji the ancient Con/litutionS of Church and State, ( thus his Prejudice a- gainfr them, doth reprefent them to him, and his Hatred of them, ma- keth him fo reprefent them to the World ) with Hands lifted up to Heaven abjured the Primitive Stations : and thefe Stations he highly extolleth • and thinketh the Presbyterians know not what they are, and conclu- deth, that we are bound by the Covenant, never to be prejent at fuch Exercifes of Mortifications, &c* The Stations were their Meetings on Wednefdays and Fridays, for Falling till Nine of the Clock, and for other Spiritual Exercifes. So Albaff>in. whom he citeth, and his Adnotator Keitombellius % Obferv, 16. p. 23, 2 V who alfo telleth us that this they did, primis His faculis, quibus mijeriis & perfecutionibuS undique, & cjuafi pirpctuis fiiparentur. I know no Presbyterian, who either hath Sworn again;!, or Condemneth thefe Stations ; fo far as we have a diltincl: Account of them : have not we, in great Towns the fame thing, on the Matter, with thefe Stati- ons : Morning Exercifes for Conf ertion of Sin, Prayer, and Inftru&ing of the People ,• and that ofener, in fome Places, than Twice a Week, That the Primitive Stations are abjured in the Covenant, is falfly affer- ted : indeed in the National Covenant, or Confeffion of Faith, which was Subicribed by the King, the Nobility, and the whoie Nation, they Re- nounce a great many of the Popes Doctrines, and Practices ; and bis Stations are mentioned among them : but will any Man, who under- itandeth what he faith, or who doth not look on the whoie of Popery as Pure and Primitive, fay, that the Popiih Stations, ( under the prefent Degeneracy of that Church ) and the Primitive Stations, were the fame thing ? the belt Account that I can rind of what now is called Stations among the Papifts, is from Onuphrius Vanvinius, de fiationibus urbis Ro- ma : Sea. xu. ( ?°r ) § 1 8 3 19: *0^; where he confeiieth that their Original is obfeure: he maketh them, in the Primitive Church, to have been Prayers with Standing, in Off option to theft with Kneeling', to which fometimes Fading was joyned, and he fheweth how feveral Popes Limited them., and others appropri- ated them to certain Days s and (heweth how in his time they were fixed to Days ,• and to Churches in the City of Rome 1 as it may be pre- sumed was done alfo in other Churches. He (heweth alfo their Num- ber, viz,, in fourty feven Churches, ninety fix Stations t on eighty three Days, and telleth us of Indulgences granted to thefe Stations by Toft Boniface. This Term may alfo be applyed to their Solemn Proceflions,, for Perambulating any Piece of Ground : wherein they do often Stand at fuch a Crofs, or at fuch a Turning, and Rehearfe certain Prayers. This Supeftition is what is renounced in the Covenant, and it is joy- ned with Peregrinations and fuch other Fopperies. He calleth Superfiition a BaHard Kind of JVbrJhip, p. 305-. but Scrupling at Ceremonies., hath nothing in it like WoHhip_, whether Baftard or Legitimate : how will he then Reconcile this, with Calling our Scruples Suferfiition I The Jewijl) Super Ftitions, the Murdering of A. Bijhop Sharp, the Heathens Super- fit ions, that he hath Confulted Juvenal about, none of thefe touch the Presbyterians ; tho one of them was A&ed by fome who bare that Name, to the great Diflike of the reft of them. He further Argueth, V' %°li 3°^' *^at 7Ve Contend for our own OfinionS, he for the Church and her Gatholick Confiitutions » The fame Arguments the Papifts ufe againft Froteftants .* the Name of the Church is the Shelter that fome flee to| when they have no other Cover for the Nakednefs of their Opinions, We affirm ( and our Affertion is as Probative as his is) that we main- tain the Opinions that we have Learned from the Scripture, and not fuch as we have Groundlefly Chofen for our {'elves. § 19. He next, p. 309. falleth on the Catechifm which is owned and taught in this Church ,- after he hath Loaded us with Servile Condefcen- ding to Popular Fancies, and Leaving the People in Profound Ignorance. This is his Strain, his Geniw, and to be Negle&ed ; his Reproaches, and Praifes are of the fame Value with us. The Quarrel that he hath with the Catechifm, is, it is Unintelligible by the People, ( which were a great Fault if true) and that it is Adapted to ferve the Hypothecs of a certain Order of School Men : he meaneth, as is evident by what followeth, the Dominicans, or Janfenifts, in Oppoiition to the Jejuits : his Grievance lSj our Catechifm is not Pelagian, nor Arminian enough. I (hall free Q q him Sed. XII. ( %o6 ) § i 9m him of a Fear that he expreffeth, f> ; r $> that 1/ /£* Vindicator ( as he calleth him) te& f/6*/e Paragraphs to Taik, he will mo\\ Zealoujly Under- take the Defence of all that Orthodox Stuff, that is Containtd in thtir Publick Catechifms 3 and Write out a whole Syftem to Confute his Adverfary. What- ever be that Perfons Zeal to Defend our Catechisms , as intirejy Ortho- dox • he need not Fear Writing of a Syftem on this Occanon • the Per- lbn he Aimeth at, will be more Sparing than fix, of bis Ink and Paper* and yet more of his Time and Labour : unlefs he fdw more Hazard to Truth, than can arife from this Authors Attempt : and unlefs there were none who could do it to better Purpofe, as there are many : icing he intendeth not to QueBion the- Orthodoxy of the Catechifm, ftho he often Lalheth it that Way by fevere Innuendo's ) but only to Prove its Unintel- ligiblenefi: I fhall engage with him only in that- He Talketh Big of many Inftances which might be brought, wherein our Catechifms are Un- inteUigible ; but he is pleafed to pitch but on one,- which is that Que- {Hon ,• Wherein confifieth the Sinfulnejs of that Estate wherein to Man fell : to which the Anfwer is, the Sinfulnejs of that EJiate whereinto Man fell confifieth in the Guilt of Adams fir jl Sin, the Want of Original Righteoujnels and Corruption of his whole Nature, which is commonly called Original Sin together with all Actual tranjgrejjions which froceed from it. \ fhall Ani- madvert a few Things on this his Effay, before i confider particularly the Proofs of Obfcurity and TJninttlligibUnejs of this Do&rine. 1. Jf J inould yield all that he here propofeth to rrmfelf, he falieth fliort of his Deiignj which is to Reproachthe Wj Presbyterians: for thothey owne that Catechijm, and look on it as one of the beft extant, yet it is not of their Compofure ; it was done by the Divines Alfembied at Weftmlijler, few ofc whom were Presbyterians. 2. Few Men of Senfe who are Concerned about the Promoting of Religion, and the Salvati- on of Souls, wiii prefer it to the Church of Englands Catechijm which beginneth. What is thy Name ; Who gave thee this Name, ejr c . but will owne that there is more found, plain, ufeful Truth, and what is ne- ceffary to be known by the f eople, in our, than in their Catechijm. As might eafily be made appear, if I might Digrels to State a Compa- rifon between them, from the Beginning to the End. ;. We muft not imagine, that whatever is put into a Catechi/m, mud be fo plain that the meaneft Capacity, without Help, can fumciendy underfrand it: for there are Truths needful to be known, which the People muft be helped to underftand, tho at nrft View, they Comprehend them not .* Sea. XII. ( ;o7 ) § 19. not : yea, fomethings muft be taught to all the People, and are necef- fary to be known by Chriftians, which tho they are intelligible, yet are not fo eafily underftood, nor fo fully, as fome other Things, can be, If this Author will take on him, to judge of the Labour of iuch a Grave and Learned Affembly, as was that at Wejlminfter i and conclude, that they Acted Foolifhly, in Propofing Unintelligible Doctrines to the People, let him give aifo his Cenfure of the Apojlolkk Catechijm $ the Subftance of which is fet down Heb. 6. r, 2, where are Matters, that as many Difficulties may be raifed about, as he Starteth on this Quefti- on and Anfwer. 4. I hope he doth not Dream, that no Truths are to be Propoled to the Catechumeni, but Iuch as the meaner! ( yea, or the greateft Capacity ) can fully Comprehend, and Solve all the Difficul- ties, yea, or Underftand all the Debates, that arife in the Heads of Learned Men about them : for then, they muft be kept in Profound Ignorance of all the Myfteries of our Religion, yea, of the Greateft, moft Fundamental, and moft NeceiFary Truths that the Scripture Tea- cheth us. If he were put to Frame a Catechifm fo Qualified, he would find it hard to get Matter for it. He fhould conftder, that the Ufe of a Cateckifm, is not to make the People Polemick Divines at firft Hand, but to Acquaint them with the Pofitive DocMne of Salvation, and to Lay before them Scripture Grounds for Affenting to it. f. The Do- ctrine of this Queftion and Anfwer, is very neceffary to be known, as on other Grounds^ fo in Order to the Exercife of Gofpel Repentance: which is hard to fay any can have, who is wholly Ignorant of Original Sin 3 which is here, as plainly and fully Defcribed, as hath been done by any, in fo few Words. One may be Jealous, that Picking this Quar- rel with the ®atechifm, arifeth rather from Diflike of the Truths here Taught, than from the Obfcurity of it. If he allow Original Sin to be Taught to the People at all, let him try if he can Frame a plainer Que- ftion and Anfwer about it. 6. It is the Care of Presbyterian Minifters, that People may underftand the Grounds of our Religion, as well as may be, not only to lay down, even in the Gatechifm, the Scriptures where fuch Doctrines are Taught, that the Peoples Faith may ftand on that fure Foundation, but alfo they Explain the Cttechiftn, and all the Doctrines contained in it, to them, when they Catechife 3 and fometimes in Preaching: and do not content themfelves, that the People can Re- peat the Words of the Catechifm : and therefore it is no fufficient Obje- ction againft the Cateehifm 3 that any Paffage in it is not fo Obvious to Q q 2 every every Capacity, as might be wifnt. Notwithftanding of all that I have (aid, I do not yield that this, or any other PaiFage in the Catechifm, is Unintelligible by an ordinary Capacity, where Attention, and Dili- gence is ufed, toward Attaining of Knowledge. 7. Tho it were to be wifhed, that all the Lords Feople -were Prophets, and that every one of them were able to Debate for the Truth, and to flop the Mouths of Gainfayers : yet we think it ihould be endeavoured, that f'eople gene- rally Ihouid know the «t/ of thefe Revealed Truths, which are Con- ducive to their Salvation, and to Direct them in the Way of Uuty • and if fome cannot Attain fuch a Meafure of Knowledge in thtm as is Deiireable ; others who are more Docile, (hould not be Deprived of what Advantage they can attain. § 20. Our Author having fet down the Queftion and Anfwer., faith there is nothing in it but is Dark, and altogether beyond the Ccmprthenfion of Illiterate People : yea, that it cannot be understood -without Acquaintance with the Language of the School Men : he calleth it QJouds of Unknown Language : all this is as ealily denyed as it is aiferted, and with far more Reafon : for we can give the Initances 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 Comprifed; who yet know no other Language, but their Mother Tongue. He telleth us that the fir(t Difficulty is 3 ds reatu peccati primi kominisi I confefs if he propofe it thus in Latine, it will puzzle moft of the Vulgar, ( whom he Deipifedi 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 guiity of Adams bin; and can bring Scripture Proof for what they fay, out of Rom, 5-. 12, 14, iy, 16, 1% 18. Our Coun- trey People can uiiderftand, that in that Pallage of Scripture, it is plain, that we are guilty of Adams Sin, and that we are juftified by Chrilts Righteoufnefs : and fo they will tell you, that Scripture holdeth forth the Imputation of both ; and .they underltand what is meant by that hard Word. His next Difficulty is, de pri-vatione juttitite originalis • and lie Complaineth, that the Englifh Word doth not determine, whether it be Privation or Negation : our People can tell, ( and fome are Senlible of it and Weighted'with it) that they have no Righteoufnefs of their own, nor Rectitude in their Nature, that they are neither Born with it, nor can Acquire it, but muft have it from h& are Stronger in the Faith 3 and higher in Authority : of "whom then could it be fo well meant as of the Bijhcp } the Prtefes. A moft ridiculous way of Arguing : For 3 i» It fuppoleth the Queftion, that Bifliop, or the Prafdes Bresbyterii, are higher in Au- thority : which we cannot yield. 2. It can be far better applyed to R x Deacons^ Se&.XIL ( ?i4 ) § 22. Deacons, who relieve them who are ready to PerilL Next faith he : Grotius faw the Epifcopal Authority in feveral Places that the Vindicator* will not allow of. ^. What Grotius faw, I know not, nor am concer- ned to know : Some fancy they fee a Man in the Moon, which others cannot .difcern %. %he AposJ/es might make ufe of Words to fignifie the EpiJ- copal JurifdiBion -which. are not in ufe in our Days j there are fo many Allufions to the Temple and Syonagogue, that -we mufi \now thefe, that -we may he acquainted with ihe Writings of the New Tejiament. A. This Reafoning may infer quidlibet ex quolibet : may be ( might one lay ) the Apoftles by Baptifm, by calling out of the Church., &c. understood fome other thing than we do : at this E.ate Scepticijm about the whole Doctrine of the New Teftament may be brought in more effectually than by laym* afidc Religious Ceremonies of Mens devifing. We know the Apoftles Wrote in Greek i and we know what 'AvriKti&H iignifieth in that Language : if this Author allege that it had then another Signification than now ' he Ihould have Proved it,and not drawn his Conclufion from a May he. And if he thinketh that there is any Allufion here to the Practice of the Temple or Synagogue, he (hould have ftewed it, and not thought us fo tame Animals as to acquiefce in his Guefs, built on a Poffibility, where he cannot ihew fo much as Probability. His Advice hath been followed before it was given, in Reading Grotius on the Places he menticneth • and yet nothing is found that maketh for his Defign, He hath another Ar- gument from the Context ( which yet is the fame above-mentioned and Anfwered ) that the Apofik having in the freceed'wg, v. ( he should have faid in the fome Chryfofi. hath it hits 3%u p«tfA« 3 a d Munitionem. Abulia its £vifi7ta$