MASTER NO. 93-81622-7 MICROFILMED 1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.'* If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. A UTHOR: ANDERSOrr, JOHN TITLE: OF THE CHURCH PLACE: DATE: 1820 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT RTRT TOHR APHTC MICROFORM TARGET Master Negative # Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record Restrictions on Use: "■■VIP VPH^ai mmimmmm^t^immmt ^SJmnrlarso n .' R ev. Joh-n. I .6 6S- 172,1. Thomias Edin. 182.3. Pi-nS. Deferjce of Vha church- oovevnrnerj-l'... of rl-he presbyferi^an in ^rnkwir +o-.. an'^'Apolooy . for Mr. "Rhmd se^para+ino from ■• " ^ " i f ■U— W— H M ■'■!— ■.■■.. -»■.. ■..——. I— l"illllllllWllH.— .iiii.iii, ■■■ ■■■■'» !■ ■*'■ ■iB.iiailM-iiii.aBMlllMiMBMIMl^^ ■'"" "■ ^"W TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: ^.^^_ IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA QL^ I DATE FILMED: JTlZ REDUCTION RATIO: ./^2L D n_ INITIALS X6 RLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUBLICA-rtONS. INC WOODDRIDGE. CT fHtt '»* *. 4Mi BIBLIOGRAPHIC IRREGULARITIES MAIN lio graphic Irregularities in the Original Document ist volumes and pages affected; include name of institution if filming borrowed text. Page(s) missing/not available: . .Volumes(s) missing/not available: V Illegible and/or damaged page(s): 3 3> - ^ Other: Ihhmi Association for information and Image MAanagement 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 miliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiii im wm Inches 1 1 1 I 5 Jim 6 7 8 iiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiiiii I 10 1 1.0 I.I 1.25 llllllllllllllll wm m m L 12 13 14 15 mm llllllllllllllllllllllHllllllllHll TTT ^ i 2.8 === IM M I 2.5 IS i& IX u 14.0 1.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 I ^ Jyj MfiNUFRCTURED TO RUM STRNDORDS BY RPPLIED IMAGE. INC. ^. -I i ^ i 145125 * ■■■"•"• Hifc "' * n„.*g'IB»ii ,»ii,i.i, - "I ■PBIH!|'i»:#i^ helping our infiruuties, p. 301. Sect. XL The Objections against the Presbyterian Doctrine concerning the Sacraments, and exceptions against their manner of dis- pensing them, considered, p. 309. — These discoursed: Ist, As to Baptism, ib. 2dly, As to the Lord's Supper, p. 317.— Some Remarks on the Scots Episcopal Liturgy, p. 324. CHAP. V. Mr Rhind*s Fourth Reason for separating from the Presbyte- rians, viz. that their spirit is diametrically opposite to that of the Gospel, examined, p. 329. — The meaning and intend- ment of this reason, Ib. Several things charged on the Presbyterians, which they not only confess, but avow, p. 331. Mr Rhind's profaneness in burlesquing the Scripture, p. 333. — This reason considered as to its weight, and proved, that though it were true, yet it alone would not justify his t^paration, p. fJS6. His reason examined as to its truth, p. 337. The Presbyterian spirit not enthusiastical, p. 338. Not an Animal or Mechanical Spirit, p. 34:'n Net a partial damning Spirit, p. 345. Not a narrow or mean Spirit, p. 347. xvui CONTENTS. Not a malicious or unforgiving Spirit, p. 349. Not an un- conversiWe Spirit, p. 355, Not a disloyal or rebellious Spi- rit, p. 357— A short Digression on the Right Honourable the Earl of Cromarty's Historical Account of the Conspira- cies by the Earls of Gowry, p. 361.— The Presbyterian Spi- lit not a Spirit of Division, p. 377. Not an unneighbourly, cruel, or barbarous Spirit, p. 379. The Conclusion, p. 389. f PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 1714. Being sensible that books always occasion an ex- pense of money, and, which is much more valuable, of time ; I think myself obliged to account why I have given the public the trouble of this. How soon the Apology appeared, that party, which is distinguished by the name of High Churchy gloried both in the author, and in the service he had done. They spread his book with great in- dustry into the several parts of the nation, recom- mended it as a perfect piece in its kind, and at length boasted it made proselytes. I hate to grudge even an adversary his due praise. I frankly own, Mr Rhind has done as well as the subject was capable of. I own, his book is, of its bulk, the most comprehensive in its subject I have seen. Some authors have attacked us upon the head of government^ some upon our doctrine^ some upon our worship^ and some too (though these not always excessively qualified, either morally or intel- lectually, for such an undertaking^, upon our spirit and practice. But Mr Rhind has widened the com- \ "• pass, and taken all four within his circle, hinting at every thing of a general nature, that has been wont to be objected to us ; and all this in so very- pointed a style, that, had his probation been equal, there had been an end of the matter, and the world had heard its last of Presbytery fo'r ever. It might then possibly have argued, either too much indolence, or an ill conscience, to have ne- glected such a book, without either answering or confessing to it. Nor is it quite improbable that silence would have heightened the vanity of a party abundantly remarkable already for that quality. I cannot deny but these considerations somewhat in- fluenced me to write. But then, that which determined me, was the consideration of the design of Mr Rhind's book, and of the effect it must naturally have, so far as it persuades. And who knows how far it may do so ? Mankind grows daily more corrupt ; and Mr Ilhind is very far from being singular in what he has ad- vanced, most part of books we get from High- Church being of the same strain, and breathing the very same spirit* Now what else is the design of Mr Rliind's bookr but to overturn the most sacred and important truths? And what else can the effect of it be, so far as it obtains credit, but the utmost contempt of seriousness and piety j which, God knows, is at too low an ebb already on both sides ! What else is the design of it, but to exasperate the one half of the nation into rage and fury against the other ? And, should it gain faith, how dire must the consequcn- km • lit PREFACE. Xxi cesbe? Then must love, peace and charity be for ever banished, a state of universal hostility instant- ly commence, persecution in all its most terrible forms take place, till not only Presbytery bp abo- lished, but the whole generation of Presbyterians be extirpated from off the face of the earth, which I suppose will hardly ever be, so long as there is a Bible on it. Tliat unhappy fellow De Foe, some ten or twelve years ago, put all England in a ferment by his Shortest way with the Dissentersl But what else is his shortest way, but the immediate use of the doc- trine laid down in Mr Rhind's book, and indeed, generally, in all the controversial books, and oft- times in the sermons of High-Church ? For, If the Presbyterian pastors are no ministers — if their Sacraments are null — if all, who are of that jcommunion, are out of the ordinary road to hea- ven, and can have no rational hope of salvation. Does it not unavoidably follow, that it is the duty of our civil governors to overturn their settlement ? Is it not plain that they are in a state of deadly sin so long as they leave it undone .? Were it not an act of great mercy, and Christian compassion, to compel us to come in, though it were by the rough argu- ments of heading, hanging, and such like, rather than suffer us to go into hell fire ourselves, and lead others thither with their limbs entire f If Pres- byterians are not only withou, the church, but ene- mies to it, what can the state in conscience do, but declare them to be denuded of all those immunities and privileges which the law had secured them in, and which hitherto they have enjoyed in common .....^ag'-Vg*-^ xxu "PREFACE. witb their neighbours, upon the presumption of their being Christians ? If Presbyterian parity is so inconsistent in its own nature with monarchy, are not tlie civil powers obliged, for their own security, to crush a society of so dangerous a constitution ? If the Presbyterian spirit is diametrically opposite to that of the gospel, what eternal animosities must there be betwixt true church and such a party ? Is it possible but that, upon such a supposition, there must be constant and mortal feuds in every the same city, the same congregation, the same fami- ly, and oft-times in the same bed ? For, what should an Episcopal husband, who would not pass for hen-pecked,* do with a wife who is incorrigibly Presbyterian ? Shall he still cherish the serpent in his bosom till she sting him to death ? Shall he hug the charming tempter till she tease him into the devouring jaws of the old serpent by her be- witching importunities ? Must not then all things run into confusion upon such principles? It is true. Almighty Providence may restrain such dis- mal effects, or good nature may overcome bad principles, but such, I am sure, are the native con- sequences of them, and are daily put in practice in all the Popish countries ; too sure a sign (besides the proof of former experience) that not will, but power only, is wanting to act the same tragical scenes in Britain. And what less should be ex- pected from a party, which justifies all that carnage the French king has made of his Protestant sub- jects ? This, then, being the natural product of the ■ * Sec the Apelogy, p. 205, &c. PREFACE. XXIU M principles of Mr Rhind's book, I thought I owed this service not only to the truth, but to my coun^ try ; and that I was obliged to bring my bucket, though a shallow one, to quench that flame which, if not suppressed in time, must needs consume it to ashes, and bring us to the same miserable state which, Josephus tells us, the zealots brought Jeru- salem into before its destruction. This, I hope, will not only excuse l)ut justify my writing. But then the next question will be. Why so laro-ely ? Was it so very hard a matter to answer Mr Ilhind, that no less than a book about four times the bigness of his could serve the turn ? His singularities are but few, and might have been quickly discussed j nor had the reader been at any great loss, though they had been quite ne- glected. What else he has advanced has been brought into the field a hundred times before, and it might have been sufficient for answer, to have re- commended the reader to former writers on the same subjects. Besides, he has very often, through his book, and upon the Spirit of the Freshyterians always, contented himself with mere assertion ; And in such cases, it is still as honourable to deny without a reason, as it was to assert without a proof. All this I acknowledge is very true ; and such a conduct, it is plain, had brought my book within 3 very moderate compass : but then, too, such a con- duct had sunk its usefulness proportionally with its bulk ; for I did intend by it, and shall be sorry if the reader find himself disappointed, somewhat luore than a simple confutation of the Apology : I ...JtMl^: xxir rREFACE, TREFACE. XXV W' designed it should be of universal use in this con- troversy ; and therefore have not barely denied, which in very many cases had been enough for our Apologist, and would have very much shortened the work ; but I have disproved too : nor have I put off the reader with answering Mr Rhind, but have said as much as I thought sufficient to satisfy the argument itself, by whoever it were managea. Plainly, I designed, in ihe^rst place, to say as much as was needful to vindicate the Presbyterians from those imputations in fact which fill so many hundreds of the Episcopal sermons, books and pamplilets, and are so much the subject of their conversation. If in doing this, I have mentioned any facts on their side, the hearing whereof may be grating to them, they have themselves to blame : For every one must own, it was a very proper way in me, for disproving the reasons of Mr Rhind's conduct, to make it appear, that the side he had espoused lay every way as open to exceptions, as that he liad deserted. Here, then, the old apology takes place Sciat Eeiponsum, non dictum esse, quia Isesit priui. But then, which will sufficiently distinguish my management, the reader may promise himself to find my assertions verified, in all cases needful, by the most authentic and unexceptionable docu* inents, a piece of drudgery which Mr Rhind has, and the writers of his party generally do excuse themselves from, ^zdlj/, I designed to say as much as I tliought needful for convincing any man'i •| conscience, that the Presbyterian Communion is not only safe, but the best, both as to government, faith and worship. And as the reader will find all the arguments for prelacy particularly discoursed ; so, which I doubt not will be surprising enough, he will find my reasonings against them fortified by the judgment even of the most eminent divines of the Church of England, who habitually reject each others arguments for prelacy, and are so very un- happily situated, that (hey cannot possibly defend against popery but upon Presbyterian principles, nor impugn Presbytery but upon Popish ones. I hope then, the reader will easily pardon me, that I have run out into such a length when my subject and design was so large. As for that which is called style, I have taken just as much care about it as was needful to make myself understood. Any further niceness, I judged super- fluous upon a subject of this nature, which I sus- pect is not very capable of dress, unless one in- tend a harangue instead of a dispute. Ornari res ipsa negat, contenta doceri: My greatest care, next to that of the matter, was that I should not be intricate or perplexed, as con- troversies are apt to be : And this I hope I have obtained : For I have never made any blind refer Fences to Mr Rhind's book, but have always given his sense, and almost always in his own words, which is another considerable cause that my bool^ is so large. To both which I may add a third, viz, Tliat I have H l > 1 XXVI FBEFACK. , f ^l ^i/ inserted some few digressions, though not I hope from the purpose, yet from the thread of Mr Rhind's book. That upon the late Vindication of the Fun- damental Charter of Presbytery, which the reader will find, p. 33, is but short : And though one would think that Scotchmen ought to be very lit- tle concerned witli the English liturgy, yet that being the dispute of the day, I understand that the author of the Countryman's Letter to the Curate, against which that Vindication is directed, intends, if God spare him, a second edition, in one volume, on a fine paper and type, both of the Dialogues concerning the English liturgy, and of that letter, &c. ; wherein the subject of the liturgy is to be more largely discoursed, and whatever has been advanced against the Dialogues by Mr Barclay and others, and against the Letter by the vindicator, either in reason or history, is to be considered. The largest digression I have made, which the reader will find p. 361, is that on the Earl of Cromarty's late book. Besides that it w^as necessary in point of self-defence, I persuade myself that his Lord- ship will be pleased with it, because it may help to exactness in a piece of history, which his Lord- . ship has so much contributed to the enlightening As to the conduct of the whole book, I am sen- sible how much I shall want the reader's indul- gence. But this piece of justice I crave, that he would not censure any one part of it, till he have read through the whole ; because, what he might perhaps expect to find in one place, I may have possibly thought fit to reserve for another, where I fancied it might stand to greater purpose, or with a /,! ■**Tj/• « treated of.* It is trae, there was ah attempt made in the time of King Charles I. to bring in a liturgy, much after the English model. But I need not tell the world, that it miscarried. No wonder : For, not only the body of the nation and the bulk of the Presbyters, but even the wisest and most experienced of the bishops were against it. This, Gilbert Burnet has ingenuously confessed ;* this the author of the Short Account of Scotland, though episcopal, frankly owns, page 56: * It was * set on foot by a foreigner (Abp. Laud) upon the « importunity of some young bishops in the Kirk * of Scotland, who made it their business to oppose * the ancients, and thought it matter of triumph to * carry any point against them.' Thus he. In the late times, before the revolution, the episcopal cler- fy did not so much as essay to bring in a liturgy. or many years after the revolution, none of them publicly used any, either in their churches or meet- ing-houses. And to this day some of the best of them, to my certain knowledge, are against the English liturgy. How then can Mr Rhind pretend to be of their communion, when he argues not only for the excellency, but even the necessity of forms ; and declares, * That flat impertinencies, substantial « nonsense and horrid blasphemies are unavoidable « in the extemporary way.'t And yet I have heard the extemporary prayers of Episcopal ministers five hundred times. It seems t have been well employ- ed. And I have known five hutidred people ha- rassed in the late times for not going to church to hear such prayers. It seems it was a merciful go- vernment that persecuted people for not putting themselves under the imavoidable necessity of hear- ing horrid blasphemies by way of address to God Almighty. Fourthlj/y His Suffering Church exercised her dis- cipline by lay-elders ; and this every one knows that lived before the revolution. I conclude, then, * Memoirs of tlie House of Hamilton, p. 3S-S5. t P. 156, 157. f MR BHIND S tiTLH-PAGE. 11 that Mr Rhind is not of the doiiimunion df the suffer- ing church, either in point of government, faith, wor- ship, or discipline, unless that he can prove that she hath changed her principles in all these within a score of years or so ; Which I suppose it will be hard for him to do. And when he has done it, I cannot think it will contribute much to the raising her cha- racter to represent her as a changeling. ^ Let usi go on in our search after his church. He gives us a third hint for finding her, by telling us, p. 169, ' That he has embraced the communion of * that church whose worship is the best in the world, * with respect to both tnatter and manner.' By which character he would have us to understand the Church of England. But, though he has em- braced her, yet she is so far from embracing him, that he stands de facto excommunicated by her. I shall have ample occasion to shew this when I come to consider his second reason for his separation. In the mean time, to satisfy the reader's longing, I shall give one instance for proof of it. Among the other Presbyterian doctrines which he has de- clared fundamentally false and pernicious, &c. he reckons this as one, That the best actions of men, without grace, are but so many splendid sins.* The truth of this Presbyterian doctrine is obvious even to common sense : For, how busy soever a servant may be, yet, if he has no regard to the will of hii master in what he does, can his diligence be reckon- ed obedience ? Nay, must not the neglect of his master's authority be imputed to him as a fault ? But it is not the truth of the doctrine I am now concerned about. Be it true or false, is it not the doctrine of the Church of England as much as of the Presbyterians ? Hear her. * Ax Sacheverel a fresh instance of the visdom of that precept, whose high misdemeanours made him at once the idol and the darlin^i^ of Hisch Chqrch, the theme of her praise, and object of ifer bounty. 11. He has been pleased in his Preface to give his own favourable judgment of his performance, of the plainness of his style and thought, the linking of his arguments, and so on. And 1 think it cannot be a- noiiss t^ give pine to, before I enter on the book it- self. Besides the ill nature (already noticed) whiq)^ MR RHINP S PREFACE. 15 |)ewrays itself almost in every page, and is sometimes continued through many, without so much as one ray of truth to qualify it. Besides this, I say, his book bears three other characters, none of the most lovely indeed, yet too remarkable to escape notice. — I mean, vanity, dogmaticalness and profaneness. 1. Vanity. With a very distinguishing air he as- sures the reader,* * That he meant something else « by the length of his Narrative than to add to the f number of his pages.* This was so necessary an inuendo, so pretty a phrase, that he thought fit to repeat it again in his own favours, p. 79. He had \)etore told, in his printed Sermon on Liturgy, that his genius, and the course of his studies, had habituated him to some application of thought. This was of so great moment to be known, perhaps so hard to be gathered from his writings, that he now tells it over again in his Apology, p. 159, Again, p. 199, he dis- penses with himself from writing a lecture on the animal economy, and accounting mechanically for all the phenomena of the Presbyterian devotion, be- cause he wants leisure. No doubt. Yet some people think it had been not only as modest, but as true an excuse to have said, he wanted ability. In the mean time, he is not so just as to own that what he has al- ready advanced on that head, he owes to Dr Scott, in his sermon on bodily exercise, from 1 Tim. iv. 8. and other places of his works. 3. Dogmaticalness. He writes with the same po- sitive air as if he were infallible. Every thing adduced on the Presbyterian side is with him weakness, pre- judice, an argument of a desperate cause, and the like. What he himself advances, is put beyond all doubt, and he hopes every discerning and elnpreju- diced reader will take the hint, and be convinced as well as he. Nay, it shall be an impeachment of the Divine wisdom to think differently from Jiim. Nay, our Lord himself behoved to do ac- cording to Mr Rhind's dictates. Repeated instances of this presumption we shall meet with afterwards. The most learned of the Arminian side in the church • Preface, p. f. \' .( \l^ \ 16 RBMAEKS ON of Enffland have owned, that the Calvinists have to say for their opinions on the controverted points, what is not to be easily answered. But there is no- thing too hard for Mr Rhind. Conditional Decrees, Freewill, the Apostacy of the Saints, Universal Re- demption, Universal Grace, are all as clear to him as Self-evident Propositions, Nay, so strong has his fancy wrought ; that, as if he had for ever decided the Episcopal, Arminian, and Liturgical Controver- sies, he concludes his book in the mathematical style, with a Q. E. D. 3. Prqfaneness. He sets himself industriously, from p. 189. to p. 207. to put the most sacred things in the most burlesque air possible. The Presbyterians, saith he, p. 200, tell a long but sense- less story of the manner of God's dealing with the souls of his elect ; how the work of grace is carried on there ; and how their regeneration is completed. It is true, the Presbyterians do talk of these things ; but how long and senseless soever the story is, the substance of it is what every good man feels : It is what the spirit of God works : It is a story which the Church of England divines, the most judicious of them,* bishops, too, amongst the rest, have told a thousand times over, and some of them very lately .t I am not to repeat the rest of his impious stujBf vo- mited out on that head ; once printing it was too much. I only wish that our prelatic writers, though they do not regard man, yet would at least fear God. For I suppose that no man that reads the latter part of Mr Rhind's book will stick to acknowledge that Lucian, Celsus, Vaninus, Spinosa, Blount, may be reckoned modest Christians in comparison of him. III. Towards the end of the Preface, Mr Rhind, apprehending some one or other might essay to dis- prove his Apology, thinks fit to bespeak civil usage for himself; with certification, that in case he is not thus used, he will expose the Presbyterians yet more ftdly to the world. Were I of his council, I would advise him, ere be proceed further, once to prove • See Hookei'i Sermons, subjoined to hif Eccles. Polit. Edit. Uadon, 1705. t Bi'top Hopkini, Dr Edwards, 4c. MR RHIND S PREFACE. 17 IV the characters whereby he has already attempted to expose them, least he establish a character upon him- self, and the party he serves, that will be none of the most honourable. Nor let him fear it will be reckon- ed pedantry to stud his margin with vouchers : For I can assure him, the world is now so much infidel, Whigs especially, as not much to regard assertion without probation. If the Presbyterians are such as he has represented them, he cannot expect civil us- age from them. And if they are not such, he may be sensible he has not deserved it. However, to make him easy, I shall promise him all fair quarter, and resent his invectives no otherwise than by ne- glect: Or if I chance at any time to draw his picture, it shall be with canvas and colours of his own fur- nishing. IV. I am now to enter on the book itself. I have heard it both from Prelatists and Presbyterians, that it was not done by Mr Rhind himself, but th^t his separation having given the occasion, a better hand than his did the work, and borrowed his name to it. The Prelatists possibly give out this to gain the greater reputation to the performance. But if so, it is a very mean politic : For, by how much it magni- fies the book, it disgraces the man, and at once les- sens their own trophy and the Presbyterians* loss. The Presbyterians found on this, that while he at- tended his studies among them, though his zeal a- gainst the Prelates was flaming high, yet his other accomplishments did not seem proportional. In a word, that he did not make such a figure as promis- ed an author. But this conjecture also is too weak. For years and application do oftentimes make surpris- ing changes on young persons. I do indeed believe that the book was written at the desire, and publish- ed upon the approbation of the leaders of the party. But I as firmly believe Mr Rhind to be the true fa- ther ; and seeing he owns the book, and none else claims it, I can see no reason why any body should believe otherwise. I am so much convinced it is his, that I take the whole book to be pieced up of ...h niijiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiil BIMARKS ON Sermons he had preached at several occasions, or af least of large shreds of them artfully tacked toge- ther. Some such sermons were necessary to ingra- tiate him with his new masters : his haranguing way seems rather adapted for sermons (accordfng to the Episcopal way of sermonizing) than for a dispute. And which confirms all, I find a good part of his Sermon upon Liturgy, which he preached and print- ed m the year 1711, engrossed verbatim into his A. pology, though he has not accjuainted his reader therewith^ Sect. IIL Containing Remarks on Mr MincTs Narrative, of the manner htm he separated from the Fresbifieiian jpart^. From p, i. The sum of his Narrative is, that he was educated Presbyterian, turned sceptic upon choice, that he might find out the truth ; the result of which was, that he separated upon conviction. He has indeed gone far to scar one from quarrelling the account he has given, by promising, p. 6. to deliver the same with as much sincerity, as shall be these words with which he hopes to commend his soul at last to God. And yet I must needs declare, I do not find myself obliged, even in charity, much less in justice, to be- lieve it. I cannot help thinking it is a piece of poesy rather than history ; a handsome fiction of the me- thod he thinks he ought to have taken, rather than a real account of what in fact he did take. I am a- ware how hardly this my judgment may be con- structed of. But I crave to be heard, and then let the reader give sentence. By Mr Rhind*s own account, p. 6. he was edu- cated Presbyterian. When he had run through the ordinary course of the languages and philosophy, and commenced Master of Arts, he applied himself to I \ IP MR RrtlND'S NARRATIVE. 19 the study of divinity. After several years attend- ance on that, he went home to his own country, the shire of Ross, to undergo trials, in order to be li- censed a preacher. AH this while, he was so far from being suspected to incline to prelacy, that he received particular favours from the Presbyterians, as he himself owns, p. 7. And as he was not suspected, so indeed there was no apparent reason why he should : For he owns, p. 8. not only that he was really Presbyterian in his judgment, but that he was a zealot in that way. By all this account we find him at least 21 years of age complete ; for no sooner do the Presbyterians admit men to be preachers, or enter them on trials for that end. And yet all this time he had not en- tertained a thought of separating ; nay, he had not brought his mind to a suspence or equilibrium about the controversy : For how could he essay to com- mence preacher amongst the Presbyterians, while he was undetermined to the one side or the other ? Again he tells us, p. 152, that he was but 22 years among the Presbyterians. There is then but one year left for doing all these things, and making all these enquiries he mentions in his Narrative, and at last determining himself. But, if he did them all in one year, I dare be bold to pronounce it was a miracle; being well assured it would have employed any or- dinary man seven. A short abstract of his Narrative will sufficiently demonstrate this. ^ 1. When the lucky minute was come that was to give a beginning to his conversion, he conceived a very just suspicion, that the many opinions, where- with he found his mind crowded, were not all either well come by or right founded. From this he con- cluded, that therefore it was reasonable, if not neces- sary, to examine and bring them to tlie test. But, in order to this, prejudices were to be shaken off; S). 9, 10. Every body that has a competent know- edge of himself will allow that this was not to be done without time. B t MK RHINd's NAEEATIVE. 21 1 / U m EEMAR1C8 ON % Thus prepared, he made the first experiment io some philosophical points. And, after a most impartial and accurate examination, found, that what formerly he had admitted, upon a supposed scienti- fic evidence, was, in itself, absolutely false ; p. 11. Every one will own that this was not to be done at a start. 3. Thence he proceeded to try whether his reli- gious opinions were not as ill founded as his philo- sophical ones. For that end he threw himself into a state of absolute scepticism, and found that he had yielded too implicit an assent to them ; p. 12. Sup- posing this had been lawful, yet, I hope, it will be granted it w^as not th€ work of a day. 4. After all this labour to unhinge himself, he next began to search where he might fix. To that purpose he entered upon the most impartial and ac- curate examination of the essential articles of re- ligion he w^as able to make ; and ceased not till he was rationally persuaded about the truth of a natural religion ; p. 13. This, considering how many fine books have been writ on that subject, and how many shrewd things have been advanced against it by such as are called the wits of the world, and, which Mr Rhind's curious genius would undoubtedly engage him to peruse, would be sufficient to exercise him a very considerable time. 5. He next carried his enquiries to revealed re- ligion ; and examined the necessity of revelation, the certainty of that which is owned as such by Christians, — in a word, the truth of the Christian re- ligion and the divinity of the Holy Scriptures. Ibid. What a large subject of disquisition this is, and how much time it would require, may be easily conjec- tured. 6. When lie had got himself convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, his labour was but beginning ; for Christians being multiplied into so many sects, which of them could he believe in the right, when each of tliem pretended to be so ? He^ resolved, then, only to examine the pretensions of -I \ the most considerable parties, viz. the Roman Ca- thohcs and Protestants. For that end, he laid a- side all prejudices, and seriously examined all that is commonly adduced for or against the Roman Ca- thohc way 5 p. 14, 15. Now, who knows not that the Popish controversies are so very large a field as to require several years travel to get through them to purpose ? 7. He parted ways with this infallible church ; though, upon a very small quarrel, as we shall hear afterward. But then he found the Protestants can- toned into so many parties, that he was in a great quandary where to find rest for the sole of his foot : Wherefore, to shorten his work, he resolved to con- fine his examination to the Episcopal and Presby- terian persuasions. And here it cost him both time and pains to divest himself of his prepossessions in favours of Presbytery, and to shake off the prejudices be had contracted, or been educated in against Episcopacy, and to fortify his soul against the temp, tations of persecution and want in case he were de^ termined to the Episcopal side ; p. 16 — 20. This being done, he entered upon a very huge task : 1. He did read the Old and New Testament all over ; p. 20. Now, though a shift may be made to get through that book in a short time, yet it is a large one, and when one applies himself to read it, with a view to be determined by it in controverted points, which was Mr Rhind's case, he will find it a considerable labour. 2. After the Bible, he engaged himself In reading the works of the Fathers, especially those of the three first ages. In which course of reading, he narrowly observed whatever could serve to determine the controversies in hand ; p. 21, 22. This was a yet larger task than the former; for though he had never gone beyond the third age; yet, to get through the works of Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athen- agoras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hi '/ 22 beharks on 4 Clemens Alexandrinus, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, &c.— To get through til these, I say, witli the histories relating to their times, was suflicient to employ one a longer time than Mr Rhind's account can well admit of. 3. And yet he was not near an end of his toil j for being curious to know whatever was written on the head of government, he read the controvertists, of both sides, on all the subjects in debate. In which, he declares, he was so scrupulously exact, that he does not remember any author, of any name, whom he did not peruse, except Salmasius alone, which he could not come by ; p. 22—25. This wa3 to be diligent in good earnest ; For, to read on the Episcopal side, Andrews, Bancroft, Bilson, Burges, Chillingworth, Dounham, Dodwell, Hooker, Hall, Heylin, Hammond, Honneyman, Maurice, Monro, Saravia, Sage, Scot, Sutlivius, Tilen : On the Pres- byterian side, Beza, Bain, Bucer, Blondel, Baillie, Cartwright, Calderwood, Clarkson, Gillespie, For- rester, Jameson, Rutherford, Rule, with a long et cetera on both sides ; — to read all these authors, I say, and to read them so as duly to weigh the arguments, objections, answers, exceptions, and replies, was a Herculean labour. But where is there time for it, by Mr Rhind's account ? And yet he had not done with it. For, 4. As to the other controversies that relate to doctrine, worship, &c. he consulted the respective authors ^ro and con.-y p. 26. That is to say, he studied the Arminian and Liturgical contro- versies, which, every one knows, require both much time and great application. Yet, after all this, he was only shocked, not absolutely determined. For, 5. To the study of books he added conversation with learned men 5 he collected his observations on the spirit and principles of the party of which he had so long been ; and took time to inform himself about what he did not know of the other ; and narrowly observed how the spirit and principles of both discovered themselves by overt acts. All this mh rhind's narrative. 23 he did, not once, but many times : and after all this he had his soul to work up to a due seriousness and intention of thought ; and then once more recollect- ed what he had learned from men, books, or his own experience for or against either principle or party. Not till this was done, and the aid and direction of God invoked, was he determined in his judgment. And even when he was determined, bashfulness p-a fear restrained him, till at last a forcible convic*^ the and the severe remonstrances of his co'^^'k ^^^' obliged him publicly to declare himself; {f?^ ^^'^\^?i This is his account 9 but now, how a mal ^^^9^ ,/es his birth to Presbyterian parents, yet he has concealed his having been baptised by a Presbyterian minister. Did it look like sincerity to dissemble that which was of so great moment to be known ? I seriously declare I do not intend banter or raillery by this particular ; but touch upon it, because, ac- cording to Mr Rhind's principles, it is of the last consequence, not only to himself, but, possibly, to many others. He is in a much worse condition than if he had been baptised by a mere layman or mid- wife in the Church of England ; for, though bap- tism, as dispensed by them, is irregular, yet, being Christians, within the church, and having at least the connivance of the Bishop, it is not invalid, and, therefore, is not repeated, ordinarily, at least. But Presbyterian ministers are no Christians. They are, by his scheme, not only without the church, bu|; \ d 24 EEMARKS ON enemlefi to it. Their baptism, then, is null, and can have no effect, even though the person is afterwards confirmed by the Bishop; For what is in its own nature null, can never be made valid byaposterior deed: And, therefore, as Dr Hicks informs us,* the Church has provided the office for the baptism of those of riper years, which was not originally in the liturgy, on rose to answer the case of persons in such cir- ^ances. This must needs affect Mr Rhind very Gpr, according to his own principles con- lptism,t he is no Christian— is without [ncapable of salvation— can neither be priest Tacon, consequently the baptism dispensed by ^o otl»ers is null ; consequently, by his principles ly must all be damned, if extraordinary mercy in- terpJ^se not I could not think of all this without horror, and, therefore, am in pain till I hear how he extricates himself. By all I can apprehend, there is but one way to save him and prevent further mischief, viz. to get Episcopal baptism. If he is not convinced of the necessity of this by what I have said, I re- commend to him to read Mr Laurence's late book of the Invalidity of Lay-Baptism, where he may have all objections answered, and both arguments and an example to persuade him. III. Mr Rhind still professes that, while he was among the Presbyterians, he was without the church, and incapable of salvation. One would think, there- fore, that he should have ascribed to God the first hint was given him to make his escape out of so dangerous a state. Even the Church of England Divines themselves, who have gone off the Calvinian scheme, do yet acknowledge a preventing grace. But does Mr Rhind this ? No. He ascribes it to himself and his own thought; and that, as I take him, under a favourable planetary aspect. • When I • had arrived,' saith he, p. 9. * at a competent age, in • some lucky minute, my thoughts suggested to me the •reasonablenessofmyenquiringintomyopinionsabout • things.' God is not brought into the account here j • Preface to tlic Invaliditj of Lty-Baptism. f P. 177. &c. K \ MR RHIND*S NARRATIVE. 25 Bay, he has not so much as a hint of addressing him by prayer, till he had determined himself as to natural religion, till he had got himself persuaded of t^etruth of the Christian religion,— and till he had re^jved himself against the Romish. After all this, an^-- sooner, did he address the God of all truth, p. I This conduct of his was designed and founded upon two reasons, which thereadermay weigh athispleas^ First, he is so much an enemy to enthusiasir *■ did not think it would become him to im, motion in his soul to the spirit of God : For tB ner of God's dealing with the souls of his elecl but a senseless story, and it was below his philoU phical genius, to ascribe that to a divine efficiency^ which might otherwise be accounted for. Secondly, His story would not have told right, if he should have owned God. For he was resolved to throw himself into a state of scepticism, wherein he was to suspend the belief of the being of a God. And m that state it had been very unaccountable to pray to him : For every one that comes to God, must be- lieve that he is. It will therefore be very necessary, that Mr Rhind, in his next, explain a little upon the lucky minute, because people are much in the dark about it- . ^ IV. Mr Rhind, p. 7- makes mention m general ot his obligations to the Presbyterians. But did he in- tend thereby to testify his gratitude ? No. The whole strain of his book is evidence, that he had lost all impressions of that ; but he does it, that he may raise his own character, by shewing how great temp- tations to the contrary, he had separate from them, and upon what disinterested views he had come over to the Episcopal side. This is plain from his own words, p. 8. * And if now I am none of theirs, and « if, after having received so many discourtesies from « them, I do still entertain a grateful resentment of « their favours, imagine how deep the impression « must have been, and how much I would be pre- « judicate in their behalf, when actually allowed ' very liberal expressions of their favour and esteem.' REMARKS OK -^I cannot persuade myself, that such artifice would become a man recommending his soul to God in hig last mmutes* ^J^ said before, that he parted ways with the ^ch of Rome upon a very slender quarrel- What ^8 it? Take it in his own words, p, 15. < Though « I had been convinced of the truth of all the articles ^f^Pope Pius's creed, (which you may think jd^rgue a strong faith, and a great deal of vio- Tered to my reason,) yet could I never be led, that the damning of all, who did not be- ^e as I did, should be a condition of my salva- Ton. In a word, the aUq. qua fide^ 8^x. which they had made a term of communion and an ar- ^* tide of their faith, was so choking, that it would * not believe for me. And as the disbelief of this • one article would hinder their receiving me into * their communion : so indeed, this alone abundant- « ly convinced me, that I should never enter into • it.' For understanding this, the reader must know, that Pope Pius's creed, after a rehearsal of the several articles, hath this affixed: 'and the same true Catholic ♦ faith, without which no man can be saved — I the same «N. do vow and swear.' This damning clause was the quarrel; but I affirm, that supposing he had been convinced of the truth of all the other articles, it was no good one, because he has already done the same. The Church of England, to which Mr Rhind has joined himself, hath engrossed the Athanasian Creed in her liturgy : And yet, that creed has at least two such damning clauses, and in harder words too ; one in the beginning, « Whosoever will be * saved, before all things, it is necessary to hold the * Catholic faith, which faith, except every one do * keep holy and undefiled, without doubt he shall * perish everlastingly/ Another at the end : * This * is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe « faithfuUv, he cannot be saved.* Why then did he refuse the Roman Catholic com- munion, for that which he has approved of in the Church of England communion ? I cannot say it was V Mlt »»txVD's NAR(BATIVE. 27 unwisely done : For the smaller the quarrel was, the easier may the reconciliation be, VI While Mr Rhind is giving an account ot hu own study of the Fathers, he falls heavily, p. 21, upoJ the Presbyterians, for their want of respect to then? But has he adduced in all his books one instance froi the writings of the Presbyterians to prove h« charge ? Not one. What meant he then? Why. he knp that was a common-place for declaiming on am^~* party, and it had been a pity to miss it. Mp. proof has he for his charge, unless you will be ?W. as to take his own assertions. « They who had . direction of my studies.' saith he, « never recon , * mended to me the reading so much as ot one *a- « ther ' No wonder, truly ; it was soon enough to begin the study of the Fathers at the age of 22. Most part of young men are not sooner ripe for it ; and at that age. Mr Rhind separated. Bishop Bur- net is thought to have tolerable good skill m traimng young theologues, now hear him : •— ' It may seem - strange, thS in this whole direction. 1 have said nothing concerning the study of the Fathers or Church history. But 1 said at first, that a great distinction was to be made between what was ne- cessary to prepare a man to be a priest, and what was necessary to make him a complete and learn- ed divine. The knowledge of these things is ne- cessary to the latter, though they do not seem so necessary for the former. There are many things to be left to the prosecution of a divine s study, that therefore are not mentioned here, without . any design to disparage that sort of learning. Ihus he. ^But, proceeds Mr Rhind. I frequently heard them talk contemptibly of them and their works, ex- cepting still St Augustine'sbooks of predestination and grace. That excellent person, Mr George Meldrum. late Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh, was he who had the direction of Mr Rhind's studies. If he talk- • Pastoral Care, p. 179- 28 R2MARir» «« cd contemptibly of the Fathers, I can say, from my own personal knowledge of him, to be confirmed by ^any thousands yet alive, that it was what he hard- ^' ever did of any body else. Mr Rhind then must ^^e this ere he is believed. f But while he charges the Presbyterians so fiercely on this head, why does he himself give such a con- ^mptible hint of Augustine? Why, p. 1 14, talks he so "^--^ptibly of Jerome, that he contradicts himself, ^^hy, Augustine was for the doctrines of predes- ►n and grace, and Jerome for Presbytery, both lich are Mr Rhind's a^^ersion ; yet one would think Te should not deny that freedom to Presbyterians which he takes to himself. The Presbyterians will- ingly acknowledge, that the Fathers have done excel- lent things ; yet they don't believe they were infal- lible. They stick not to say, that the Fathers were subject to the same infirmities with other men, and their works as full of gross escapes, as these of latter authors, and that they wrote (as themselves acknow- ledge,) crowdedly and loosely, till heresies and schisms arising, taught them more correctness. And do not the Church of England Divines talk as contemptibly of them as all this, or whatever else Presbyterians have said of them can amount to ? Yes. Never was there a set of writers in the world, that treated the Fathers more homely and coarsely than they do. The only difference is, that they fall into this strain, when they find the Fathers to be against them. But then, when they either are one, or can be screwed over to their own side, oh then ! the Fa- thers are all oracles, and it is the sin of Cham to open a mouth against them. Need I cite instances to prove all this ? No. It is clear to every one who is acquainted with their writings ; yet 1 shall give one or two for satisfying the reader. One of Mr Rhinxl's learned brethren of the clergy, • has lately appeared very loudly in defence of the book about • Mr Calder, MR BHINd's NAKRATIVE. 5t9 Antichrist, ascribed to Hippolitus, though no man ^« had not quite P-fS\^„''Sr m^^- ^nriP it He has been told how Coke, i? uik, ^W^ jimBka nothing for ta V^f^ ^'^"'^ J irn*. Tpao-ue. is resolved to keep his text, wi^ true league, is humour, then, aftSJ he say on t. To put ^im Hippolitus^, S irStil NowLar. with whatprofound r^^ sptt, jfXbishop of Salisbury, tjats- the re- verend Father and his work. • Tis » very ""|^ Took, of small price, and as small credi^^^^^^^ ap. . peareth that it was some simple «*" that w^ote the . book, both for the phrases of his sFech^J, f^« . Greek tongue, which com™only are very chdd^^^^^ . and also, for the truth and weight jj thejatter Ha heffinneth the first sentence of his booK wiin Fnim wWch a very small child would scarcely do. 5fS'aiedta?of several of his blunders, he adds, ^ind this he saith, without either warrant of the . triDtures or authority of the church.-He al- \ wff the Apocalypse of St John in the stead of Dan el whidf is a token of great ignorance, or of Sa?velous oblivion.' Say now, what discipline a pSySn had deserved, had he treated so worthy r Father so familiarly. Take another ir,stan«. Tli^hoo Whitas the writer of his life tells us, he had been proclaimed a rebel for not coming in and taking part with the^ forces of the said K. Jam.es, when they endeavour- ed to keep possession of Ireland, in the year 1689. What was it then disobliged him ? Why, the Bishops' mitre was touched, and that was of more considera- tion than the king's crown. The non-juring Bishops were dispossessed; their vacant sees, after much patience, filled with as good men as themselves. That was never to be dige'sted, and therefore he de- clared the establishment a schism. This was a pretty high flight, and yet he was not at his pitch. In the year 1706, he published his Epistolary Discourse, proving from the Scripturesand first Fathers, that the soul is a principle naturally mortal ; wherein is proved, that none have the power of giving the divine immortalising spirit, since the apostles, but only the bishops. Here was a very new and surprising scene opened. The heathens that never heard of Christ were made happy by it. The worst they had to fear was, that their souls should vanish into thin air. But then sad was the case of all separatists from the Episcopal communion : For though their souls wtre neither by nature im- mortal, nor immortalised by Episcopal baptism ; yet, he found a cue to have them immortalised actually by the pleasure of God to punishment. Was ever such horrid doctrine heard of among Christians? However, that book, though perhaps the very worst ever saw the light, had by accident, one very good effect. For, such as were before i]i danger of being implicitly carried into his principles by the fame of his learning ; when they saw that he would force even the Scriptures and Fathers to vouch for the na- c \ EEMARKS 0I< tiiral mortiility of the soul, very justly presumed, that his reasonings from them in his other books were to be suspected. It is now worth the while to see how Mr Rhind refines on this. « Itas true,' saithhe, p. 24. * Mr Dodwell seemed « to have given his enemies a handle against him, by . ^ the uncouth thoughts which he vented in his book / * of the soul; but this he did in a manner so learned, y i and so far above the comprehension of ordinary * readers, that, allowing his opinion to be erroneous, • « yet would not many be in hazard of being pervert- * ed by it. Withal, I considered that my then * search was not to be employed about that sup- * posed singular opinion of his -, for what I was then - « desirous to know, was only, whether his arguments « for Episcopacy were forcible or not ?' Here is a text worth the commenting on. Did Mr Dodwell seem only, did he not really give a ban- die not only to his enemies, but to all the world that had any regard for religion ? But why does Mr Rhind call it his book of the soul ? Why does he not call it his book for Episcopacy ? Episcopacy was the conclusion intended, the morality of the soul only a medium for enforcing it. Why does he say it was writ above the comprehension of ordniary readers ? Did he not write it in English ? And is not this a tolerable presumption, that he designed that he should be understood ? Is not the doctrine, to wit, the mortality of tlfe soul, so plain, that every ploughman may understand it. But Mr Rhind is right : For the arguments of proving this doctrine are above the comprehension, not only of ordinary readers, but of extraordinary too, even of all under- standing. This I am sure of, that the flonbdity of the wills of dead souls, ♦ separate souls receiving water baptism, t and the like, are notions as much above the capacities of Presbyterians as Jacob Behmen's lucubra- tions are. I hope many are not in hazard of being per- MR rhind' S NARRATIVE. S5 » Stct- 41. p. 173. f Sect. 42. i, i verted by it. But Mr Rhind himself Is so unhappy as to be one ; for it is nothing but a supposed singular opinion, he will not positively say it is erroneous ; but allowing it to be so, it is not dangerous because ot its obscurity. But how, in all the world, could he sut- fer these words to drop from him, ' That his search « was not to be employed about that singular opi- * nion of Mr DodwelPs, but to know whether his * arguments for Episcopacy were forcible or not ? Is not the natural mortality of the soul, and its baing immortaUsed by Episcopal baptism, or in de- lect of it, by the pleasure of God to punishment, one of his arguments for Episcopacy ? What meant Mr Rhind by such a juggle ? Thinks he, Mr Dod- well's book is not extant, or that all the world is turned quite senseless, and wants eyes to read it ? I cannot think that Mr Rhind himself, upon a review, will say, that he has used the sincerity that would become an expiring soul. i,r ^ , ,, But to go on with the history of Mr Dodwell. As he had proved the Dissenters and Low-Church schismatics, so the Nonjuring High Church Tories, who continued the separation after the death of the deprived Bishops, must, in their turn, be declared schismatics too. For this purpose, he published a book, the last he wrote, entitled, The Case in View, now in Fact, proving, that the continuance of a separate communion without substitutes, in any of the late invalidly deprived sees, since the death of WiUiam Lord Bishop of Norwich, is- schismatical ; with an Appendix, proving, That our late invalid- ly deprived Fathers had no right to substitute suc- cessors, who might legitimate the separation, after that the schism had been concluded by the decease of the last survivor of those same Fathers. Thus, I think, there were very few in England, Episcopal, or Dissenter, of High Church or Low Church, that were not, successively at least, schismatics by Mr Dod weirs account. Plainly, his head was turned with immoderate zeal ; and therefore schism, schism, was his everlasting clack. Mr Rhind, indeed, has given, C2 MR RHINd's narrative. 8T 36 remarks on p. 25., another character of him, viz. ' That he ha^f * stated the controversy fairly, that his authorities * are pertinent and justly alleged, and that his de- * ductions from them and all his other reasonings, do * proceed in a mathematical chain/ This character I shall, ad hominem^ allow : For, whenever I shall find Mr Dodwell's and Mr Rhind's reasonings quite contrary ; which I hope not seldom to find in the following Sheets, it will necessarily follow that Mr Rhind is fully answered, a mathematical chain be- ing more inviolable than an adamantine one. So much for Mr Dodwell. As for M. Sage, our Apologist's other celebrated author, all he says of him is : — ' And in truth,* saith he, p. 25., * it is as much as can be said of any man, « That he thought he pursued the argument in the * same manner with Mr Dodwell, and improved up- * on it/ Of this character, the panegyrical part is hyper- bolical, the historical part false, first, I say, the panegyrical part, viz. that it is as much as can be said of any man, is hyperbolical. No man that is not blindly partial, will make him a standard. It is true, he was master of several good qualities ; of a good capacity, and great application ; but the Re- volution had soured his temper, which carried him out often to transgress the rules of religion, as well as decency; witness his Fundamental Charter of Fresbtften/, particularly his long Preface prefixed to it ; upon the account of which, I acknowledge, he deserves the character of an incomparable author : For, he has therein treated his adversary after a fa- shion, which, to say no worse of it, will not be ea- sily paralleled ; — ^and which makes it so much the more intolerable, is, that he did it upon some points of history, in which his own friends * have at last acknowledged he was mistaken. And how false and weak his historical arguings were in the said charter, upon the usage of the English Liturgy in Scotland^ • Viodicmtion of the Fimdaraeutal Charter, p. 79. has been sufficiently shown in the Country-man's Letter to the Curate, on that subject. It is true, there is lately published a Vindication of the Fundamental Charter, in opposition to the said Letter. But, I hope, upon comparing the tw^o, the Vindication will appear to be a very harmless piece. For, 1. Who is likely ever to be moved by an author, that tellsf as that Vindicator does, p. 165, « That it is not sufficient proof, that a thing is not, * because the historians are silent about it, no, not * suppose they should all contradict it,' Has that gentleman his history by inspiration ? No, but he would have us to judge by histories yet to be written, F. 166. p. 13. 2. Who will be moved by his ar- guings on Buchanan, when, notwithstanding that Buchanan is acknowledged to be the sole relater of what he argues for, he yet says, ' That Buchanan * was doating when he w^'ote his History, if it came ^ from his hands, as we have it in all the editions « hitherto published,' p. 165. 3, Who that pro- fesses, as the Vindicator does, p. 9., to write with all possible candour, would say with him, p. 164,, that Buchanan contradicts himself about Arthur's Oven, when no man ever dealt more candidly than Bu-^ chanan has done in that matter, even though it was of no consequence. He begins the Civil History of his nation at the Fourth Book. There, in the reign of King Donald L, he says, ' That work, now called * Arthur's Oven, some have falsely related to have < been the temple of Claudius Caesar. We, so far < as we can guess, believe it to huve been the tem- * pie of Terminus.' You see he makes but a guess of it. To the civil history of his nation, he thought fit to prefix the geography of it, and an account of its antiquity ; and there, like a most candid soul, he retracts his former guess upon better information ; and, in the First Book, delivers himself thus :— ' I in- * deed was once induced by a conjecture, (by this it « appears, that the Civil History was wi'itten before ' the Geographical part), to believe it to have been * the temple of Terminus, which (we have learned) Jill 98 REMAEKS ON MR RHIND S NARRATIVE. 39 \ * used to be built round, and open above/ But then he tells us, * that he was informed by ere- * ditable persons, that there were several other build- .• ings of the same form in other places of the na- « tion. This,* saith he, * forced me to suspend my * opinion.* — Say now, good reader, is there any doat- ing here in Buchanan, when lie is so watchful even over his escapes in guessings ? Is there any contra- diction here? Did not Augustine write two full books of retractions, and one of them, too, of what he wrote when he was a Bishop ? And does not eve- ry man applaud his ingenuity for doing so ? Nay, has not Mr Dodwell himself retracted • even in point of history — and yet who blames him for it ? 4, Who, to avoid the force of Dr Burnet, now Bishop of Sarum his testimony from the pulpit before the House of Commons, concerning what he had seen, and papers he had had in his hands, would put off the matter by telling, as the Vindicator does, p. 36., that the Bishop is not infallible, and that all he preached in 1688 was not gospel, and that he some- times preached extempore ? Was not this a most bitter way of giving him the lie, and, which makes the treatment still the more rude, he at the same time declares, that it were uncivil and unchari- table in him to question the Doctor's candour and veracity. Is this the grave Vindicator! Is the world so far lost, as to take slyness for sin- cerity, and affectation for gravity? 5. Who that reads the Doctor's sermon, knows his character, or ever heard Of his concernment in the pro- ject of comprehension, will allege his words to be capable of any other entendre than the Country, man has put on them ? 6. Who would deny, that the Doctor's testimony bears, * That the ceremo- * nies missed narrowly of being thrown out by an * act of the Convocation, when it was carried by * the greatest number of the voices of the Members * that were present in the lower House, that they ♦ Paiaenei. Sect. 15. p, 61. * I « should be laid aside ;'— and when the Bishops, (who made the upper House) were the same way af- fected ; the Queen's stiffness in maintaining them, saith the Doctor, not flowing from their counsels, but from disguised papists ;— will any man, that de- signs not to trifle, deny that this was a narrow miss ? But the Vindicator overlooked the Bishops in the Doctor's testimony. 7. The author of the Char- ter had affirmed, that our Country-man Aless was a member of the English Convocation. The Country- man had proved, beyond contradiction, that Alcss was not a member. What says the Vindicator to this ? It was only an impropriety of speech in the accurate author. Every man ought to despair, af- ter such an answer, to convince the Vindicator, that it is light at mid-day. But the answer is, indeed, as solid, as the epithet of Accurate is judiciously chosen in that place. But I acknowledge all this is a digression from Mr Rhind's Book. I have only adduced these in- stances, to convince the reader, that if the Coun- try-man, who is my good friend and next neighbour, do not give himself the trouble of making any re- turn to the said Vindication, it is plain it is because it needs none. The readhig over his Letter once more after the Vindication, being at once an easy and sufficient answer to it. I return, then, to Mr Rhind. In the second place, his historical part of M. Sage's character, viz. that he has pursued the argument in the same manner with Mr Dodwell, is false. Mr Dod- well, in all his books upon church government,* asserts the Bishop's sole power ; and though he is content to give a consultory power to the Presbyters, which every Christian man and woman has, it being law- ful to all or any of the people to say to Archippus, * Take heed to the ministry,'— yet he peremptorily refuses them a decretory power. M. Sage, on the other hand, not only denies the said sole power, but * See Dissert. Cypr. Numb. 13, 14, 15. Paraenes. Sect. S^t IPrccmonition to the Epistolary Discourse, p. ^9, Arc, i DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 41 I m I applies himself, in his Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age. to disprove the Bishops' claiming of it. Was this to pursue the argument after the same manner ? That excellent person, Mr Jameson, wrote his Cyprianus Isotimus in answer to the said Vindication ; — and answer it he did be- yond possibility of reply. M. Sage himself was abundantly sensible of this : He lived half a dozen years after Mr Jameson's book was published, but never essayed to make a return. He could not but see how he had mistaken his measures, and prejudged the cause. And therefore, as he could not with any ground of reason, so he would not, out of love to the cause, insist. And I doubt not but it was very heavy to his spirit to survive the reputation of 'his principal book ; and to think that he should have wasted the precious lamp of life in so voluminous a work, for proving that Bishops did not claim a sole power, when not only his learned adversary had proved, beyond contradiction, that they did so ; but the most learned of his own party allowed, that it was their right to claim it. So much for Mr Rhind's Narrative. vy n. ix. JL . J. 1. ■ WHEREIN MR RHIND's FIRST REASON FOR SEPARAT1N0 FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEY ARE SCHISMATICS IN POINT OF GOVERNMENT, IS EX- AMINED, FROM P. 29. TO P. 119. For justifying this reason of separation, Mr Rhind uses the following method : — First, He lays down two principles, from which he subsumes some corol- laries. 2dly, He states the debate 5 and, Sdly, Ad- vances his arguments. Sect. L me7^ein Mr EhMs Principles and Corollaries, p. 29., are Examine(JU His two principles are :— * L That the Church is « but one. H. That it is a Society distinct from, and * independent upon the State.' From the first of these principles, he infers these two corollaries:—' 1. That the ordinary means of « salvation are confined to the Church. II. That « whoever are without, (but more especially they who « separate from its communion), are out of the ordi- * nary way of salvation.' -, - n From the second of these principles, he infers these three corollaries.—' I. That the Church has « distinct laws, and a government and governors of « its own, which can serve all the purposes of the So- « ciety. II. That that which does properly denomi- < nate one a Member of the Church, is the acknow- « ledgment of its laws and government, and a sub- « mission to the authority of its governors : Nor is « the owning any one of those enough without the « other. III. That the contempt either of its laws, « or lawful governors, requiring no terms of com- « munion that are truly sinful, justly deprives one « of the privileges of this, as well as any other so- * ciety.' From all this, he concludes, p. 30, SI. * That that « society, which is not only defective with respect to < that form of government, that obtained in the days « of Christ and his apostles, and downwards, (which < is undoubtedly the rightful one), but does likewise : m I W. \ ^Wk ^jgggaaHHHs=' DIFEKCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 43 •disown and oppose those who govern after that * manner, is without the Church by the third coroU * lary, and consequently out of the ordinary road to * heaven, according to the second corollary from the * first principle/ And that the Presbyterians are thus defective in, and disown and oppose that jjo- vernment, he is, after stating the debate, to make good by arguments. This is his scheme, but notwithstanding its mathe- matical face ; as it will not please Uie Presbyterians, so yet far less the Church of England, which he has joined. First, It will not please the Presbyterians, as he too confidently presumes. For, though they willing- ly admit his first principle, that the church is but one, and do firmly believe that there is but one go- vernment, by divine right, viz. the Presbyterian, and zealously wish that it might obtain all the world over ; yet by no means will they assert that such as either oppose or want that government are without the church. The government of many of the Pro- testant churches in Germany is Superintendency, that of New England Independency, that of Old England Prelacy. The Presbyterians believe they are each of them in an error, the last, especially, in a hugely great one ; and yet they believe them all to be within the Church, and capable of salva- tion,if they are otherwise good Christians ; and that, as an English poet has it somewhere. The God that pardons sin will pardon errors too. They own the road to heaven is narrow, yet they do not believe it so narrow, but that they can charit- ably hope that one company may walk to it with a Presbyterian Minister on their head ; and another (though not in so straight a line), with a Bishop on theirs. It is told of Mr Rhind, (and he allows us, p. 9, to represent him to have been a Presbyterian of the most rigid kind), that while he was studying theology at Edinburgh, among the Presbyterians, he made it a question, in a society of his fellow students, Whether an Episcopal Minister, dying in that opinion, could be saved? I suppose he was the first Presbyterian ever started the question, and, possibly, may be the last. But some people's brains are %iir. ed for bigotry, on whatever side they are. Whether it be by nature or accident they are so, I refer it to such as have skill in the animal economy. Secondlj/, I say Mr Rhind's scheme will yet far less please the Church of England, which he has ioined ; which I shall make good in two particulars ; when once I have premised, that by the Church of En<^land I do not mean only this or the other parti- cular doctor, but that I mean her articles, homilies, litursry, canons, and such other public formulas. li? Though the Church of England thinks Prelacy the best government, yet she is very far from unchurching those that want it. In her nine- teenth article, she defines the visible Church ot Christ to be, * a congregation of faithful men, in the « which the pure word of God is preached, and the ' sacraments be duly administered, according to * Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of ne- ' cessity are requisite to the same ?' In her twenty- third article, she declares, ' that those we ought to « iudo'e lawfully called and sent, which be chosen « and^called to this work by men who have public « authority given to them in the congregation, to « call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard ? In neither of these articles, though they were the only place for doing it, is any one particular form of church government declared necessary. Nay, the articles are conceived in such general words on purpose, that they might not be thought to exclude other churches that differ from them in point ot government. So says the Bishop of Sarum,* whose sufficiency to understand the intent of the Articles was never doubted, and whose concern for the Episcopal cause in reason cannot. ' And,' adds he, « whatever some hotter spirits have thought of this, f since that timej yet we are very sure, that not • Expos. Art. XIII. p. 259. ♦ *(' 4J MJAr MiPtkfMt UW A mum • only those who penned the Articles, but the body • of this church for above half an age after, did, • notwithstanding those irregularities, acknowledge • the foreign churches so constituted, to be true « churches, as to all the essentials of a church.' And, p. 260, neither our reformers nor their successors, for near eighty years after those articles were pu- blished, did ever question the constitution of such churches. And the noble historian. Clarendon,* who was abundantly zealous for the church, repre- sents it as a false step in the go%*ernnient of King Charles I. that the English Ambassador, with his letinue, separated from the Protestant Church, at Charenton, contrary to former usage. Yet further, the Church of England was powerfully attacked by the Romanists in the days of the late King James ; and upon the very same scheme, too, which Mr Rhind hath advanced, viz. metaphysical inferences from the unity of the church; from which they would needs conclude her to be schismatical. The English divines never made a more noble appear- ance than on that occasion. They engaged with the Romanists, and defeated themto theconviction of all the world ; but then it was by reasonings which quite overturn Mr Rhind's scheme. Dr Sherlock first enters the field, and, with open mouth, declares! against the unchurching doctrine for the want of Episcopal government. * I am sure,* ttith he, ' that • is not a safe communion where there is not a suc- « cession of apostolical doctrine ; but whether the • %vant of a succession of Bishops will, in all cases, • unchurch, will admit of a greater dispute : I am • sure a true faith in Christ, w^ith a true gospel con- • versation, will save men ; and some learned Ro- • manists defend that old definition of the Church, • that it is Cwtifs Fidelium^ the Company of the • Faithful, and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into « definition of a Church/ Thus he : Dr Clagget, • Hist, rebell. f Vindication of the Discourse concerning tht Kutei of the Church, p. 59t PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. ^0 Mcceecb him, and goes yet more roundly to work. He affirms indeed,* as we do, the Church to be one in many respects, viz. of head, faith, sacra- ments, service, and government loo. But expressly denies that any of these kinds and instances ot unity are necessary to the being of a Clmrch, except these of one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And further asserts, ' tbi^ from the Apostles times till the Coun- « cil of Trent, the constant universal doctrine con- « cerning the cliurch was this, that it is the Society of « the Faithful, without ever inserting^into the dehni- . tion of it any thing relating to its being united to « the Pope, or any other Bishop, as to a visible head. To both these you may add Mr Stilhngfleet. after- wards Bishop of Worcester, who has proved J- be- yond contradiction, that the mam bulk of the an- cient Bishops and Divines of the Church of England, from the first dawning of the Reformation almost down to Laud, have expressly declared against the necessity of Episcopal government, and maintained the mutability of Church government, according to the will of the Prince or circumstances oi the king- dom ; and herein they were against Mr Rhind and his fellows. And that they have also acKUOwledged the Scripture identity of Bishop and Presbyter as- serting the names to be interchangeable, and the office °the same. And herein they were for the Presbyterians. , i /-.u u ■idL This is not the only quarrel the Church of England has against Mr Rhind's scheme. No one wonders to find the Presbytenans asserting the intrinsic power of the Church. They still claimed it have been always wrestling for it— to be sure thev never renounced it ; but it certainly very ill becomes one who has joined the Church ot England to lay it down for a principle, as he has done, that the Church is independent of the State, it so, what then means the 2lst Article, which declares, * Upon Bellarmlne's Vllth Note of the Church. ■|- lr«nit. Part 11. chap, vili- rC^^ " ■ 1 ^ DEFEKCfi OF l-HI: * that general councils may not be gathered together « without the commandftient and will of Princes ?'' Are not these necessary for serving the purposes of the Society ? The Church independent of the State ! What, then, means the 37th Article, which declares * the Queen's Majesty to have the chief power and * government of all estates, whether Ecclesiastical or « Civil, and in all causes ? The Church indepen- dent of the State I What, then, means the first Canon, 1640, concerning the regal power, wherein the King's supremacy over the Ecclesiastical State, and in causes Ecclesiastical, is not only asserted but argued for : and the government of the Church declared to belong in chief unto Kings ; and that the power to call and dissolve councils, both na- tional and provincial, is the true right of all Christi- an kings, within their own realms and territories ; and that when, in the first times of Christ's Church, Prelates used this power, it was, therefore, only be- cause, in those days, they had no Christian kings ? The Church independent of the State! What, then, means the first Canon, 1603, the very rubric whereof is, the King's supremacy over the Church of England, in causes Ecclesiastical, to be main- tained ! The Church independent of the State ! What, then, meant the Bishop of Norwich, anno 1709, in his visitation charge, to spend a good part of his discourse, and a large appendix, in caution- ing his clergy against that principle? Say, now, good reader, if Mr Rhind has not been competently nirnished with assurance, when he declared, p. 29, his principles and corollaries to be truths so evident, that he thought it needless to enlarge on them. Had he intended only a dispute against the Presby- terians, he might, indeed, have assumed the inde- pendence of the Church for a principle : But when he was to tell the world what satisfied his own con- science, and determined him to go over to the Church of England, which, in the most solemn man- ner, has renounced that principle, the insisting on PRESBYTERIAN OOVEUNMENT. 47 it was one of the greatest inconsistencies a man could be guilty of. I shall conclude this discourse, upon his scheme, with one observation. Mr Rhind would needs have the Presbyterians to be Schismatics, and thence infers that they are without the church. But this is horridly false reasoning : For, I affirm, that, if they are Schismatics, then it will follow that they are within the church. I know this will be surprising at first to some readers, yet it is certainly true. The Romanists, in the days of the late King James, rea- soned exactly after the same manner with Mr Rhmd, against the Church of England : But that great au- thor before-mentioned, I mean Dr Sherlock, demon- strates that pretended reasoning to be flat nonsense, and his words will abundantly clear my assertion. — * A Schismatical Church, says he,* signifies a church « too, and how they are a church without belonging « to the one church, when there is but one church, * is somewhat mysterious. And, therefore, schism * is not tearing off a part of the church, but one part « dividing from the other in external communion, « which supposes that both parts still belong to the * same church, or else the church is not divided. < For apostacy and schism are two different things j * apostates cease to be of the church, schismatics * are of the church still, though they disturb the * peace of the church, and divide the external com- ^ munion of it. Does St Paul, who reproves the * Corinthians for their schisms, shut them out of ' tlie cluirch for tliem too ? Does he deny them to * belong to the church, when he directs his epistle « to the church of God at Corinth.' Thus he. So very loosely knit is Mr Rhind's scheme, that the one part of it destroys the other. And if he can prove the Presbyterians Schismatics, eo ipso, it will fol- low, that they are not without the church. Dr Sherlock's reasoning is plain, strong, palpable sense, against which Mr Dodwell's usual style, though ■ Ubi supra, p. 27, 2S. 48 pEf £NC1 OF THE founded upon some loose expressions of the Fathers, will never bear out Mr Rhind. Nor is Mr Rhind altogether a loser by this observe : For whereas he hints in his Preface, that he has been upbraided with apostacy by some ; though 1 am as well assured he is a Schismatic, as I am that there is such a sin as schism ; yet, upon the former reasoning, he ought not to be called an apostate, till he declare himself a little more explicitly. I hope, then, he will digest the observation the more easily, that what he loses by it in argument, he saves in character. SfiCT. IL Wherein Mr BJnnd*s State of the Debate betwixt the Presby* terians and Episcopalians^ P« 31, 32, is examined. i The stating of a debate aright, is always a princi- pal point in controversy. Take it in Mr Rhind's own words. ' It is sufficient to answer my design in « this short Apology, if I can prove that the govern- * ment of the church, from the beginning, was ma- « naged by officers of different orders, and such as * acted in capacities, superior the one to the other ; * amonff whom there were neither ruling elders, nor ' deacons, such as the Presbyterians h'ave. This.' saith he, * is all that the Episcopal writers plead for.* And, therefore, he thinks it needless to determine more explicitly, what are the distinguishing charac- teristics of the several officers, or to fix the bounds of their respective powers. Thus he. Now let us re- mark a little upon it. I. Why does he state the debate upon a subor- dination of Officers ? Was there ever Presbyterian denied, that there should be a subordination among the officers as well as judicatories of the Church ? Do they not own Christ to be the Chief Shepherd, the absolute King and Monarch of the Church ? Do not I^RESBYTIBIAN GOVERNMENT. tliey own Presbyters to be under him, deacons un- der both ? Is not here a fair subordination of offi- cers ? If he had stated the debate upon a subor- dination or imparity of pastors or ministers, taking these words in their current ecclesiastical sense, it had been to the purpose ; but to state it upon a subordination or imparity of rulers or officers, was to lay a foundation to himself for chicane. Possibly he may think to ward off this remarkbywhat he has added, That among these subordinate officers, there were neither ruling elders nor deacons such ^8 the Presbyterians have. This, I acknowledge, when proved, will be a considerable point gained against the Presbyterians. But then, Iwo, Why has he not restricted himself to the proof of this? For, in all his state of the debate, there is not one syl- lable more to the purpose ; and yet, of the 90 pages he has spent in the prosecution of it, he has employ- ed onlv five of them, and these too only by the bye, against the ruling elders and deacons— with what success we shall afterwards hear. 2rfo, When he has proved, which yet I despair of finding done, that among these subordinate officers, there were neither ruling elders nor deacons such as the Pres- byterians have, it will indeed follow that the Pres- byterians are mistaken in the characters and func- tions of their subordinate officers. But by no means will it follow, that they are against subordination of officers. On the contrary, Mr Rhind's disputing against the Presbyterian* ruling elders and deacons, proves, irrefragably,. that they are for a subordi- nation of officers. I desire every reader of Mr Rhind's book, to attend carefully to this, and they will see there is no more needful for discovering the uselessness of all his arguments for a subordi- nation of officers, the Presbyterians being as much for it as the Prelatics are ; and that his latter part of the debate is a most effectual confutation of the xornciGr II. ' Why does he say, That a subordination of officers, without such ruling elders and deacons as the . .M i ''"''*^PIill!"'''"'||jj|||||^I^^P 50 DEFENCE OP THE PEESBYTEBIAN GOVERXMENT. SI I" f t Presbyterians have, is, upon the main, all that th« Episcopal writers plead for ? Of all things in the worid, insincere dealing is the most odious. Cer- tainly he has taken it for a principle, that none who was to read his book, had ever read the E- piscopal writers, or would ever be capable of read- ing them. Is he yet to learn, that the sole power is pleaded for by them ? Having read so many books of that side, can his judgment be so weak as not to have discerned, or his memory so frail as to have forgot, that all the elevations of an absolute monarch accountable to God only, are pleaded for by them ? If so, care shall be taken ere I have done, to clear up his discernment and refresh his me* mory. Does he imagine, that a subordination and sole power are all one ? Or, will a mere subordi- nation, without Presbyterian elders or deacons, please him ? If so, he is too well natured : For, alas ! it will not please his brethren. To humour him a little, I shall suppose the Presbyterians con- tent to accept of constant moderators for term of life, and that such moderators have the precedency in all their assemblies : But would that save them from the guilt of schism ? Mr Dodwell has express- ly said it will not. Hear him.* * This, (a principle * of unity) none of our modern sects, except the Pres-» * byterians, can so much as offer at. None of them * (the other modern sects) have ^ any single minis- * ter, who, by their principles, can pretend to supe- * riorityover his brethren.' And all that they, (the * Presbyterians) can pretend, is a moderator over « their classes, either for a certain time, or, at the « utmost, for term of life. Yet even that is not * sufficient for a principle of unity. Seeing the sa- * crifices, are they which are the cement of this * unity, it must be a precedency, not in their assera- * blies only, but their sacrifices, which can entitle to f a principle of it.' Thus Mr Dodwell. And what now would it signify though Presbyterians should grant all that subordination which Mr Rhind pleadst • One Pciestiiood, Chap. xiii. Sect. IS, p. 396. ;.or, when notwithstanding, they must stdl remain Schismatics by Mr Dodwell's verdict ? - ^ . III. Why did he think it needless to determine more explicitly the several characteristics of the se- veral officers, and to fix the bounds of their respec tive powers ? About what, I pray, is all the con- troversy betwixt Prelatists and Presbyterians ? Is it about the title of Bishop ? Jt is yielded on both hands to be a scriptural one. Is it whether there should be bishops in the church? The Presbyte- rian was never yet created who denied it. Is it that these bishops should have officers subordinate to them ? The Presbyterians loudly assert it. Is it not, then, the controversy about the character- istics and powers of bishops wherein the choke lies ? And yet Mr Rhind thinks it needless to de- termine them more explicitly. If so, it is very plain he should have thought it needless to have wiitten his book. If the Prelatists can prove, that bishops, by divine right, should be absolute monarchs ; or, to come lower, that they should have a negative voice, simple or even reciprocal ; if they can prove, that, by divine right, they have the sole power of ^ordination and jurisdiction, or either of them ; if they can provi;, that, by divine right, they should have 3ome hundreds, or even scores of congregar tions under their inspection, Presbyterians are hearti- ly content to yield the cause, and to accept of bi- shops with alf these powers, or so many of them as they shall prove of divine right to belong to them. On tlie other hand, if the Prelatists are content with bishops that are neithjer absolute monarchs, i^or have jsl negative voice, nor sole power, nor a greater charge than they can personally inspect, that is^ preach and dispense tlie sacraments to, with the assistance of elders to oversee the manners of the people, (and of deacons to take care of the poor), and that discipline may be duly exercised ; the Presbyterians offer to prove that they have such bishops already, or are content to take them where they have not. Is it possible fairer conditions caa D 2 m ^ i * 52 m^mm ot tm he either demanded or offered ? Why, then, did Mf Rhind decline to explain himself? The reason is obvious, he designed to harangue a while, and disputing would have marred the cadency of his pe- riods. IV. Supposing Mr Rhind*s state of the debate had been more distinct than it is, it would answer only the one half of his undertaking in the title- page. For though it might be a reason for his se- ftfllilijg from the Presbyterians, yet it would be none for his embracing the communion of the church, according to his present practice, unless he had proved that the subordination of officers in the church of England constitution, into which he is gone, were of divine institution, which he has not so much as attempted to prove — I add, nor can be proved. For, that primates or archbishops, having a power over, and being ordinaries to, the other bi* shops,— that bishops exercising a sole power, or even a negative voice,-^that Presbyters, serving as the bishops delegates, without power of ordination or jurisdiction,-*that preaching deacons, vested with a power of baptizing, but deprived of all manage- ment of the churches' stock, or care of the poor, which was the original design of their office ;— that, I say, all or any of these officers considered under these peculiar characters, are the creatures of God, or of divine institution, I positively deny, and want to be directed to any author that has proven it. So much for Mr Rhind's way of stating the de* bate ! And, I believe, it is obvious to every body, that thereby he has projected for his own ease rather than the reader's conviction. For, let one, in pe- rusing his book, dash out the word officers or rulers, an imparity or subordination among which the Pres- byterians grant, and substitute in place thereof the word pastors or ministers, a parity among whom was his business to disprove ; and it will presently ap- pear that several of his arguments are just as much to the purpose as an ode of Horace would have been. PEESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. But there is no need of running into niceties in Jl«". Eve,, bod, ta a t«lemble °oU™ m the cross what is meant by Prelacy and 1 resbytery. If Mr Rhind's arguments prove that the latter la a schfsmatical kind%f government. 1^- former hat which should obtain in the church, I shall fant he has gained bis point. If they prove «^t that \t « nothing to us what else they prove. And whether they do so or not, I am now to apply myself to try. Sect. III. menin Mr BhindTs Arguments for Prelacy are summed up. He has cast his arguments into the form of a ha- ranffue • but so far as I can distmguish them, they amount'to the number of nine. The three first of S are calculated to ^?--, '^^ l^f^^t^t have been instituted ; the six latter to prove that it "fKltttltssary that Prelacy should be '"f Fro;'u.:Se of the thing, which made it indiWensably necessary in itself. A monarchxcja or subordinate form being able to answer the ends of government better than the contrary. ^2 From the form of government m the Jewish rhurch seeing God must be uniform m his actings. ^ 3 IVom thf rules of political prudence, seeing a leve'uing form of government would have been dis- tSteful both to the Jews and Romans, as being op- polite to the hierarchy of the former, and mo. "Ii^tCu Sly was instituted, he attempts to: ^T^From its obtaining in the dap of Christ, as app;arsrom the subordination of the Seventy to '^iJli^m' its being continued in the days of the 54 DEFENCE OP THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 55 M M apostles^ as appears from the history of their acts, and their epistles, and a succession in the aposto- S. From the episcopacy of Timothy and Titus. 4. From the apocalyptic angels. 5. From testimonies of antiquity. 6. From the impossibility of its obtaining so early and universally, if it had not been of divine insti- tution. All these (besides what he has advanced against the Presbyterian ruling elders and deacons), I shall examine in order. Sect. IV. Wherdn Mr Bhind's Arguings for proving that it was necef' mry that the Prelatic form of Government should have been ot first instituted^ are examined^ from p. 32 to p, 49. I HAVE just now observed that he attempts this by three arguments, which I shall examine in so many articles. Let me only once more advertise the reader, that Mr Rhind's expressing himself in this controversy by a subordinate form of government on the one hand, and a levelling form of govern- ngent on the other, with such like phrases, is a very ridiculous, as well as unjust style ; for, the Presby- terians are against a levelling, they are for a subor- dinate form of government, yea, they are for a mo- narchical form of government, understanding our Lord, to be that monarch ; as Mr Rhind himself does, p. 49. Though, then, Mr Rhind found it ne- cessaryfor amusing his reader, and filling his pages, to use such forms of speaking, as a monarchical or subordinate, a republican or levelling form of go- vernment ; yet I must either neglect his arguments altogether, as signifying nothing in this controver- sy, or else I must plainly understand by these and the like phrases, Prelacy or Presbytery respectively, as common usage has fixed the notion of them in this controversy. This premised, I now proceed. ARTICLE L Whereirt Mr Rhind's Argument, for the Indispen- sable Necessity of instituting Prelacy, from the Na- ture of the Thing, is ea:amined, from p. 32 ta p. 39. The sum of his argument is this :— God could not but institute the best form of government for his Church. A government of a monarchical or sub- ordinate form is such, that is, it can answer the de- sicrns of society better than any other. Therefore the Church ought to have that form of government, that is to say, Prelacy. Now, let us consider this ; and, . I. I affirm Ihis way of arguing labours under three very considerable infirmities. First, It is not mo- dest. Secondly, Not secure. Thirdly, Suppose it were both ; yet, as he has laid it, it is quite im- pertinent, and does not in the least affect the Pres- byterians. First, It is not modest. Does it become the crea- ture to prescribe to God ? Is it sufFerable that one should talk at Mr Rhind^s rate, that such a form of government, abstracting from, and antecedently to, the divine establishment, * ought to be,' ' musthe; Ms « indispensablynecessary in itself/ that it does not look « like God that it should be otherwise'— all which are his phrases ? Is not this to set bounds to God's wis- dom and will. I must needs read a lecture to Mr Rhind from the judicious Hooker,* to teach him more reverence towards God. ' As for those mar- « vellous discourses, whereby they adventure to ar- • Ecclcs. Polit. B. IIL Sect. 2. p. 154, 1*5. / I DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAX GOVERNMENT. SJ 1 ''j h ^ gue, that God must needs have done the thing:^ * which they imagine was to be done, I must con* * fess I have often wondered at their exceeding^ * boldness herein. When the question is, whe» « ther God have delivered in Scripture, (as they * affirm he hath), a complete, particular, immutable * form of church polity ? why take they that other * both presumptuous and superfluous labour, to prove * he should have done it, there being no way in « this case to prove the deed of God, saving only by * producing that evidence wherein he hath done it. * When we do otherwise, surely we exceed our * bounds ; who and where we are we forget. And * therefore needful it is that our pride in such cases * be controuled, and our disputes beaten back with * those demands of the blessed apostle, * How un« " searchable are his judgments, and his ways past « finding out ? Who hath known the mind of the ^ Lord, or who was his counsellor ?' — In matters * which concern the actions of God, the most du» * tiful way on our part, is to search what God hath * done, and, with meekness to admire that, rather * than to dispute what he in congruity of reason * ought to do.' I am sure it is Mr Rhind's duty to chew the cud a while on this. Secondly^ It is not secure. For, circumstances may make that best in one case, which would not be so in another. Hear Mr Dodwell, * who will clear the mat- ter. ' The way of arguing from the actual establish* * ments of God, as it is much more modest, so it is al- « so much more secure for finding out the richt ot * government, than any conjectures we can make ^ from the reason of the thing. It is certainly the * most becoming course for a modest Christian in ^ all things to ac(|uiesce in God's judgment, how * great evidence soever there might seem for difier- * ing from it. — The reasons, from the nature of * government in general, and peculiarly of govern- * ment as ecclesiastical, are not proper to any one ^ On ScliisBi^ Chip* alx. Sect. 39, 40. ^. ^54t, 455. • age. But for bringing these reasonings down ta « determine the rights of any particular government, « many particular matters of ikct are requisite to b© < known.' Thus he. Thirdly^ His argument, as he has laid it, is qinte impertinent, and does not in the least affect the Presbyterians ;— For he adduces it, to prove, that there should be a subordination of officers in the Church, which the Presbyterians are for, as well II' Supposing his argument were otherwise tde- rable, how does he prove, that a monarchical or subm ordinate form of government is the best ? Why, waving the many arguments of several learned au^ thors, he will needs advance three of his own. The first is taken from the British Monarchy. The se» cond from the Principles. The third from the Prac^ tices of the Presbyterians themselves- The first, from the British Monarchy, stands thus: --rAU the subjects of Britain must own monarchy to be the best form of government for the State 5 and therefore he sees no reason, from the nature of the thing, why it should not be reckoned such for the Church also.— Nay, that it looks not like God that it should be otherwise, p. 33. But this is as unhappy an argument as Mr Rhind could have pitch, ed on. For, Imo, Unless he could prove, (perhaps Dr Lesley may help him to it,) that Monarchy is the only government by divine right for the State, and that all the nations" of the world who are under any other kind of government, are, on that account, in a state of mortal sin, his argument must do a great deal more hurt than good to the Episcopal cause. For it will plainly follow, that such nations as have an aristocratical or democratical form of govern- ment in the State, and are persuaded it is best, should have the like in the Church too. The Bri. tish subjects are, indeed, persuaded, that monarchy is the best government for Britain ; and, I believe* will always be of this mind, while so benign a Prin- cesft as her Majesty fills the throne j but these same So BEFENCE OF THE I persons are not persuaded, that it would be the best tor the United Provinces, the Republics of Venice Cjenoa, Lucca, the Swiss Cantons, Geneva, &c. I and^consequently, they must be persuaded too, ac^ cording to Mr Rhind's way of reasoning, that a mo- mrchical government in the Church would not be SSr ks mf ,?;. ^'' ^'S^'^^^t. then would quite alter its nature by a voyage ; and from being a good one for Episcopacy at home, would become a good one against it beyond sea. 2rfa, Is it not pret- ^ ^T V*? °** ^°®' ^^^ ^^s ^^^d ^he Bible all over, as Mr Rhmd says he has done, and has heard our Saviour not only declaring, that his kingdom is not ot this world, but expressly discharging his disciple* ^exercise such dominion and authority as the ftinces of the Gentiles do; is it not odd, I say, to find such a one urging the cutting the Church go- yernment by the pattern of the State ? Does he not know that it was the fancy of modelling the external government of the Church according to the civil go- vernment of the Roman empire, that brought in such officers to the Church, of whom there is iust as much mention in the Scripture, as there is of the present Emperor of Morocco, or Czar of Mus- covy. • I refer it, then, to the reader, to judge. It that can be a good argument for determining the government of the Church, which was the greatest cause of her corruption. 3//0, As Mr Rhind has laid the British monarchy in the one scale, so he must allow me to lay some instances in the other, and let the reader weigh both. The Romans, who were the greatest masters of civil prudence ever the world knew, when once they had expelled the Tar- quins, and abolished regal government, though they used sometimes aristocracy, sometimes democracy, or a form mixed of both, yet never were so idle, or ill advised, as to think of setting up monarchy again, till usurpers and tyrants oppressed them, and, by mam force, wrung their liberties out of their • Sec Df Caw, Pnmit. Christ. Part I. Cliap. Yiii p. 225. PRESBYTERIAN COVERKJIENT. 5d hands. Lycurgus and Solon were the wisest men of their age, by the verdict of all the world ; yet they set up, the one aristocracy, the other democracy, and recommended them for ever to their people. Plato and Aristotle, are names will be ever had in veneration, yet they had but very indifferent thoughts of monarchy, because of its liableness to degenerate into tyranny ; and that which makes the British mo- narchy so desirable, is, that the two Houses of Par- liament qualify it, and give it a mixture both of aris- tocracy and democracy; whereas the prelacy con- tended for by its late patrons, is a downright tyran- ny, a monarchy after the French form — none daring to say to the Bishop, what doest thou ? as we shall hear afterward. 4/o, Is it not strange, that the Church of England Divines, (Dr Whitaker, for instance, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge), when disputing against the Church of Rome, should argue against a monarchical government in the Churdh ; and yet that Mr Rhind, who pretends to be of that communion, should argue for it, when disputing against the Presbyterians ? I want mightily to be sa- tisfied about his conduct in this. His second argument from the principles of the Presbyterians runs thus, page 34. I would know of them, why they are for a subordination of judica- tories, while they are, at the same time, against an imparity of rulers ? Really the Presbyterians own themselves so dull, as not to be able to give a rea- son for that which is not. Let Mr Rhind once prove that they are against an imparity of rulers, and then it will be soon enough to give a reason why they are so : For they are not disposed to philoso- phise on the golden tooth. He never suspected that his medium wanted truth, and therefore he goes on very innocently in his harangue thus : * To what pur- * pose, I would ask them, serves a subordination of * judicatories, where the judges are supposed to be * still the same ?* Did Mr Rhind never hear that pltis 'vident Oculi quam Oculus, Two eyes see better than one ? Does he not know that all the apostles were 60 DEFEirCB OF THR i equil in their apostolical character, and w hen tkt coptroversy about circumcision was started at An- tioch. Acts XV. doubtless Paul, being under an in- futiible conduct, could have determined it as orlho- lioxly as the whole college of them ; yet, for satis- lying pe<>fiie's minds, it was judged expedient that the advice of the rest should be had, and their authority interposed. O, but, saith he, in the Pres- by teriaQ si^iboirdinajtion the judges are still the same, JJ^^w, what could put this in his head, or how he i?ould possibly stumble into it, I cannot conjecture* Mm he so long among the Presbyterians aod doe^ not tliow it to be false ? Coald he meet with never om: in the whole country to tell him it was so ? wkm I am sure there are very few in the nation hn% eoiiW h^ve done it All matters that come from a subordinate to a superior judicatory are trans- lllit|f they know it is only their superior wisdom • See Im Speech before the House of Common. con™g E- plseopLy, in Rushworth's Collect. \ol. I. Part UL p. 182. BEfENCE OF THE mnd virtue that cm entitle them to respect^ from, dir •way imotig their brethren. This first excites their •pifits, and then keeps them on the bend ; but when <>nce they are settled in the dignity by a formal in- italment, they know that reverence is due to their character, how unaccountable soever their conduct is. Of all sorts of bishops, these are the most de- sirable, whose dignity rises and falls in propo^^on with their real merit and wise management. This puts them upon their good behaviour, which is ne- cessary for clergymen, as well as for other people. And this is i^ainly the case of our Presbyterian Bi- shops. To all this, Mr Rhind may please to add, that they refuse, and their brethren will not allow them, to be consecrated to the dignity ; because it is not only without warrant, but against the precept of our Lord, Matth. xx. f 5, whereof afterwards. In the meantime, Mr Rhind having acknowledged that the Presbyterians have such as are bishops upon the matter ; it is plain, he has separated from them for the want of what is not material. S^o, As to his in- stance of the act, assertory of the intrinsic power. If he had said, that the Junto, as he calls them, by importunity prevailed on, or by pure dint of reason, persuaded the rest that such an act was either not necessary, or not seasonable at that time 5 I believe ie had spoken truth, but nothing to the purpose, be- cause Presbyterians stiU own, that some, who in point of authority are only on a level with their bre- thren, may yet be superior to them in the ecclesias- tical politics. But to say that they got it crushed by their authority, was to be too prodigal of his ere- dit, the whole nation knowing it to be false. 4/o, I know that Mr Rhind mentioned this instance by way of reflection against the Presbyterians, and therefore, I must take the freedom to tell him, that the General Assembly has done more, even since the revolution, for asserting the intrinsic power, than all the Prelatists in Scotland ever had the cour- age to do. These latter, upon the restoration of King Charles 11. meanly truckled to an avowed PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 65 Erastian usurpation -tho.^^^^^^^^^^^ or reclaiming. And when the late King jan down his proclamation of the date, Fe^: /2, 1687, ?or an un£)unded toleration -^^-^^d ^f re^^^^^ power and prerogative royal, he f""""^ ^"".bishop tery, and a soothing of the king , ^g^. "'"' n^' Smined h m elf! So unwilling were gion, and at last ruineu m f-u^ds to venture r ""'rrirS f' andhoSj. cpu..eU their posts by giving nu" i ^ thpirkinir, and when they might have possibly ^^^^J t^/^'j^^'^.^'^he certainly their own ^^"^"^"Si Wd livl acted a General A-e-blyon_ the othei hand, h^^^ ^^^^^ T'/^'nf SaWd it in a very ''' nXt'^a- TchuS^'nTosSed of the courage that ^XTtjudicatory. ^^j^, ^^^..^^d the chair in t^'e h ghest j ^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^ '"^"TnrS'the whole Assembly adhered to him yernment, a^'^the wi ^.^^ ^^^ ^j j^^ in so doing. I hope tt^en ^^ . ^ ^ needless- 8hould have been wise m !"» \^'^\'l'^"^} ]^-^^^,y, sto, w hivp ffiven occasion to such a piece oi "'"1"'^ ,! Ais reasonfng concludes alike against Bishops, as ^ ell hlis reasoiunt, ^ General Assembly ; loi the ^' 'u ."'ITnot wan ?o know that Bishops are not world does not ^^"^ to ^^^^^ ^^^ always the wisest, any more "lan u e he limself was -- o^^^^^^^^^ that . when such IS the governm ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ . there are d^ff^^V^arTcl^^s^rwith qualifications ^ rS r^ot rh=f ::i t^a/it ha. 1 i i i €6 DEFENCE OF THE PUESBTTEKIAN GOVEUNMENT. 67 too frequently happened that ™«« ?f ^"^^^^1 ties have attained to the highest ^cclesiast cal d^m ties? And does not the history of the ^te^ times confirm tins? Witness Mr Wallace, who. m the year 1 662. was preferred to be Bishop of the Isles, thouglv i: understood not one syllable of the native S"^^^ of his diocese : yet a powerful recommendation an^ the good quality of pliancy Procured him the cr«s.a . Butrsaith Air Rhind. this is not the fault of the^on stitution, but of thase who prefer them. Very man nerlv ' And so all the faults of the bishops must be charff^d UDon the prince. But the very constitution cnargea upon uic p^ . c„„.i„„j ^Uat it was at least has been always such in Scotland, that it w^ a verv great hazard if ever a worthy person was ch^-L ^Generally men of merit are mode^^'^^^"^^ love obscurity ; the most unworthy person, are most forward to Jut in for preferments ■ co-tiers by xvhose eyes and ears the Pnnce '""^^^see and hea^^ are most ready to recommend such as aie J^Ke y lo b^th^ most serviceable tools to themselves m their nol tiLuesiens The Prince's conge d'ehre makes Jhtlition of he chapter a sham. So that upon Se S tl^ere was a Lit in the very constitution. even though the office had been in itself lawful. Til M? Rhind is resolved to end this argument •*u ^«« Kr^lrl Qtroke. ' According, saitli lie, p. ^»j with one boia siroKc. j^^^ &» bnnwn and Dia aeudiii-c „ =pnate' It was reckoned never hear of the Roman senate, it the most venerable bench in t'*^ ?^°"" ' J-,u,,„nd. ,\\A mritv reien in perfection, and that notwithstana tt FhTSlity aSiong the constituent members m £t of pruTence. That fine gentleman the younger C.IShisfViendArnan^^^^^^^^^^^ tion before the senate, in which he had been employe" lo pleartells him*. Thus it seemed good to the « „ , , 1 -u . ^.nm est Numerantnr cn'im sententite; noi> poodentntur. Nee aliua in p""" r -^ ^ SJEi est tam ine^uale ,aam «1»^ f '"..f ?/ ^"^1. prudeatia, par omnium ju» est.-Phn. lib. a. l^p- xiu ■olurality: For the votes are numbered, not weighed. W can it otherwise be in public council, }^ whicn there is nothing so unequal as the eq"ahty itself^ For the right of all is equal, though their prudence is unequal! Did Mr Rhind never hear of the House of Lords, or Commons in Parhament ? Are not all the members in these several houses allowed an equal authority ? yet who ever said that they were equally qualified, or that it was necessary th^ should be so ? If he has never travelled so far as Westmin- ster in his views, yet did he never hear of the Lords of Session, or Senators of the College of J-^fc^ m Scotland ? Does he not know that none of them have a negative on the rest ; that they have all an equal authority, though they never had, nor proba- bfy ever will have equal abilities ? Yet one would be very void of common sense, that would venture to • say, that their constitution bids a defiance to it. So much for his argument from the nature of the thine, of which he is so vain, that he aflirms, p. ^J> it may in some measure serve to determine the con- troversy about church government : and 1 hope, after what has been said, every reader will grant that he may for ever enjoy that good opinion ot %t without fear of a rival. ARTICLE IL III" Wherein Mr Rhisd's Argument for the Necessttt) of instUuting Prelacy from the Form of Government in the Jewish Church, is Examined. From p. 89 la p. 45. BEroRK I state this argument, I must put (yet once more) the reader in mind, that though the Presbyterians are against a subordination of pastors, vet they are for a subordination of officers, as well as the Prelatists are. And that, therefore, when his arguments conclude against a parity oi ofhcers, or \ w 6& DEFENCE OF THE PEKSBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 69 for a subordinate form of Government, it is only » parcel of empty insignificant words huddled to- gether, unless by the former we understand Pres- bytery, and by the latter Prelacy. This premised, bis argument stands thus ; » A government constituted by a subordination « of rulers was actually approven of by God under « the Old Testament : For the form of govern- • ment, which, by divine institution, obtained m the « Jewish Church, was constituted by ofiScers acting • in an imparity ; such as the High Priest, Priests, • and Levites ; each of which were orders distinct ' from, and subordinate to the other/ p. 40. This is his whole medium, and the only inference that cam justly be made from it is, (which every Presbyte- rian grants), that such an imparity was not only lawful, but also best for that state of the church. But Mr Rhind's inferences from which are of a high- er nature, viz. That if it was best under that dis- pensation, he cannot conceive how it can be reck- oned unlawful in the Christian Church. I cannot but pity the weakness of his conception : For if our Lord has changed the Jewish Priesthood, and dissolved their polity, and set up the Christian very different from it, will not this make rt unlawful ? O but, by Mr Rhind's account, our Lord did not this, he could not do it, it was not consistent with his wisdom to do it j plainly, ' it is,' saith he, p. 41, * an impeachment of the divine wisdom to think *that God would alter that form of government * which he had instituted, to establish another quite « difterent from it.' And now you have his whole argument, an argument which he tliinks sufficient ta prove the perpetuity of that form. In discoursing it I shall shew, First, That as he has laid it, it is horridly impious. Se- condly. That his management of it against the Presbyterians, is ridiculous. Thirdly, That it is iu itself weak, and concludes nothing to the pur- pose in this controversy. Fourthlt/, That it it conclude at all, it concludes for an universal Pa- pacy rather than a diocesan Prelacy. And, Lasttp, ^hat it is rejected as insufficient by the Episcopal authors themselves. .,, I. The argument, as he has laid it, xs horridly impious. God must not be wise, that is, he must not be God, unless Mr Rhind please. No Christian ought to pass that way of talking he has got into without resentment. Sauciness against the Al- mighty is intolerable. What! Was it not consis- tent with the wisdom of God to alter a for™ of go- vernment he had formerly instituted ? Has Mr Rhind read the Bible, and knows not that God go- verned Israel, first by Judges and then by Kings, and yet was infinitely wise in both ? If he did this in the state, why should it reflect on his wisdom to do it in the church ? Nay, has he not actually done it in the church ? For, was not both the civil and ecclesiastical power originally in the same person, in Adam, the Patriarchs, and Moses ; and yet, under the law, did he not put the ecclesiastical regi- ment into the hands of the High Priest Priests and Levites, so that the King was no longer Pnest ? And might he not have learned this from Ur L— y mm- Be\h • The Jews fondly dreamed that their polity ?ffas to last with the world, and persecuted the first martyr, Stephen, to death, because he had taught, that Jesus of Nazaretli would change the customs which Moses delivered. Acts, vi. 14. But, it Mr Rhind's argument is good, Stephen's doctrine was false, and the Jews murdering of him was only the effect of a laudable zeal. Is it not more agreeable to the divine wisdom to think, that the circumstan- ces of the church being so vastly altered.her govern- mentshould be so too. Underthe Jewish dispensation, the church was empaled within a narrow enclosure, but the Gospel was to be preached to every creature. And is not here a fair foundation for altering the go- vernment ? And does not the Apostle to the He- brews, c. vii. V. 12, lay it down for a principle, that the Priesthood being changed, there is made, ot necessity, a change also of the law. How impious • FinUhing Stroke, p. 2. 70 DEFENCE OF tHff PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 71 I is it then to insinuate, that such a change is incon- sistent with the divine wisdom ! II. His management of this argument against the Presbyterians is ridiculous. Take it in his own WQids, p. 43. * Seeing there was one of the highest « order in the Jewish Church, it follows unanswer- * ably, (taking along with you what I have said a- * bove upon this head,) that there ought to be one * at least in the Christian Church. 1 his,' saith he, * is enough to prove the point against the Presby- * terians, and I defy them, if they shall answer di- * rectly, to evade it.' This defiance of Mr Rhind's, IS the prettiest I ever heard of Let the Presbyte- rians * take along with them what he has said above « upon his own head, that is, let them grant that it * is an impeachment of the divine wisdom, to think « that God would alter that form of government * which he had instituted among the Jews, to esta- « Wish another quite different from it among the * Christians ;' and then it will follow unanswerably, that as there was one High Priest in the Jewish Church, there ought to be one at least in the Christian Church. That is, as if he had said, pray, you Pres- byterians, let me bind your hands, and then PU un- dertake to knock out your brains. I truly cannot imagine what class of men Mr Rhind wrote for. Presbyterians will be so far from taking along with them his assertion, that they cannot otherwise look on it than as a most rude attack on the Divine Ma- jesty. He goes on with his reasonings. * I ask them,' saith he, p. 44, ' whether it be just to con- demn the order as useless among Christians, because one is not able to perform all the offices belonging to it ? Or whether it be not ratlier rea- sonable to acknowledge, that as there was in the Jewish Church one ecclesiastical ruler of the high- est order, and no more, because one was sufficient ; so should Christians have one at least, and as many more as are needful ?* The Presbyterians are heartily content with the proposal : For, they believe every Gospol Minister to be an ecclesiastical ruler ,f tl.e highest order, -d -e very -l^p^^^^^^^^^^ that one of them IS "f ^*"^ f J^.^t^multiplpng of T'hev are so far from being against m«'"Pj^ & Spl that where there ^ one in ^^^^^^l .vish there were threehundred But sa tn .^ « let them allow one Bish«p f^^^ J^^^^ * proportion to that to wjich the High l-ne * tity did extend, and the debate is at an ena. Presbyterians will be content with tht likewise upo two very reasonable conditions : Ut, ^fj^^^^^ P'" ^e tSIhere is any divine institution jmnting^yo^ .0. But MrRhind's dictating^o God an^^^^^^^^^^ „ reasonable it should be ««. -.11 not be^^ ^^^.^^ them as a proof of this. 2d, V-^K^st order in the the ecclesiastical rulers of the l"g|^f J, ^^^^^ f,n,c. Christian Church are appointed for the ^^^^ tions the High Pnest was under tl^elaw^^l^^^^^^^ that Imayspeak in M^Dod^^U s sty^, ^ ^ ^^j,/ the national or popular f ^"^f '' , ^ or proselytism. to the Jews, only (whether .^Y b'^^ly [^P/^^^^ijah it is the same thing,) the P";;'';S\ V„l. '|ut in ^",'..'"NCTeTamtvI ciTInd that any such, all the New lestameni, ^.7 • *j^^^^ ^^as ever either national o, P™''°°»' W'°P7Son,ofany designed to be '!« endof anj of the 1 ^ . r ;%= rfi.,S,eSnX»...^ever na- tional distinctions they have. ITT Thp artrument is in itselt weaK, auu clud"; Jothing|: the purpose in this co^ov^ . tecause. ^om the - - -t^m ^^^^^^^ typical. ;„ dtad' It It tTits end and acc-p^^^^^^^^^^ in Christ. Mr ^"^^^^^^^ Zl^fx^ZTZ^^rl and therefore essays to J^^^^^;* £^, ^ ,',rpriesthood ,. If the constitution of te Ltc^^ ^^^^ ,. ^as subordinate, the ^""^tian "n p^^g^^ted by therwise the type is "^J^J^^Syterians grant: the antitype, p. 42. Th^« t^^^^ J^^, profession. Hor Christ is the great bigh-priest oi ou i MAi 72 DEFENCE OF THE Heb. ill. L, and all other Christians are a royal priesthood, i Pet ii. 9., subordinate to him. But otherwise, that the orders of the clergy among Chris- tians should be adjusted to those among the Jews, is a ridiculous dream ; seeing from the one end of the New Testament to the other, the title of Priest is never given to the ministers of the gospel as such. His 2d answer is, * That though these parts of the * priestly office which did prefigure the sacrifice and * intercession of Jesus Christ were to cease upon * his crucifixion and ascension, yet that the High * Priest was also a governor in the Jewish Church, * and that the ordinary priest had a share in the * government with him, though subordinate to him, « and that the Levites were subservient to both. * And he is confident that the Presbyterians will not « affirm that the High Priest, or inferior priests, did « typify any thing under the reduplication of rulers, « or the Levites as under them, or that there was * any thing typical in their subordination as such.* But this answer is in all its parts unserviceable, and in some of them quite opposite to himself. For, 1. We have already • heard Mr Dodwell declaring. That it is the Bishops precedency, not in the Chris- tian assemblies onfy, Lt in their sacrifices, which can entitle to a principle of unity. Therefore Mr Khind destroys the argument by abstracting from the sacrifices and insisting on the government, and by considering the Jewish church officers not as priests, but as rulers. 2. If the subordination as Wich among the Jewish church rulers was not typi- cal, then, where is there any necessity, by that ar- gument, for any such subordination in the Chris- tian Church ? 3. Why is he so confident that the Presbyterians will not affirm, that the High Priest or inferior priests did typify any thing under the re- duplication of rulers ? He owns he had read the Presbyterian authors with a scrupulous exactness, particularly the Altare Damascenura. Now the author of that work expressly affirms itt. « The • See liefore, Chap. ii. Sect, 2. t Alt. Damasc. p, 140. Sed cum sancti omues slot Deo sacer- PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 73 ^.r » coJfli hp « of the High Priest, in : 7Zrr^^c:;^^^^er:%e f order a„d . rutaxvof thttVverrirnent. was typical, and shadow- ed the super-eminent dignity of our High Priest . Sove all other priests, whose priesthood has an influence on all ^the faithful, and makes thein : ;tTtrand%astors in an ethicaU th^^^^^^^^^ « tirnl sense.' It is then plain that Mi Itlund s con fidence in this point has been much greater than his .Son 4 sLing under the Jewish dispensation the Snaf; priestf had a share in the governmen the Oiainary p j^j^. g^j^jj,^ ^^^ '"''N^'1% ! h^Tc'lna'/priests in the Church of fSes he couM »ever be Satisfied v,z. the Jesses lie ^ nuthoritv- *1Lhe bishop, :: th":"'" gfveS^rd^^S excommunicateth 'alone iudgSh alone. This seems to be a thing a one, juu - ■ ,,overnment, and there- « a most without example m ^^ deo-ene- r sXdiSr rroVernment which Mr llhind ^'Tv! Hi! argument, if it conclude at all, con- eludes for an universal Papa<7 rather than a Dio- eludes lor cui ^^^^ ^ ^^ ^ggj .he original gove'^en of » c'i^ Schurche. re^Sc^rthfehtlT at Jen.s.le,«. and that „„„ ;1K msa eminentia summl sacerdotis in qua illi ponnnt dotes, annon ilU ipsa '"•'""• ... i,,. emnentem surnrai ordinem et ''.'t^'"'""'. •'''nnmcs sacer.lotes dignitatem adnmbrabat, ponlificis nostr. ^"P>'' "''"^"fi "t^nfl it et e.l.icos licet non poU- ticos in externo vegim ne S'"'^" '"'" " L ,, ^f England, p. U. • Certain Considerations touclnng the LUuicn oi ^ t , r 74 BEFEHCE OF THE MWiBYTERIAK GOVEKNMENT- 75 Hh the bishop of Jerusalem was the principle of Catlid- lic unity, and that there were no other bishops iti the world but himself, and that the settling of bi- Bhops in particular dioceses was an after-game. This is Mr Dodwell's doctrine. • And it agrees very well with the argument from the Jewish priesthood. He indeed took pains to prevent the consequence that this doctrine might seem to have in favours of the Church of Rome, by teaching, as we shall hear afterwards, that the government was altered ni the lecond century ; but Mr Rhind, by declaring an al- teration inconsistent with the wisdom of our Lord, has plainly betrayed the Protestant cause. He fore- saw that this objection would be made against his argument. Let us hear how he wards it off. ' This • cavil,' saith he, p. 43, * is, I confess, very plausible, • and our adversaries do triumph upon it as unanswer- « able ; but they do not know, perhaps, whom they • oblige by this.' Well, pray, who are they ? ' Let • me tell them,' saith he * that the Roman Catho- • lies are no less fond of it than they.' But let me tell Mr Rhind, that this is to write not only weakly but ridiculously. Wlien the Prelatists go ni to the worst part of Popery, by insisting on an argument which, supposing its'solidity, must needs found the Pope's supremacy, must not the Presbyterians, (who have proved a hundred times, that it is absurd to m^ ler tlie form of government in the Christian, from that of the Jewish Church), tell them so much for fear of obliging the Roman Catholics ? This is a new way he has got of turning the chace, which may be admired, but I believe will scarcely be fol- lowed by any wise man. But after all this, how does he defend his argument against the Papists ? He indeed refers his readers to the authors who have managed this controversy against them ; but hi« • Parsenes, Sect. 6, p 9. Eccleslae Catliolicre universae, pnma- tamtenuit Episcopus Hierosolyiiutanus. Parem illi quern similiter tenuit poiitifex lempli Hkrosol) mititiii Jiulacus in syuogogas JudaB- •rum per orbem teiraruin ubjque dispersas. Et parem illi quein Aba ¥eDtlka per Christiaiiuiii orbcm universuni pootifex Komaoua. own defence i^/^solu^y "^^fi^he Jewi^^^^^^^^^ c In so confined a society as ^^^ ;'^^;\ ^^t ^rder was . any more than one officer of the '"g"^ . ^^ . heedless, seeing the f ^P^^^^^^f j^ upon all . him from the remotest ^°^"^^^f^/,rsufficient for . theproperoccasions; and one-a^ ^^^^^ ^^^ c the discharge of ^U tj e ^utie^ o ^ ^^e church . since the partition vvalls broken do^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ . is become a society ot so l^'ge ^n ^ ^^, ^an . the faithful cannot have access to on^, . one serve all the P"^P,f ^/J^„*^tes of that of- ,,hy may not one serve all the P^^^^^^^ , fice now, as wel - d- mg thej ^^ ^^ 3^^,^^^^ , and a part of ^he secona j^^j^^j^ ^re more It IS true the P^o^es^^^^ o ^^^ numerous now than they^e ..^^^ ^^ Ss^apeven i the nations mos^;e-o^e ^^^^^^^^ rusalem, the centre, ^nd that St Andrew, the Canaanite, and, as some say, &t r planted the gospel m Britain. Aj^ >t n ^^.^f sitting at Jerusalem ^'^"^ 'I, H f^p ^ Rome, .vhi to us then, why might not tlie bishop o ^ is much nearer hand, be so to ig now .^_ Rhind satisfy ?.^,, ,^,r ^^u^^eSes of Lon^ stance, all the faithful i" the cities 01 Westminster .^^inle ret of Slesex, Essex. ^'°^ '" .'o'f aMs^re, on this side the globe ; how t ht^ :^^^^V^J^^^tl tliTt cesan, or how he can serve all the P^^P^^^^^^f ^he office to them.-Let Mr Rhind, 1 say, ^ Roman Catholics in this , ^"^ then J^ beue y will find it no hard matter to shew how ai ful through the world may have ^^^f^ ^^^Jg all the ^' ^^'"\?ttScTtoTh?irr&ersal. It FSfthen t lat Mr Rhind's argument must needs £& n c^slity of the Pope's supremacy. 76 DEFENCE OF THE V. His argument is rejected, as insufficient, by the Episcopal authors themselves^ It will be enough to establish this from the mouth of two witnesses. The first is Bishop Bilson : • — * From these superior * and inferior degrees,' saith he, * amongst the Priests * and Levites under Moses, happily may no neces- * sary consequence be drawn, to force the same to * be observed in the Church of Christ. First, For that « the tribe of Levi might not be unguided without * manifest confusion, and was not subjected to the * regiment of any other tribe, but had the same man- * Ber of government by her prince, elders, judges, and * officers over thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens. * And afterward, this pre-eminence grew unto them, * according to their families, by inheritance and birth- « right. The father was chief of his offspring while « be lived, and after him his eldest, which is no * way imitable in the Church of Christ.' Thus Bilson. A second witness is the famous Stillingfleet, a much greater man than Bilson. He not only as- serts,! but proves irrefragably, that the Christian Church was formed, not upon the Temple, but the synagogue, model, where there was no such thing as a hierarchy, but a ruler of the synagogue, one or more, with a primacy in point of order, but an equa- lity of power with the rest of the elders of the sy- nagogue. Mr Rhind, then, ere his argument can hurt the Presbyterians, must both answer the rea- sons, and refuse the authority, of his brethren and fathers. And thus I have done with this argument ; and cannot but wish, that the Episcopal writers of the new cut were somewhat less Jewishly given. They are not content to plead for a Jewish government in the Church, but have turned also our communion tables into altars, our ministers into priests, and the communion into a propitiatory sacrifice; yea, Mr * Perpetual Gov. of Christ's Church, Chap. ii. p. 12; f kenic Pmrt II. Chap. yL PBESBYTEllIAN GOYEENMENT. 7T Dodwell* has found the ancient Bishops w^^^^^^^^ Stop ? If they go on VhltSv t^^^^^^ feared they may turn Cl^ t^^^^^^^ ^^ us n.ore than a mystical }^';;^'Z^^^ the old controversy, that * except ^e ue * ed, we cannot be saved. ARTICLE III. . . 7i>r -RoTMTY^ Aro-ument for the Necessity of ^Zt^^PnZ ffoiZ Rules of Political Pru- TJcfinSZ/e mtk the Jews and Romans, « exarrdned. From p, 45 to p. 49. This is an argument, which, as Mr R^nd h*! disLTrsS ?t. is. f dare affirm a pure ongmal ^nece , .„d that ^ - -XrSm" T e Lt"f ii's : The man readily w 11 atter mm |"^ . . ^^ Romans Jews were zealous ^^/.f ^'^ pXo^'"^'"''' °' ^^ vere under a monarchy. A pa^^ity oi o veiling kind of government. («"f^f ^JJ.';^"^^?^ to justice and accuracy, supposes the Jj^f y^^^^^"^^ ie-) would have quite alienated the Jews "o™' . of Ws AposUe., .ho became all U^^^^^^^^ to provoke theit •««»"'"■ "J. ?,,,., |,.jf„stituted d,eir ioclina. ons & * „ fte Pre bvSn U, their . One Pricthood, Ctop, U. Sect. 4- t ">!*. Sect. «. T8 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNxMEKT. 79 raised by their enemies against them. * For,' saith . he, p. 47., ' would they be justly blamed, if, for « their own security, they should endeavour to crush * a society of so dangerous a constitution. And « therefore he leaves it to the consideration of all < wise and impartial readers, whether it be not a « thought too unworthy to be entertained of Christ * and his Apostles, that they should have given oc- < casion to so reasonable a jealousy, and exposed « Christians to persecution, upon an account about * which they might have innocently agreed with their « enemies.' Here is, indeed, a masterful stroke. Here is m- finite wisdom limited, and infinite freedom confined in the most effronted manner. All the busmess of the sons of men, is to know what government Christ and his Apostles actually did establish, and upon finding that, to take it upon trust, that it was the very best. But to prescribe what government Christ and his Apostles were obliged in prudence to esta- blish, is presumptuous in the highest degree. But, waving this, let us try whether his premises will in- fer his conclusion. ^ i_ • L As to the Jews.— They were zealous for their hierarchy. Ergo, saith Mr Rhind, Christ and his Apostles institute one too, because it would have been disobliging to them to institute Presbytery.— But is it not much more reasonable to argue the quite contrary way, viz. that because the Jews were zealous for their hierarchy, therefore Christ and his Apostles did not institute one; because, if they had, it would have exasperated the Jews to the greatest height, and provoked them to revile the Christians US schismatics, yea, to curse them as they did the Samaritans, for setting up altar against altar ? Yes, this is so very obvious to common sense, that Mr Dodwell* himself gives it as the reason, why, dur- in^ the first times of the Apostles, they did tor a "while forbear the setting any bishop up in any • One Priesthood, Chip. is. Sect 7. p. 248. consUlerable superiority over Ws brethren «^For/ saith he, « if this supemnty of tbe ^^^^jP^ p^est, . substituting him in the place ot ^"^ " | ^ pj, < r„d the multiplying TlXrSists n everal . ties, ^vere the multiplying High Pr^est^ have bee« ' "^'"' lft%reTh5°:erJe" i^^^^ afected « interpreted by. \"ose^"i^, ^^-.j^ned They must . from the principles already "f**°"''^-„,„ violators . have looked on such pejsons ;« not on y v^ « union, and consequeuuy y account . curses and execrations, ^l^^^^'^^ «" ^^^^ans.' Thus . had been thundered against the ^,^"*"^^ ^^ ^ ,,e. Yea, l-./f s us elsew^^^^^^^^^ t^at Christ ^^^ ^^ '" '\Z Srto hi dSpfe that ever any hier- much as intimate to m t- already ob- „el,y disuno. from tWe Jew* .b,^_^ ^^^y the Jews. if ;c fmp thev were under U. As to U.e Romans, i\'^"'^2l oomtilvitio^ cned their jealousy aud E"™i„ 'l, our Urd dis- r"'d% m'e'rr.' wS -seS .Es, and at claimed all meddling ^^^'' . • j accounts the length became invi^be,^^^^^^^^ >vbich - ^ ^^^^^^_ Romans had no just reason ^^^^^ sion from himself; yet ;;hj,^ J^\7;,ara„ces ? Was are jealous even of the smai'^^i app ^^^^^ it not Christ's being 7"^.^/^^? sought to murder stung Herod «« J^arp^y f at he soug^^^ ^^^^ ^^^_ liim m his "adle? Was It no j^g^ tence that Pilate ^?"d^";'?'l';"^:e"c^e ?°if they were he had acquitted him m his conscience. i . ParxnM. Sect. 1 4. P- 58- Mil BEFENCE OF THE thus jealous of a monarch who owned his kingdom was Mot to be of this world, and was shortly to leave it ; would they not have been much more so if a visible monarch, independent of the state, had been set up in every city ? And has not the event shewed that they had reason for such jealousy, when bishops in most kingdoms have made such encroachments on the civil government, and the bishop of Rome has set his foot on the necks of the greatest emperors. And does not Mr Dodwell himself confess,* that it was the supremacy of the Bishop of Jerusalem, upon whom, as he fancies, all the Christian churches through the world did depend, that provoked the Gentiles to rage so much in persecution against that church, that the head being once lopt off, Christi- anity might be ruined at once. 2(/o, If a prelatical form of government would have any way recom- mended the Christian church to the favour of secular princes, or even alleviate their spite against her, is it not strange that none of the apologists for Chris- tianity ever insisted on that topic ? Is it not strange that the younger Pliny,t who gave the Emperor so discreet an account of the Christians, never men- tioned how well their government was suited to that of the empire ? Stio, Why should Mr Ilhind imagine that a parity of officers would appear any uncouth thing to the Romans : For, had they not a couple of consuls of equal dignity chosen annually ? Nay, did it not shortly after this grow in use to have a couple of Emperors (sometimes more) reigning with consent, igquo jure, as Eutropius t expresses it — so far were they from having an ill opinion of parity. 4#o, Does not Mr Rhind know that most of all the brave spirits among the Romans in the apostles days secretly groaned under the imperial chains ; impa- tiently longed for, and sometimes bravely attempt- ed the recovery of their ancient liberties and govern- »ent ? Does h'e not know, that upon the death of • Paraenes. Sent, 16, page 68. Suspicor lioc fine adeo in eccle- siam llierosolymitanam scvire Gculiles,ut, capite sublato, res Chris- tiana uni versa una concidcrct. t Ep. VI, Lib. X. % Breviar. Lib. riii. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 81 Caligula, the senate decreed that the memory of the Caesars should be extinguished, and the temples built to their honour thrown down, and that, by the tri- bune of the people they discharged Claudius, who had been saluted Emperor by the army, to enter on the administration, though indeed they were at last overpowered by a military force ? If, therefore, we were to reason on such common-place arguments, it is plain that a monarchical form of government in the church would have most excited the jealousy of the prince ; and that a republican form would have gained her most proselytes among the people. * But,' saith Mr Rhind, page 48, * we do not find that * ever their persecutors did charge it upon them as a * crime, that the church was of a republican consti- * tution.' True, indeed, they did not, for they knew that the Christians owned Christ as their head and king, and on that account misrepresented them as rebels and seditious persons, and raised persecution against them. Judaaos (saith Sueton)* impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Romo eJcpuUt^ But I have insisted too long against an argument the most maggotish was ever bred in the head of a living creature. I doubt not but the reader is curi- ous to know what could put him upon it. The discovery of this is no hard matter: i?wo. It was even pure love to the French king, that he might justify him in all his barbarous usage of his Protestant sub- jects. Who could have blamed the Roman Empe- rors, if, for their own security, they had crushed the Christian church, in case her government had been Presbytery ? This is his doctrine ; and is not the use of it very obvious, viz. The government of the French Protestant Churches was Presbytery; who then can blame his most Christian Majesty for crushing a society of so dangerous a constitution ? 2rfo, It was to teach our own princes at home how they were in all time coming to treat us. We are Presbyterians, and Presbytery alone is a reasonable • In Claud, cap. xkt. 82 DEFENCE OF THE rnESBYTERIAN GOVERXMENT. SS ground of jealousy and just cause of persecution. Thus merciful and gospel-like is the prelatic spirit. But I go on. Sect. V. Wherein Mr Rhind's Proof s for evincing that Prelacy actually was instituted^ are examined^ from page 50 to page 119. Mr Rhind, page 40, falls a haranguing with a very disdainful air, which yet becomes a high-flyer admirably well. • A government,' saith he, * con- * stituted by a subordination of rulers, is actually ap- * proven of by God, and this he has so fully notifi- * ed in his word, that to approve it, I am not put * to the wretched shift of obtruding upon my read- « ers any remote consequences fetched from two or * three controverted texts, as the adversaries in this * case are obliged to do.* It is very true that a hierarchy under the Jewish dispensation was both instituted and approven of by God : and how very serviceable to the cause of prelacy this is, I believe the reader is by this time sufficiently convinced ; but now he resolves to rally his forces, and attempts to prove the actual institution of prelacy by six argu- ments, the first four whereof are pretended to be fetched from the Scripture. And no doubt his rea- der is in great expectation : For, after the harangue you have heard, would not a modest person be tempt- ed to think, that prelacy were so legible in the Bible, that one needed only open his eyes to find it there ? and yet it is mathematically certain it is not there. How mathematically, you will say ? Why, the incom- parable Mr Dodwell, who has stated the controver- sy fairly, whose authorities are pertinent and justly alleged, and whose deductions from them, and all Iiis other reasonings, do proceed in a mathematical \ \ chain, has frankly owned* it is not there. Plainly, that prodigy of learning has acknowledged, that 'it * is not needful that the form of government to be now * observed, should have been delivered in the cano- * nical Scriptures ; that there is no place of them * which openly professes that ; that there is none of * the sacred writers treat of Church government on * design. Nay, that the Holy Ghost has never de- * scribed any one form of government that was to * take place every where, and at all times.' Mr Rhind's attempt then was too hardy, and he was too desperate to undertake that which the ablest cham- pion Prelacy ever had, owns to be impossible to be done. And now I come in so many articles to ex- amine his proofs, and it is a lucky presage that they will not be very dangerous, seeing we are sure neither to be oppressed with Mr DodwelPs authority, nor straitened with his reasonings, but on the contrary, will find him frequently helping us to answer Mr Khind* ARTICLE I. Wherein Mr Riilvd*s Proof for the Institution of Prelacy from its obtaining in the days of Christy is examined. From p. 50 to p. 61. Mr Rhind, in discoursing this proof, proceeds in * Paraenes. Sect. 14. page .57. Opus non est ut regiminis Ec- clesiastic! forma hodie observanda tradita fuerit in scripturis canoiii- ci*.— Nullus enim est qui id profiteatur aperte sacri scriptorls locus. £t ne quidem ullus qui ita de regimine agat ecclesiastico quasi id voluit etscriptor, aut scriptoris auctor spiiitus sanctus, ut tbrmam unam ai'quani legiminis ubique ct in omne i^vum duraturi describe;- ret. Nusquam sciiptures sacri satis expresse tradiderunt quanta se- cuta foeritiu regimiae ccclesiaruni mutatio cum pilmum di«cedereu F 2 w 84 BEPENCB OF THE TRESBYTEniAN GOVERNMENT. 85 the following method, I. He attempts to reason his reader into a belief that Christ, as monarch of the Church, behoved to institute officers of different or- ders under himself, by which we either suppose him to mean prelacy, or else his argument concludes nothing against the Presbyterians. II. He adduces the instance of the twelve apostles subordinate to Christ, and the seventy disciples inferior to them in the government of the church. HI. He labours with great industry, to prove that the text, Matth. XX. 25, « The princes of the Gentiles exercise do- • minion,' &c. with its parallels, carries in it no insinu- ation in favour of Presbyterian government ; and that much less can its institution be inferred from it All this I shall examine in order. I. He attempts to reason us^ into a belief that Christ, as monarch of the Church,*behoved to insti- tute Prelacy. This he does, by asking two questions. First, asks he, after what manner was the Church governed in the days of Christ ? I answer, after no manner at all. I doubt not but this answer will sur- prise him, but I am sure to convince him, it is a good one. Hear M. Sage,* • It is obviously ob- • servable in the Evangelical records, that the « Christian Church was not, could not be founded • till our Lord was risen, seeing it was to be found- *^ ed on his resurrection.' Is not this plain sense, and truth too I and if the Christian Church had no being before Christ's resurrection, then certainly no government ; if no government, then certainly no Prelatical government, and consequently Mr Rhind's argument is lost to all intents and purposes. It is clear as light, that such as listed themselves with Christ in the days of his flesh, were under no distinct government, but that of the Jewish Church, with which they were still incorporated, and from which^ as we have already proved, no consequence can be drawn for the nature of the Christian government* a ajnagogaram communione ccclesiae. Nusquim satis aperte quan- im Jonis concessum fuerit tpiritas sancti personalibus quantum tIcis. Ml l«cl« at officiia. Nusquam offioiarios ejctraordioarios qui illo ipsa, ■eoulo finem habituri etsent ab ordinariiM satis accurate secernunt. • ViBd. of tbt Priu. of the Cypr. Age, Chap. n. SecU 0, \ \ It IS plain, then, that all further consideration both of Mr Rhind's reasonings, and instance, are utterly needless. But short answers cut one's houghs, and are apt to be very provoking. Wherefore, that his harangue may not be lost, I shall answer his question accord- ing to his heart's wish, viz. That our blessed Lord himself was its sole king and head. And if this will content him for making the government of the Church monarchical, I dare promise him no Presby- terian will contradict him. But then, upon this con- cession, he has a second question to ask — Was there ever a government of a monarchical constitution, * where the monarch did not, yea be- * hoved not, to derive of his authority in an orderly * gradation upon several subordinate ministers ?' You see here good reader Mr Rhind's modesty : but was Christ under the same necessity with other monarchs? O yes : * Shall we suppose,' saith he, that * he who is * King in Zion shall do otherwise in his Church, than * all wise princes have ever done in their kingdoms ?' So now you have Mr Rhind's heart. Christ, the wisdom of God, must take his measures from the wise princes of the earth. But what though all this were true ; that not only all the wise princes of the earth, but even our Lord himself, not only had, but behoved to derive of their authority in an orderly gradation upon several subordinate oflScers ; and that a parity of rulers under a monarch would make a monstrous, and in itself a contradictious coik stitution, how would this affect the Presbyterians ? For thouffh they deny that Christ, while on earth, in- stituted a subordinadon of officers, and have a very good reason for it, as we shall just now hear, yet they both plead for, and actually exercise a ffovern- ment by subordinate officers. And I hope it is very easy to conceive how a thing may be not only of Scripture in the general, but even of New Testament Institution, which yet was not instituted by Christ while be was upon earth. It is then evident that 86 DEFEACE OF THE Mr Rhind's reasoning, suppose it had no other faults, yet imports nothing against the Presbyterians. But, if Mr Rhind please, let us abstract from what Christ behoved to do, and consider what he did. I affirm that while he was upon earth, he was so far from instituting subordinate pastors, that he did not so much as institute subordinate officers. And this brings me to Mr Rhind's instance. II. He adduces the instance of the twelve apos- ties subordinate to Christ, and the seventy disciples inferior to them in the government of the Church. It is needless to spend words on it. Let us see if the Episcopal authors have not fitted hina with aa answer. The first is Dr Whitby, a late fresh writer. * Whereas,' saith he,* • some compare the Bishops < to the Apostles, the Seventy to the Presbyters of • the Church ; and thence conclude that divers or- • ders in the ministry were instituted by Christ him- « self* It must be granted that the ancients did be- • lieve these two to be divers orders, and that those • of the Seventy were inferior to the order of the « Apostles J and sometimes they make the compari- « son here mentioned : but then it must be also * granted, that this comparison will not strictly hold; « for the Seventy received not their mission as Pres- « byters do from Bishops, but immediately from « the Lord Christ, as well as the Apostles ; and in « their first mission, were plainly sent on the same * errand and with the same power.' Thus Dr Whit- by. The second is M. Sage. * Our martyr Cyprian,* saith he,t ' (as appears from his reasonings on divers « occasions) seems very well to have known, and * very distinctly to have observed, that the Apostles • themselves got not their commission to be gover- « nors of the Christian Church till after the resur- « rection. And no wonder, for this their commis- * sion is most observably recorded, John xx. 21, 22^ PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 87 * Annott on Luke x* f Ibiil, ubi supr*. 2S. No such thing any way recorded concerning the Seventy. Nothing more certain, than that commission which is recorded, Luke x. did con- stitute them only temporary missionaries, and that for an errand which could not possibly be more than temporary. That commission contains in its own bosom clear evidences, that it did not instal them in any standing office at all, much less in any standing office in the Christian Church, which was not yet in being when they got it. Could that commission which is recorded Luke x. any more constitute the Seventy standing officers of theChris- tian Church, than tlie like commission recorded Matth. x. could constitute the Twelve such stand- in^" officers ? But it is manifest that the commis- sion recorded Matth. x. did not constitute the twelve governors of the Christian Church ; other- wise what need of a new commission to that pur- pose after the resurrection ? Presumable, therefore, it is, that St Cyprian did not at all believe that the Seventy had any successors office-bearers in the Christian Church, seeing it is so observable that they themselves received no commission to be such office-bearers.' Thus M. Sage. And what now .s become of the orderly gradation. The Apostles themselveswere not constituted governing officers be- fore Christ's resurrection ; how then could the Seven- ty be^ inferior to them in the government of the Church ^ , ^;r «, . 1. 11 And thus how we have heard Mr Rhmd s whole proof of the obtaining of prelacy in the days of Christ: for not one instance or declaration more has he for this purpose. Yea, indeed, he is so in- genuous, page 53, as to disclaim a positive institu- tion ; and only pleads, p. 61, that the subordination which obtained among the twelve Apostles and seven- ty Disciples, declares what form of government Christ liked best, and consequently is a precedent equivalent to an institution. And we have heard that there was no such subordination, and that there- fore it can be no precedent. I- iipi 88 DEFENCE OP THE But Mr Rhind is resolved to be equal with the Presbyteridnsy and to make it good that there is no positive institution of parity in the four gospels. III. He labours with great industry to prove that the text, Matthew xx. 25, • The princes of the Gen- « tiles exercise dominion,' &c. with its parallels, car- ries in it no insinuation in favour of Presbyterian government; and that much less can its institu- tion be inferred from it For my own part, I can- wot find any one Presbyterian author that ever in- iisted, on the said text, for a positive institution of Presbytery, but they urge it as an express interdic- tion of Prelacy ; and from thence, in conjunction with other Scripture warrants, infer, that, by Scrip- ture institution, the government of the church should be Presbyterian. But by no means will Mr lihind allow, that the said text has the least aspect that way j and he affirms, p. 55, that the intent of it is to correct the disciples* mistake concerning the temporal kingdom of the Messiah, and to warn them against pride and tyranny, but not at all to forbid a subordination of officers — pastors, he should have fiatd. Now, that I may do Mr Rhind justice, I shall consider every thing he has advanced for wresting this text out of the Presbyterians hands. 1 . « It seems,' saith he, p. 53, * to favour an equality; • but be it known to you, others have made use of it • with much more reason to prove a pre-eminence.* The reader, no doubt, will be in pain to know who these others may be. Plainly, it is Bellarraine, who, from thence attempts to prove the Pope's suprema- cy ; with as much reason, no doubt, as he does the lawfulness of denying the cup to the laity, from these words, * Drink ye all of it' S. * There are no other texts,' saith he, f ibid. J * in * the four Gospels which the Presbyterians do, that I * can remember, so much as allege to this purpose*' But here his memory has failed him : For, if he had consulted Didoclavius or Stillingfleet, * he might have found another text, viz. Matthew xviii. 15. *Tell • Alt. Damai. cip. it. H2. Irenic. Part II. Chap, v. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 89 i the Church'— which the Presbyterians insist on to the same purpose with the former. ^ ^ 8. < The learned authors of that persuasion, saith he p. 54, * candidly own, that the equality which * they contend for, cannot be inferred from this « place.' Well, who are these learned authors? He instances Mr Pool. But why does he mention him ? He answers, ' because he is of so great au- • thority with them at this time.' Well, shall the Presbyterians consult him ? By all means, and, saith he, * they will be convinced that I have done ' him no injustice.' But what book of his shall they consult? The Annotations, saith he, which pass under his name, Now, good reader, Mr Pool was dead and rotten ere these Annotations were written. Plainly, it was Dr Collins wrote them, who was m- deed a dissenter, though I have not yet heard whether he was a Presbyterian. But whatever he was he was very much inferior in abilities to Mr Pool. Are not Presbyterians now mightily straiten- ed with Mr Pool's authority ? ^ , , ... 4 * They are the lesser Presbyterian authors, saith he Vibid.) ' by whom it is still insisted on.' I am truly sorry that Mr Rhind should so frequently shew himself unacquainted with the writers on both sides, after he had told he had read them with a scrupu- lous exactness ; or, which is much worse, that he should so often bid defiance to the smcerity which the nature of his composure required. Calvin, Be- za, Chamier, Cartwright, Didoclavius, Turretine, the Belgic, the English Diodati's Annotations, do all of them, besides scores of others, assert, that not only the tyrannical exercise, but a dominion or Prelacy itself, is thereby forbidden to the pastors ot the church. Were these the lesser authors ? But why do I mention them? The English divines, themselves, from that very text, prove the Pope's supremacy to be unlawful, by what humble method soever attained to, or with what moderation soever exercised. And how the Pope's supremacy should be unlawful by virtue of that text, and yet the supremacy ot the II 90 DEFENCE OF THE Primate of all England, who is alterius Orbis Papa^ not be so ; it will be hard to give a reason, except that which the Lord Falkland, in his fore-mention- ed speech has suggested, viz. that they oppose the Papacy beyond sea, that they may settle one beyond the water. Hear Dr Whitaker. * It is not,* saith hCr* * humility in the domination that is required, « but the very domination itself that is forbidden.* And then goes on answering the criticisms advanced by Mr Rhind, but whereof Bellarmine was the true father. The Church of England divines, to give them their due, have oft-times made a noble stand against the Church of Home. No wonder. They bad both truth on their side, Jind considerable dig- nities to lose in case they got the worst. But of all men in the world they are the most to be pitied when they have to dispute against the Presbyterians j for the very same arguments wherewith they de- feated the Romanists, with the very same Presbv- terians defeat them : whereby they make the exact moral of the goose in the fable, which was wound- ed wkh an arrow feathered from her own winodwell, according to whom the Apostles di(I not appoint several orders of men. as Mr Rhind alleges, lor the work of the ministry, but one order only, viz. of simple Presbyters. Plainly, Mr Dodwell's account of the matter is this, ' that the Bisliop of Jerusalem * (as we have already observed), was Primate of the I hnstian Cliurch all the world over. That the ' Church of Jerusalem by her itinerant missionaries exercised the whole discipline in all the Christian * T A* ^''^*^ ^''^^^ itinerant missionaries,+ whe- * ther Apostles or others, were extraordinary officers. • i hat wherever they came, they never ordained ♦ any Bishops, but simple Presbyters only, with a » chairman among them, for order's sake ; all whicii • had indeed a power of preaciung the word, and • dispensing the sacraments," but neither tiiey nor their chairman were to touch the government • Hkc erfto. cum Ua se Imbucrmt, facile in.Ie colHgimus, unlcm foisse.in hoc un.ver.o intervallo, Cl.ristianis omnibus unitutis Frin- ..piuro, Ep.scopum Hierosolymitanum._P,imi» .utem lemuoribus »« fere ah. potestatem ,0 obnoxias Ecclesi* Hierosolymitanffi Eccle».as e»ercuerunt ,uam Ecclesiie Hierosolymilane, Ministri «U3« H.ero»olym.» ad re« eorum in purtibus remotioribus piocuian- das.— Par»ne». Sect. 10. p. 80, 33. t Nam ab extraonUuaiiis ubique constituta »unt Ecclesiarum exlerarom Presbyteri, extraordiuarionira autem rectorum summo. »acr» litewe ipse agnogcunt Aposlolos.— Ibid. PRESEYTEllIAN GOVERNMENT. 109 with one of their fingers. Plainly, * they had no « power to exauctorate or dispose any of their num- < ber, how criminal soever, nor to surrogate new * Presbyters in place of such as died, nor to exclude * any from the communion, nor to restore s^uch as « had been excluded, though never so penitent.'* This establishment continued till after the des- truction of Jerusalem^ and the death of Simon, the son of Cleophas. At lengthy about the year 506, the ttame of Bishop, before common to all Presbyters, was appropriated to one in each Presbytery. And this was the first year, says he,t of settling Episcopacy. The Bishop thus set up, was, if we will believe Mr Dodwell, endued with a swinging power indeed. * The dispensing all rewards and punishments in the < Christian society was in his hands alone ; in his hands * was the whole government, and that legislative « power that is competent to the Church, and that * without a rival or mate.'t Yea, so uncontrolable was his pow^er, that though he might cast himself out of the Church by his schism, heresy, or sacrifi- cing to idols ; in which case, the Episcopal college might supply his place with another, yet it was not in the power of that college, much less of his Pres- byters; nay, n6t of any creature, to depose him, how immoral soever he were in his life, how ill soever he governed the Church, but he was to be left to the judgment of God alone. § This was the Ignatian, • Paraenes. Sect. 10. p. 32. 33. Muniis sane Ecclesiarum po- blicis obeundis ita vacabaiit, ut tamen disciplinae partem nullam aut regiminis administraiiut. Nee legimus unquam ab his Ecclesiaruin Fresbyteiis seu exuuctoratos, cum ita meierentur, Presbyteros) seu novos in demoituoium loca sufl'ectos. Nee pulsom aliquem com- munione, nee horum Presbyteriorum ilecreto restitutum. f Ibid. Sect. 2i5. p. 102. Non longe, ut opinor, aberrabtmus si annum constituti episcopatus primordiakm statuanius Christi CVI. ut scilicet foerit anno illo paulo vel antiquior vel recentior. J Ibid. Sect. 87. p. 176. Sic penes solum Episcopum erunt socie- tatis Clirislianae PiEcmia omnia atque paenae. Inde sequetur penes eundem esse visibilis Ecclesiae Uegimen omne, Potestatemque, qualis in hac Societate locum habet, Legislativam. Et quidem sine amnio, . J Ibid. Sect. 43. p. 192. Nee opus erat Judice qui ^um exuat, sad quo sedcs iilius antea vacua suppleatur. Tale crimen erat idolis % 110 DEFENCE OF THE this tlie Cyprianic Bishop, this the Episcopacy that should always obtain.* I am fully persuaded that this Dodwellian scheme, 80 far as it narrates the powers of Bishops, is the most extravagant, chimerical and false ; yea, indeed the most scandalous to Christianity, that ever was, or perhaps will be heard of ; but let his followers look to that the best way they can : only, it is plain, that so far as Mr Dod well's judgment or authority reaches, Mr Rhind's argument is utterly lost : And the first form of government certainly might be altered ; be- cause, by the preceding scheme, it actually was al- tered. I am then longing after this representation, to hear what judgment Mr Rhind will pass upon his above reasonings, I should now proceed to the next particular, but I crave leave, before I go farther, to make an observe or two. In the^rsi place, I observe that there is nothing, the Episcopal authors, and Mr Rhind as much as any, more frequently and willingly slide into, than harangues against a government by parity. Here they lay out all their colours, exert their utmost elo- quence, and even bear down their reader with a tor- rent of rhetoric. But I hope by this time, the read- er is abundantly convinced, that these same ha- rangues against parity are very senseless things. For, first, by the former account from Mr Dodwell, we have heard that Presbyters had not the least share in the government, and that the whole government was in the Bishop's hands, and in his alone. Secondly. gacrificasse: Tale Crimen erat Hseresis, — Similis erat causa Scisma- tis. Itaque sententia nulla opus est quae illos ejiciat ex Ecclesia, vel exuat officio. Hucusqne ergo nulla est Potestas in Episcopos. Sed Tero nuUas legimus his temporibus Episcoporum depositiones propter Crimina quae non potestateni ipsam Episcopalem sustulerint. Nullas propter monim vitia sola. Nullas propter Ecclesiam male administratam. • Ibid. sect. 37. p. 176. Recte ergo iine Episcopo Ecclesiam nequidem esse posse censuit Ignatius, Sect. 40. p. 186. supremos enim, in sua qucmque Ditione, Christoque Soli obnoxios Episcopos ftgnoscit ibi S. Cyprianus, Sect. 54. p. 240. Bono fieret reformationis publico, si Episcopi primsevis iliorom juiibus restaureatur. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT, 111 The same Mr Dodwell assures us, and he is certain- ly right in it, that all Bishops were originally equa . Bv divine right are so, and continued to be so till towards the reign of Constantine the Great, that Archbishops and Metropolitans were brought m, not upon any divine warrant, but by pactions among themselves.* Thirdly, He assures us, in like man- Tier that the Church in each nation and province was iroverned by the Episcopal college,t and that too Acting in a parity. Fourthly, ' That the said parity « of ail Bishops t was most consistent, even with a * flourishing discipline, both of faith and manners, « and that the very parity itself would take away all * these contentions which often arise from worldly * pride, emulation or envy.' Is it not then plain, that the government of the Church universal, and the government of every national Church, was and ought to be by parity ? And what then signify all their declamations against parity ? Will they not equally serve the Presbyterians against an Episcopal parity, as they do the Episcopalians against a Pres- byterian parity ? Or is'parity so nimble a thing, as to alter its nature according as the side is that espouses it ? I would then advise our Episcopal brethren to reserve their harangues on that subject, till they hear of a new edition of the Formulce Oratonw ; tor though Ihey import nothing in the controversy ot Church government, yet they may be worth their room there, and possibly be useful to some school- boy of a barren fancy, to furnish out his oration with. • Parffnes. Sect. 40. p. 184. Sequltur ergo, qusecunque aeincepa obtinuerit imparitas, earn omnem singulorum Episcoporum pactis esse tribuendam, tantundemque valere quantum lUa valent pacta. Quamdiu obtinuerit Paritas statuere difficile est, tot primaevis nionumentis deperditis. Suspicor autem obtinuisse ad tempera iere Constantini. + One Priesthood. Preface, Sect. 8. • ^ . , . ± ParKues. Sect. 39. Sic nihil obstabit quo minus, in hac ipsa Episcoporum omnium Paritate, vigeat tamen Disciplina tarn Fidei, quam Morum, consentientissima Paritas certe ipsa lites lUas omnes ablatura erat, quae e typho seculari, ex «mulatione, vel ex invidj* sepe oriuntur. I jL'"a. 9tf DEFENCE OF THE ■ In the second place. What a very jest do the great- est authors on tlie Episcopal side make themselves. Dr Hammond, in innumerable places, * will have us believe, that the Apostles at first ordained no mere Presbyters, but Bishops only. ' No,' saith Mr Dod- well, * the Apostles at first ordained no Bishops, but * simple Presbyters only.' Here are the two greatest champions of the cause by the ears together, on the most material point of the controversy. What can the Presbyterians do in the mean while, but ga- ther the spoil ; which, I think, very plainly falls to their share, which soever of them two gains the vic- tory. For, if Dr Hammond be right, the Presby- terians cannot be wrong — a Bishop, without Presby- ters under him, being the Hkest thing in the world to a Presbyterian minister. But if Mr Dodwell is right, the Presbyterians clearly gain the cause ; there being no mention of Episcopal government in the New Testament ; and the year of Christ 506, being the first of its settlement. For my own part, I am perfectly convinced, that the Apostles ordain^ ed no Presbyters, but such as were Bishops, too, in the full Scripture extent of that word ; that is, who had power of ordaining, exercising discipline, and governing the Church, as well as of preaching and dispensing the sacraments. But that these Bishops had (as Dr Hammond fancies) a power of ordain- ing, under themselves, simple Presbyters, as they call them ; that is, men empowered to preach, and dispense the sacraments, which is the w^orthier part of the office, and on the account of which, especi- ally, the double honour is due, without power of or- daining and governing, which is the lesser part of the office, I shall believe it when I see it proved. In the mean time, I am not more persuaded, that there is such a book as the Bible, than I am that there is no mention in it of any such creature as a Simple Presbyter, or of a power lodged in the hands • Disf, 4, cap. 19, 20, 21, 22. Vkd. of the Diss. Chap. ii. iUiuot. 00 Act. 11, 6. mi 14. a. PRESBYTERIAN G0VERN:»IENT. 113 bf a Bishop to make any such ; or that there is in all the kingdom a Presbyterian Minister, who is not as much a Bishop, in all that sense the New Testa- ment means the word, as the Primate of all England is. I now proceed to examine — IV. His demonstration for the divine right of Pre- lacy, from its being confirmed by miracles. The reader heard before of Mr Rhind's miracle-working Bishops. ' This,' he tells us, p. 69, ' has given him * the hint of a thing, which, in his opinion, is a « plain demonstration for Episcopacy -,' which is this, in his own words : * , . , -n • * Seeing, after that time, m which a proper Epis- « copacy is acknowledged to have universally ob- « tained, severals (whom the adversaries of that ve- « nerable order cannot deny to have been Bishops « in the ordinary acceptation of that term), were al- « lowed the gifts of the Holy Ghost, it is certain « that their office was of divine institution. For it « is not to be supposed, that our Lord would have * vouchsafed them these special donatives of Heaven, « which they employed in the discharge of the Epis- * copal office, had it been (what the Presbyterians « commonly call it) an antichristian usurpation.— « Thus, if the office of an Apostle be of Divine in- * stitiition, that of a Bishop must be so too— the « credentials for the mission of both being of the « same authority.' This is his demonstration. ^ I do not wonder to find Mr Dodwell* hint at this argument— his scheme had need of it. For he ingeniously owns, that Episcopacy is not to be found in the New Testament ; nor indeed can be, as being later than all the writings thereof. But for Mr Rhind, who was so well furnished with arguments from the Scripture, to oppress us with these, and with miracles too, was very unmerciful. However, • Paranes, Sect. 17- p. 74-. Erant praeterea, illo quoque se- culo dona spiritus S. et miracula illustria, qux Deum sub ilia quo- que disciplina praesentissimum probarint. Quae sane speran non poterant, si ab Antichristo et iniquitatis niysteno rautauo tanU processisset, quad volunt nuperi magistri. X,.- -■ ■i*£fi. 114 DEFENCE OF THE seeing he will needs go upon the topic of miracles and extraordinary gifts, I think it but reasonable that Presbytery should put in for its share. Bishop Spottiswood himself relates * of John Knox, that he prophesied of Thomas Maitland, a younger brother of Lethington's, who had insulted upon the murder of the good Regent Murray, that * he should die « where none should be to lament him.' And the prophesy was literally accomplished. He relates al- so, t tliat he foretold of the Earl of Morton, that • his end should be with shame and ignominy, if he • did not mend his manners,' which the Earl remem- bered at the time of his execution, and said, * that « he found these words to be true, and John Knox « therein to be a prophet.' He relates also, t how he prophesied that the Laird of' Grange should be pulled • out of his nest, and his carcase hung before the sun,' which accordingly came to pass. He relates also § a couple of miraculous providences, interposed in behalf of Mr John Craig, another Presbyterian mi- nister. Twenty other things, as miraculous, and at least as well attested, as those of Melito, Irenaeus, ©r Gregory, might be related of otiier Presbyte- rian ministers ; but, for the greater credit, I have satisfied myself with these recorded by the Episco- pal historian. In the mean time, I am fully convinced, that there cannot be a greater weakness, than to bring such things in argument on the one side or the other. Had ever a Bishop, or any body else, come^ and preached to the world, that Episcopacy is of Divine right, and that all the passages of the New Testament relating to Church government are to be understood in a sense consistent with that doctrine,, and had offered to work a miracle for confirmation of all this. Had the event answered, and an uncon- tested miracle been wrought, I acknowledge it might luive superseded all other arguments, and put an • Cliuich Hist p. 2S4. f ^^^^ P- 264. % Ibid .^ p. 266. f Ibid. p. 462. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. lis i » -end to all further disputes. But I suppose it will puzzle Mr Rhind to find where this was ever done j nay, which is a great unhappiness to him, by his ac- count, such a miracle in those early days had been unnecessary, because nobody th€n was in any doubt about the Divine right of Prelacy. No ; Calvin was not born for many hundreds of years after; nay, Aerius himself, that father of Presbyterian Schis- matics, was yet sleeping in his original causes. There are several good Protestants that do not think that all the miracles, reported to be wrought by the Je- suits in their missions among the Pagans, are mere forgeries. If there was any thing real in them, it was a seal to the truth of Christianity in general, which was the great avowed end of their mission. But will any body infer thence, that the order of she Jesuits is of divine institution ? Balaam was en- dued with extraordinary gifts; does it, therefore, follow, that God approved of his character as a di- viner or soothsayer ? Cyprian, discoursing of some who had broken off the Church by schism, yet sup- f)oses it possible for them to signalize themselves by miracles. * In like manner, Augustine :— * Let no -* man,* saith he, t ' vend fables among you. Both * Pontius wrought a miracle, and Donatus prayed, ^ and God answered him from heaven. First, ei- * ther they are deceived themselves, or else they de- <* ceive others. However, suppose he * could re- •^* move mountains,' yet, saith the Apostle, * If I • Cyprian de Unitat. Ecclesi». Nam €t prophetare, et dae» mona excludere, et virtutes magnas in terris facere, sublimis uti- ,que at admirabilis res est ; non tamen regnum coeleste consequi- tur quisquis in his omnibus invenitur, nisi recti et justii itinerj^ observatione [h. e. unitatis ecclesiae] gradiatur. f Augustinus, Tom. ix. Tract. 13. in Evan. Joan. p. 122. Ne- mo ergo vobis fabulas vendat. £t Pontius fecit miraculum, et Do- natus oravit et respondit ei Deus de ccelo. Prime aut falluntur aut fallunt. Postrcmo fac ilium montes transferre. Charitatem autem, inquit, non habeam, nihil sum. Videamus utrum habue- Tit charitatem, Crederem, si non divisisset unitatem. Nam et contra istos, ut sic loquar, mirabiliarios cautum foe fecit Deuf mens dicens ; in novissimis temppribus ejsjsur^ent pseudoorophe^ tm, facientes signa et porrenta. ^ U2 116 DEFENCE OF THE " have not charity, I am nothing.' Let us see, wh^ • ther he hath not charity. I should have beheyed « it, if he had not divided the unity : For my God • hath warned me against all such wonder-mongers, • saying, ' In the latter days, there shall arise false «« prophets, doing signs and wonders." Thus Au- gustine. Here, then, is one demonstration for Epis- copacy fairly spoiled. But as it is not the first, so it is not likely to be the last. ARTICLE IIL Wherein Mr R hind's Proof for the Insiituiion of Prelacy from the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, is examined. From p. 14! to p. 84. Upon this argument, I shall, I. Examine his rea- sonings, by which he introduces himself to it. 11. The argument itself, and what he has advanced for mak- ing it a good one. L I am to examine his reasonings, by which he introduces himself to the argument. I have so good an opinion of his judgment, as to believe he himself wits convinced of the weakness of what he has hi- therto advanced. ' But,' saith he, p. 74, ' there is • yet still something behind, which alone does suffi- • ciently prove, that the superiority of powder which • the Apostles exercised over the subordinate orders • of clergymen, that is, over Priests and Deacons/ (and why not over Prelates too, seeing there were then such ? Would he have us to beUeve, they v^ere hail fellow with the Apostles?)' was not pecu- • liar to them, and consequently not extraordinary.' Now, pray what may this be ? It is this : ' That • the same was communicated to others, even to so • many, that perhaps there was uot a church con- PRESBYTEKIAX GOVERNMENT. 117 \ \ « stituted by the Apostles, where there was not such « a superior officer appointed: at least this holds « true of the greatest number of these whereof there * is mention made in the New Testament' It will be very strange if Mr Rhind can make good this : For, /r5^. There is the Church of Corinth^ the cliurches of Galatia, the Churches of Philippi, and all Macedonia, the Church of Tliessalonica, with a great many more mentioned in the New Testa- ment ; but of any such superior officer in any of them, there is a deep silence in the Scripture. Se^ condly. It is the very reverse of Mr Dodwell's doc- trine ; according to whom, as we have already heard, there was no such superior ordinary officer appoint- ed in any church constituted by the Apostles, the whole government being managed by extraordinary officers sent from Jerusalem. But Mr Rhind chal- lenges the Presbyterians to condescend, from the Acts and Epistles, upon one act of ordination and jurisdiction, about which such an officer was not principally employed. And I challenge him again, indeed all his party, to condescend upon one act, about which such an officer, not extraordinary, was employed. Mr Rhind foresaw, that his challenge would be thus returned. And this brings me, II. To examine his argument or instance in an- swer to the said returned challenge. • This,' saith he, p. 74, * was the case in Ephesus and Crete, where * Timothy and Titus acted with such a superiority * of power.' I answer, not good : For Timothy and Titus were extraordinary officers, and, there- fore, it cannot be thence inferred, that that supe- riority of power was designed to be perpetual. Mr Rhind was aware that this answer would be made to him ; and, therefore, having, with unusual cere- mony and good-breeding, declared, p. 76, * that it * is not so contemptible as some would represent * it,' he applies himself with all his might to defend against it ; and to prove that Timothy and Titus were not extraordinary officers, but the ordinary and fixed Prelates of Ephesus and Crete. BBFENCS OF THE This he argues, frst^ from the silence of the Scrip* tUrOf that there is no intimation made in all the Act^ and Epistles, that they were such extraordinary offi- eers. Secmdltfy From the postscripts to their Epistles, which expressly call them the First Bishops, that is. Ordinary and fixed Prelates of Ephesus and Crete. Thirdhf^ From the concurring testimony of the an- cients, who, with one voice, declare as the post- scripts do. FourMy^ From Scripture authorities, proving, that Timothy and Titus were of an order superior to Presbyters and Deacons, and such as was always to be continued in the church. A set df very strong arguments I acknowledge. Let u» eocamine whether he has made them good. Firsty He asserts, « That there is no intimation « made in all the Acts and Epistles, that Timothy « and Titus were such extraordinary officers,' p. 77._I affirm the contrary.-^No, Mr Dodwell, I ihould have said, affirms the contrary ; and proves, from the very same arguments drawn out of the Epistles which the Presbyterians have always in- sisted on, that their office was not fixed with re- spect to Ephesus and Crete, but that they were iti- nerant missionaries. This he proves with respect to Timothy from St Paul's beseeching him to abide at Ephesus, from his being called an Evangelist, from his frequent journeys with St Paul, and the like. And, with respect to Titus, he affirms, * that « he was not more confined to any one place than « the Apostle Paul himself was.' I have set down his words on the margin,* that the reader may see all this. • Parscncs, Sect. 10, p. 40, 41 . SeJ ▼€«> munus ilHus (TImothei) non Fixum fuisse sed Itinerarium, Multa arguunt. Rogatum ilium rtamisse Ephes. testatur Apostolus, 1 Tim. i. 5. Erat ergo, cum ro- giretur, itinerarius. Arguit opus Evangellstje, 2 Tim. iv. 5 ; A*- gauiil tot illius cum 8. Paulo itinera, et commune illiug cum Apos- tolo nomen in inscriptionibus Epiatolarum ad Thessalonicenses. limiliter Tito, et quidem soli de constituendis in Creta 'r«ir« w><». Fresliytens, idem praecipit Apostolus, Tit. i. 5. Relictum ilium fulise ait, ut ea quae deerant, corrigeret. Comitem utique Aposto- li cum r«Unqueretur. £t sant Comiteni S. Fmoli ftl]» ^tioque Iocs PERSBYTERIAl^ GOVERNMENT. 119 \ Secondly, Reargues from the postscripts to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, ' which, saith he, p. 78, • do expressly call them the First Bishops, - that is, ordinary and fixed Prelates of Ephesus and * Crete.' Well, is it true that they were so? we have already heard Mr Dodwell; let us hear another, who was as much concerned to keep tne Episcopal cause right as ever Mr Rhind is likely to be. The person 1 mean is Dr Whitby. [^Ftrst, saith he,* * I assert, that, if by saying Timothy ^ and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus ana * the other of Crete, we understand that they took * upon them the churches and dioceses as their * fixed and peculiar charge, in which they were to •preside fof term of life, I believe that Timothy < and Titus were not thus bishops.' Thus he. But what now shall become of the credit of the Poor postscripts by this ? Why, the same Dr Whitby proves them to be false from the very letter of the text itself, in the Epistles. But Mr Rhind is more tender-hearted. ' Though,' saith he, * they are * no part of the canon of the Scriptures ; jet they * are of so much authority, that the Presbyterians « themselves have not yet dared to cancel theni m * the common Bibles.' Very pleasantly ! But then, let me ask, in the >5/ place, seeing they are no part of the canon, what authority can they have beyond what the reputation of the authors ot theni can give them ? Now, who were the authors ot them ? I doubt if that can be discovered, unless one would go to Endor. Were they at least early ? No I will leave the argument to Mr Rhmd, it he call find them for at least 50O years after the E- pistles were written ; * Nay,' says Dr Hammond,t ^ We know that the subscriptions of the Epistles « are not to be found in all the ancient copies.' 2%, It is true, the Presbyterians have not dared to can- aocent, non raagis utique certo alicui loco adstrictum quam ipse fucrit Apostolus. » Preface to the Epistle to Titus; f Preface to the 2d Ep. to Timothy. 'ilk' JttirkJf DEFENCE OF THE eel them in the common Bibles. But then I would ask him, who first put them into the common Bi-. bles ? I doubt very mucli if they came there by fair play. The oldest English translations have them not. I have by me, • Rycharde Taverner^^ translation, * Printed in the year of our Lord^ • MDXXXIXy wherein there is not one syllable of the bishopricks of Timothy and Titus. For instance, the postscript of the second Epistle to Timothy, bears this only, • Writtm from Homey when Paul • was presented the second tt/me up before Emperour • Nero.' But not one word of Timothy's being ordained either first or second bishop. I ask Mr Rhind, secondly, who caused print these postscripts in the same letter with the text, whereas, usually, they were put in a dilSerent letter, that they might be known to be no part of the canon ? Good Mr Rhind, pray purge your party. In the mean time, it is not very generous to take advantage of the Presbyterians for their not cancelling them, when they dared not do it ; the power of printing Bibles being the Prince's gift, not the churclVs. However, from the whole it is plain, that it is ridiculous to make an argument of these postscripts. Thirdly, He argues, ' from the concurring testi- • monies of the ancients, who, with one voice, de- • dare as the postscripts do. And to this,' saith he, p. 78, < the Presbyterians will find themselves ^^straitened to rejoin.' No doubt. Well, where *iare these testimonies of the ancients ? Oh, * how • easy were it for him to add to the number of • pages by quotations to this purpose ?' But still I ask where are they ? Nay, not one of these an- cients has he quoted to this purpose — nay, nor so much as named. Who now can doubt but the Pres- byterians must find themselves straitened to rejoin ? But if an Episcopalian rejoin, will it not do as well i Hear then Dr Whitby. « The great controversy,^ saith he,* * concerning this and the Epistle to Ti? • Ibid, ubi supr«, p. 485, Vol. II. PRESBYTERIAN GOVER]N^MENT. 121 * mothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were in- « deed made bishops, the one of Ephesus and the < Proconsular Asia, the other of Crete, having aui* « thority to make, and jurisdiction over so many * bishops as were in those precincts. Now, of this * matter, I confess I can find nothing in any writer « of the first three centuries, nor any intimation * that they bore that name.' Thus he. And the Presbyterians being secured from the ancients of the first three centuries, any hazard from the rest is not much to be regarded : For, as M. Le Clerc most judiciously observes,* ' The testimonies of the * ancients about this matter, who judged rashly of « the times of the Apostles by their own, and spoke * of them in the language of their own age, are « of little moment ; and so, do no more prove that « Titus was bishop of the Island of Crete, than what < Dr Hammond says, proves him to have been dig- * nified with the title of an archbishop.' Fourthly y He argues from Scripture authorities which prove, as he says, page 79, that Timothy and Titus were of an order superior to Presbyters and Deacons, and such as was always to be conti- nued in the Church. 15^, With respect to Timothy, he observes from Acts XX. 31. compared with Acts, xix. 10. and Actsxix. 26. and Acts xx. 17. that Ephesus was furnished with pas- tors before the Apostle Paul left them. And yet he besought Timothy to abide there to charge some that they should teach no other doctrine, and to perform several other functions which import a superiority of power, with respect to ordination and jurisdiction : < For,' saith he, p. 81, ' Is it to be supposed, if the * Presbyters and Deacons of Ephesus could alone * have discharged these offices, that St Paul would * have continued Timothy there, encroaching on their f divine right-' The answer is abundantly obvious ; for, first, when the Apostle was departing out of these bounds, he warned the elders of Ephesus, that * Supplement to Dr Hammond's Annot. on tlie Ep. to Titui. p^ (mihi) 530. f 1am DEFENCE OF THE t f after his departure, grievaus wolves should enter in, not sparing the flock. To give a check to such, it was expedient in the infancy of that church, (none of her ministers being then above three years stand- ing in the oflSce, Act», xx. 'Sl.) that a person both of extraordinary character and gifts should be among tbem ; — which, when once the government was set- tled, and things brought into a fixed order, there would be no such occasion for. Secondly^ Paul's lieseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus is a certain argument, as we have heard from Mr Dodwell, that lie was not their established bishop : for to what end ibould he beseech a bishop to reside in his own dio- cese, when he could not do otherwise without offend- ing God and neglecting his duty. Thirdly^ The el- ders of Ephesus already ordained were bishops. So nays Dr Hammond, nay, so says the Sacred Text, Acts, XX, 28, * over which the Holy Ghost hath made • you Bishops :' and, therefore, as Bishops, they had power to perform all ministerial functions, and only wanted such an extraordinary person as Timothy to direct and assist them in their present circumstances. The Romans, sometimes when the Commonwealth was in imminent danger, created a dictator with an absolute power for six months, without bounding him with any other instructions but that he should take care, ne quid detrimenti respublka capereU But will it therefore follow that the dictatorship was a Standing oflSce? Or will the Romans making choice of such an officer in their extremity, justify or excuse Sylla or Julius Cajsar, who would needs have them- selves declared perpetual dictators, and thereby en- slaved their native country. Though one takes phy- sic when he is sick, yet it would be a very un- pleasant diet for ordinary. Though a gentleman wears leading-strings while he is a child ; and is un- der tutors or curators, till he is one-and-twenty, does it follow that he must always be so ? 2rf/y, With respect to Titus, Mr Rhind sug- gests that he was left at Crete, with a power to in- spect the qualifications of such as should be ordain* PBESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 128 ed, chap. i. 7. to rebuke elders as well as others, chap. ii. 15. to reject, that is, to excommunicate heretics, and all this notwithstanding there were other church officers ordained there before : for he was left to set in order the things (relating to ordi- nation and jurisdiction) which were wanting, which must needs infer that he acted in a capacity superior to them. It is answered : Crete was as yet in a great measure unplanted when Paul left him there. He was left there on purpose to ordain elders in every city. These elders whom he ordained were Bishops ; the text expressly says it, chap. i. 5—7. Dr Hammond himself owns it. When, therefore, they were once ordained, they had power to perform all acts any Bishop is capable of. But Mr Rhind asserts, p. 83, * That Titus, after he had ordained « elders in every one of the cities of Crete, conti- < nued there exercising what we properly call an « Episcopal jurisdiction over them when ordained.' But, first, not one word has he offered for the proof of this. Secondly^ The Scripture contradicts it, as we shall hear just now. Thirdly, If he exercised any jurisdiction over them, they being Bishops themselves, it would not be simply an Episcopal, but strictly and properly an Archiepiscopal jurisdic- tion. But it is plain he did not continue in Crete to exercise either ; for, f)urthly, Dr Whitby not on- ly confesses, but proves from Scripture, that he did notpontinue there. * As for Titus, he was only * left at Crete to ordain elders in every city, and to « set in order the things that were wanting. Hav- « ing, therefore, done that work, he had done all that « was assigned him in that station. And therefore « St Paul sends for him the very next year to Nico- « polls : Tit. iii. 12.' Thus he. If, therefore, Mr Rhind's instance prove any thing, it must be the divine right of non-residence, which indeed would be no ungrateful performance to several people in the world. Thus I have gone through whatever Mr Rhind has advanced on this proof* And now to conclude it j 'I. I «ll II' IF 124 DEFENCE OF THE there IS nothing surer tlian that there was a perfect equably among the Bishops for the first three cen- tunes, and so Mr Dodwell affirms. There is nothing plainer from the Scripture, than that there were ht ^hops at Ephesus before Timothy was left there ; and that those whom Titus ordained in Crete were Bishops in all that sense of the word, the New Tes. tament owns. How then Timothy and Titus could be the fixed and ordinary prelates of Ephesus and Lrete, is beyond the power of natural understanding to conceive. If Mr Rhind can solve me in this one scruple, or if any other of his brethren can, I shall own it as a singular obligation. And therefore I desire them to take pains on their answer, and to la^ tour It with all due care. ARTICLE IV. mtereln Mr Eitixd's proof for Frehcy from the Apocalijpnc Angels, is emmined. From p. 84 to p. 80- ^ Mr RoiND is much shorter on this, than on any of the preceding proofs. The reason, no doubt, is, because it is much clearer. And therefore he puts on all his airs, and treats the Presbyterians with a noble disdain in the confidence of 'it ; wondering they can be so senseless or obstinate as to resist its evidence. That I may not wrong him, I shall set down every word of what he has on it, without the least omission. • And that such a superior order did obtain a con- « siderable time after this, is evident from the in- • stances of the seven Apocalyptic angels, to whom • our Lord directs so many epistles by his servant • St John, a plain indication of his approbation of MESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 125 « that authority which they exercised, especially « considering that there is no insinuation made to « its disadvantage in the epistles directed to them. « And that these angels were single persons, and * the governors of these churches, will be evident * to any who shall impartially consider the 2d and « 3d chapter of the Revelation, where they are plain* * ly characterised as such ; so very plainly, that per- * haps all the authors who ever commented upon * them, whether ancient or modern, have supposed * them to be such. Nor was it ever questioned by « any, till the interest of a party obliged some to * search for criticisms, by which they might seem « with their followers to answer the argument drawn * from these instances for Episcopacy : But the « evasions they have been forced to use are so sense- * less, and have been so often exposed as such, « that I am saved the labour of exposing them fur- * ther, or of repeating what has been already said * to disprove them ; only I must add, that so ground- « less are they, and such is the evidence of truth * on the Episcopal side, that it extorted from some « Presbyterian authors, and particularly from Beza, « one of the most zealous and learned patrons of * parity, a confession that these angels were single * persons, and the governors of these seven Asian * churches.' Now let us examine all this. In the first place. Were these Apocalyptic an- gels the fixed bishops of these churches ? It is true, Mr Dodwell, in his book of the One Priest- hood and One Altar, which he published in the year 1683, is of the opinion • that the bishops are here represented in a mystical way, and personated by the name of Angels ; but in his Paraenesis, a book which he published above 20 years after the former, and which consequently must be supposed to be the wiser book of the two, he frequently inculcates, as we have heard before, that there were no fixed bi- shops in the world at that time ; and particularly as • Chap. xii. Sect. 2. p. 332, &c. - -"-- f i DEFINCB t>F fHE to them Apocalyptic angels, though he is in a very gre^t doubt what to make of them/ yet by no means will he allow them either to have been bishops, or ^wieed the fixed presbyteries of the place, but guesses %^m to have been itinerary legates sent from Jeru- salem, answering to the seven spirits, Zach. iv. 10. that are the eyes of the Lord, which run to and fro through the wh(»le earth.t Was Mr Rhind, tten, to seek for confidence, when he would be so positive in a matter of which the greatest man of his party could not have a clear view ; and in which, $o far as he could guess, he has determined against PBESByXEfilAK GOVJEINMENT. 127 £hcondh/. How came Mr Rhind to number these Apocalyptic angels, calling them the seven Apoca- lyptic angels ? The Apocalypse itself does not call them seven. It is said indeed, chap. i. 28. that the seven candlesticks are the seven churches; there iM^th the symbols and things represented by them are numbered. But it is not so in the other branch. It is not said the seven stars are the seven angels, but indefinitely are the angels of the seven churches. Is not this a plain indication that the Holy Ghost would not oblige us to take the word Angels singu- TMrdhff Are these angels characterised as single persons ? Though Mr Rhind indeed is more than ordinarily sharp-sighted, yet I am so far from seeing this evident, that I cannot discern one shadow of it ; but on the contrary, I think I see them, and that too as plainly as ever I saw any thing, characterised 10 m to denote a collective body. Possibly my sight • Vide Sect 10. p. 32. f Parttnes. Sect. 10 p. S2. Ita fuisse necesse erat, si quidcm we Bpiscopi fuissent aiigeli Apocalyptici. Sed de illis senten- tiam nostram infra explieabimus, p. 39, 40. Si non suffeceriot, tie alios fuisse verisimillimum esset angelos ecclesiarum Apocalyp- ticos ab institutis looorum Presbjrteris. Erant ergo etiam ipsi for- tasse Hierosolymitanonmi legati, sed Apostolis ipsis obnoxii~ut poQinde eciilis Domini seplenis spiritibus respondei int Anireli Apo- Cldyptici qui discurrebant per universam Terram. Sic fuerint etimnt hi ecclesiarum pr«fecti noa c loco oriundi, sed missi Hlero- solymis itijierarii. is vitiated ; but th^n much greater men, I am sure, than I, and at least as good friends to the Episcopal cause, have seen them just the same way. Dr Henry More, a man of an Apocalyptic genius bimsBlf, frankly owns, • ' That by angels, according to the * Apocalyptic style, all the agents under their pr*- « sidency are represented or insinuated. And this,' saith he, * is so frequent and obvious in the Apoca- * lypse, that none that is versed therein can any * wise doubt of it. Wherefore Christ, his writing * to the angel of the Church of Ephesus in this « mystical sense, is his writing to all bishops, pastors, * and Christians, in the first apostolical interval of « the Church.' Thus Dr More. Yea, Mr Dod- well himself owns,t That the churches of the Ly- dian, or Proconsular Asia, are to be understood by the mystical representation in the Apocalypse, and that the reason why St John confined his number to seven, is, * not that by any geographical distinction « those seven bodies were incorporated into a body « more than others of that province, but that he * had a particular regard to the number of tlie < angels of the presence.' How is all this consist- ent with their being characterised as single persons;? But let us wave human judgment, and appeal to the text. FourMy, Are these angels characterised in the 2d and 3d chapters of the Revelation as single per- sons and the governors of these churches f It is true, each epistle is directed to the angel in the sin- gular number. But it is as true, that that title agrees to every minister of the gospel, and to every one that bears the message of the Lord. And it is as true, that the word angel, even in the singular number, bears a collective sense ; as when it is said, Psal. xxxiv. 7. * Th'5 angel of the Lord encamps « round about them that fear him.' So that nothing can be inferred, on the Episcopal side, either from the title itself, or from the usage of it in the singular ♦ Expos, of tbe Seven Ept. to the Seven Churches, p, 22, t One Frleiithood, Ckap* lui^ Sect. 2. ^"amm las bEFENCE OF THE s| PflESBYTEHIAN GOVEENMENT. 129 i If number. But then, if we look Into the body of the epistles themselves, consider the way how they are ushered in, and the solemn clause with which each of them concludes, it is plain that Angel must be taken in a collective sense, as including not only all the ministers of the church, but indeed the whole church itself. Thus, in the first place, John directs his Revelations to the Seven Churches which are in Asia, Rev. i. 4. Thus the voice behind him order- ed him, * What thou seest, write in a book, and send * it unto the seven churches which are in Asia,' Rev. i. 10, IK Thus, at the end of the whole vision, * I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto * you these things in the churches,' Rev. xxii. I64 Thus at the end of every one of the epistles, there is that solemn clause, • he that hath an ear to hear, * let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.' Secondly y If we look into the bodies of the epistles themselves, we shall find the thing still more clear. 1. In the epistle to the angel of the Church of Ephesus, shall we think that the commendation for labour and patience, the reproof of the decay of the first love, the exhortation to repentance, tlie threatenin^j to remove the candlestick out of his place, were directed to, or concerned only one sin- gle person ? Would our Saviour punish a whole church so grievously as to deprive them of the gos- pel for the fault of their bisliop ? No. ' When * he says the angel of Ephesus, he means the * church in it,' saith Aretas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia." 2. When he bids the angel of the Church of Smyrna, ' Fear none of tliese things which thou shalt suffer.' Is it not presently added^ * Behold the devil shall cast some oi'i/ou into prison, * thatj^e maybe tried ; and^e shall have tribulation Vten days.' jEs this the characterising of a single per- son ? When he exhorts to faithfulness, and makes promise to him that overcomes, does he direct to the Bishop only ? ' No,' saith Augustine,t • he says it to • Comment, in Apoc, ti» a ittmt t «A«r Xsyu. t Augustine, Tom. X, Homii. ii, in Apoc, Omni Ecdttl* djcit. the whole church. Sdli/, When he saith to the angel of the Church of Pergamus, ♦ I know thy works, and « where thou dwellest, even where Satan s seat is, was it the bishop only that had such bad quarters, when it is instantly added in the end of the verse, ' Antipas, my faithful martyr, was slam amoag you, » where Satan dwelleth ?' • No,' saith Augustine, « these things, nnder a singular word, are said to ' the whole church, because Satan dwells every « where by his body. Now the body of Satan are « proud and wicked men, just as the body of Christ « are such as are humble and good.' Indeed the whole church in these parts was in the greatest dan- ger of idolatry, or of persecution in case ot not complying with it ; for in Pergamus stood the la- roous temple of iEsculapius, whither the greatest personages went, or sent their gifts, because ot the fame of his oracle. Thither Earinus, Domitian s freed-man, sent his consecrated hair, with a mirror, and a box set with jewels.! Thither the Emperor Antonius Caracalla went to be cured of his sickness by the god, and to lie in for dreams, t Thither, also, ApoUonius Tyanaeus, who was set up to mate our Saviour, went to be director of the Uracle, and to instruct the votaries that came there how they might obtain divine dreams from the god.§ io this god dragons and serpents were sacred, and maintained on the public charge in his temple. Fitly, therefore, was Satan that dragon and old ser- pent. Rev. xii. 9. said to have his seat there. Add to all this, that admitting there had been such officers as Prelates in those days, yet it would be probable that the see was vacant at this time : for as the tra- dition goes, Antipas was the Bishop of that place ; but he was martyred in the tenth year of Domitian, * Ubi supra— omni ccclesiae dicit in unius vocabulo, quia ubique Latitat Satnnas per corpus suum. Corpus autera Satanae hommes gunt superbl et mall-. Sicut et corpus Christi hnmiles et bow. ■ X Dulcesque caplllos Pergameo posult dona sacrata Deo. — Mart. - ± Herodlan, Lib. IV. Cap. t. 11. _ § Philostr. in vlt. Apoll. Lib. IV. tap. iii. ■ ■ • ^"4 I ) f ^w i ISO DEFENCE or THE as the Roman Martyrology bears ; which was the very year m which, as the most common tradition carries It, John the divine was banished to Patmos. And L)r Hammond, foreseeing, it seems, this difficulty, placed John s banishment in the reign of Claudius. and makes the relation of the martyrdom of Antipas, Kev. II. 13. to be not history, but proplrecy ; and whereas the text reads, ' Antipas my faithful martyr was slam, he paraphrases it, « Antipas, for his fidelity and courage in preaching the gospel, will be (I fore- see) cruel y martyred.' And if the see was vacant at that time, how could the epistle be directed to the ^ishop ? 4thlt/, When he writes to the Angel of the Church m Thyatira, was it the works, charity, ser- vice, faith and patience of the Bishop alone he com- mends, verse 19 ? Was it the Bishop alone whom he reproved for suffering that woman Jezabel ? No. saiih Augustine.* « It was such (in the plural mm. • ber) as were set over the Church, who neglected • to impose that severe discipline upon fornTcatore • and other riotous livers, which they ought.' Is the Angel of that Church characterised as a sinirle per- son, when it is expressly said, verse 24, • Jilit unto • yoK I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira.' Are not here two parts of the Church plainly distinguished. VIZ. the ministers thereof in the plural word lyou. and the people described by the rest in Thyatira ? 1 he only answer which the Episcopal party have for avoiding the force of this observe, is, that the word ««d is not to be found in some copies ; and so thev read the text thus, « Unto you I say the rest in Thy. • atira. But all answers are to be suspected that in- vade the text. It is true, the word and is wanting in some copies ; but it is as true, it is to be found in many more, and these, too, of as good credit, and as great antiquity. In the year 1546, Tonstoll Bi- ship of Durham, found an exposition on the Apo- r„«e.Ll«:*' '•""''•'''"' "»»""; •g'ntibus severilatem disci. pliDB ecclcsiwucse noo inpoount. Hob. 2. in Apoc. I PRESBYTERIAN GOVEUNMEXT. ISl calypse, bearing the name of St Ambrose the bishop,* which he pubUshed in the year 1554, and in his pre- face to the reader, he is earnest to have hini believe that it is the work of Ambrose bishop of Milan, and he expressly reads it with the and. I believe indeed Tonstall was deceived about the author. But this is certain, that whoever he was, he was a very ancient writer, and accordingly the work is inserted amoncTst those of St Ambrose.t And though that write?sometimes mentions the Bishop in his exposi- tion of these seven epistles, yet he not only interprets the stars by holy preachers in the general but also lays down t this as a general rule, that all the gover- nors of the Catholic Church are signified by these ancrels, and that, because of their being messengers of "the word of God to the people, seeing the word An^^-el signifies a messenger. And though Beza,upon the'authority of the old interpreter, and of the Com- plutensian edition, and two other copies, did read the said 24th verse without the and, yet in other edi- tions § he has inserted it, and always expounds the phrase • to the angel,' by these words no the pastors.* 5/A/y, When he gives this character of the Angel of the Church of Sardis, ' thou hast a name that thou < livest, and art dead,' is it a description of one single person in that Church, whether Bishop or Presbyter ? Is it not rather of that whole Church, excepting these few names mentioned, verse 4. chap. iii. * which « had not defiled their garments?' Yes, certainly, and so the fore-cited Augustine says, and gives it for a general rule, much after the same way with Ambrose before cited ; ' that because Angel signifies a mes- < senger, therefore, whoever, either Bishop or Pres- * Expositio Beati Ambrosii Episcopi super Apocalypsin. f Edit. Coloniae Agrippinae, I66I. X Sancti Prtedicatores.— Cap. 1. ad fincm, Septemigitur Angelos, rectores septem Ecclesiarum debemus intelligere, eo quod Angelas nuntius interpretatur. Et qui Verbuni dei populis annunciant, non inconvenienter augeii, id est, nuntii vocantur. Et sicut per septem Ecclesias, una Ecclesia Catholica, ita per septem rectores septem Ecclesiarum omnes rectores Ecclesiae CatholicaB designantur. § Edit, folio Londini. Anno 1592. 1 2 .allllfallliilliUIIII iiiMlUlipi ■#• *. m/^- ! ;; X^m DEFENCE OF THE • byter, or even Lay-raan, speaks frequently of God, • EEd tells men how they may come to eternal life, • i« deservedly called the Angel of God.'» 6/%, When he says to the angel of the Church in Phila- delphia, « I have set before thee an open door,— thou < hast a little strength, and hast kept my word,' &c. Did he mean thereby to characterise a single person ? No, it is plain it is the character of the Church, and so the fore-cited Augustine expressly says.t Indeed there is not one clause in the whole epistle, that so much as seems to describe a single person, yea even Aat promise, verse 9, « Behold I will make them of « the synagogue of Satan to come and worship before • thy feet,' iinports nothing of peculiar privilege to the Bishop, but merely signifies the effect that the preaching of the gospel should have upon these ene- mies, as the fore-cited Ambrose explains it.J Lasifi/, The like is to be said of the Church ofLaodicea : In the whole epistle to the angel thereof, there is not one clause that characterises a single person. I add further, that in none of these seven epistles, is there one act of episcopal jurisdiction so much as hinted at • Bot any act which is not competent to all the ministers #f the gospel— yea, indeed, to the people themselves ; forinstance,when it is said of the Church of Ephesus, chap. ii. ver. 2. « Thou hast tried them which say they •are Apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars ;' it is no more than what is the duty, and will be the practice of every good Christian, all being enjoined, I John iv. 1. ' Beloved, believe not every spirit' • but try the spirits, whether they are of God, he- • cause many false prophets are gone out into the • Nam quia etiam Angdus nunclus interpretatur, quicunque snt Episcopus aut Presbyter aut etiam Laicus frequenter de Deo loquitur, et quomodo ad vitam jeternam perveniatur anaunciat, mento AngelusDei dicitur. Horn. 2. id Apoc. t Hoc ideo dictum es^, ut nullus dicat, quia ostium quod Deu§ apperit EccJesiae^ in toto mundo allquis poasit vel in parte claudere. jnom. S. Ibid. ± Id est, cum crediderlnt per Terba tua in me, adorabunt ante Pedes twos, deprecantus, ut per vitam aeteinam cousequantur, Am- bro8« ttbi supra. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 133 « world.' Again, when tlie Church of Thyatira is blamed for suffering that woman Jezabel, every Christian may be guilty of the like, being discharged to own or countenance infamous and obstinate here- tics, 2 John X. ' If there come any unto you and « bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your * house, neither bid him God speed.' Besides, seve- ral authors relate, and Dr Fulk against the Rhemists upon the place, takes notice of it, that the said Jezai- bcl was the Bishop's wife ; though I do not believe this, because I am very sure that there was no such thing as a bishop in the modern sense at that time ; yet, upon that supposition, his fault would have been rather a neglect of his marital authority than of his episcopal power ; consequently it cannot be inferred thence that he is described there as a governor of the church. Upon the whole, then, Mr Rhind has been too unwary, and his forwardness has mightily outrun his judgment v»'hen he asserted, that these angels are characterised in the 2d and 3d chapters of the Revelation as single persons. l>r Hammond himself, though so earnest to have these angels be- lieved to be single persons, yet had not courage enough to affirm, that they are characterised there as such — ^nay, indeed, he confesses the contrary.*-^ * Though the Angels,* saith he, ' were single per- * sons, yet what is said to them is not said only to « their persons, but to the universality of the people * under them, whose non-proficiency, or remission « of degrees of Christian virtue, especially their fall- ^ ing off from the constancy and courage of their * profession, do deserve (and are accordingly threat- « ened with) the removal of that Christian know- * ledge, that grace, those privileges of a church, « which had been allowed them, C. ii. 5. ; which is * not so properly applicable as a punishment of the * bishop, as of the people under him. And there- « fore in the paraphrase, I have generally changed * the singular into the plural number, by that means f Aauot. in Rev. Chap. I. v. 20. %■ n* ,::i." 134 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN OOVKBMMENT. 135 iff' • to leave it indifferently to the Bishop of each • Church and the people under him, and yet further, • to the other Churches subordinate to each of the • metropoles here named/ Thus Dr Hammond : And elsewhere,* he is forced to acknowledge, that • those expressions, which are used in the singular « number, do not all belong to the Bishop, but to • the Church wherein he presides.' The very truth is, Dr Hammond has absolutely destroyed this ar- gument of the Apocalyptic Angels. For, Jirst, he has made them not simply Bishops, but Metropoli- tans, a notion wherein his whole party, I believe, have now deserted him ; yet he xery judiciously saw, that the argument could not be so much as coloured without some such notion. 2dly^ He elsewhere t makes a twofold Bishop in the same place ; of which the one was set over the Jewish and the other over the Gentile Christians. How then could these An- gels be single persons ? Were the epistles written only to the circumcised, or only to the uncircum- cised ? But to go on with Mr Rhind : Fijlldy, Is it true that all the authors, ancient and modern, who have commented upon the 2d and Sd chapter of the Revelation, have supposed these Angels to be single persons, and the governors of these Churches ? 1 suppose this question may be abundantly satisfied from what I have already dis- coursed : for we have heard Aretas, Ambrose, Augustine, applying the seven epistles to the whole collective body of the church. Aretas is an un- contested author ; of Ambrose I have spoke before. The only question is about Augustine, whether these homilies on the Revelation, which I have cited, are indeed his. But this question does not afl'ect the controversy. For, though Erasmus I suspects them not to be Augustine's, yet it is agreed on all hands that they are the work of an ancient writer, which • Vina, of the Dissert Chap. I. Sect. 11. f Premonition to the Second £pistle of St John. X Fraefit. ad Lect. Noo videtur Augustid, (luanquim opus lectii lUfftmiii. '* sufficiently confutes Mr Rhind. And besides^these if Mr Rhind's memory had served him, wlncn o mi.ht have expected after his telhng th^* ^^^^^f Sudied the controversy with a scrupulous exactne^^^. he might have remembered that there ^re ™ajy o^*'^^ authors, both ancient and modern ^f'^^^'^^^l the Pre byterians,» viz. Ambrosms Ausbertus (whom some mistake for the Ambrose whom I havjcxted), Primasius th^ Great, Haymo, Bed^'/'Smade mas, Fulk, llx, and Perkins B"t M'^. J^^^^i"!* fo^ choice of the easiest way of doing 1^>« busine s . lor who would undergo the drudgery "f f f 'J!^ things that imagines his reader is to bj Pjt off va*^ bold and blind assertion ? We have indeed very ew ancient writers on the Apocalypse. It was some time Se it was universall/received as canomcal jn^ the commentaries of such as ^™t« upon it (such ^ Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) i" /^^ ^^^^Vw^ote un- turies, are now lost; ^nd though such as wrote up on it Afterwards, when prelacy t"F"ed rampan^ had interpreted according to the episcopal scheme it could make no argument against the P/«?:yf ™; but when the evidence of truth, notwithstanding that temptation, forced them to interpret, as we have beared them doing it is an jrreparable loss Jo the Episcopal cause. And for Mr ^^1"^ to fege at random, that all authors, both ancient and mo- 4efn, are on the Episcopal side, -thf -Ung, nay without so much as nammg any one «/ them, except Beza alone— of whom just now— was to be too prodi- S of the credit of his judgment, and is no great frgument of the discretio'n of his brethren who mid- wifed his book into the world- . Lasti Has Beza said any thing upon this a ju ment that favours the Episcopal ^f^'^l^^l^^^f. brin«u^«;^WafiMl^|^MLjUd| 138 JDEFENCE OP THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 139 ifl the Episcopal authors themselves own, that the Pres^ Ijyterians have the Fathers on their side. We heard before Dr Bedell justifying Medina, in owning, that Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophy- lact are on the Presbyterian side. This, then, was only a stroke of Mr llhind's politics to gull his readers into a belief that the Fathers are against the Presbyterians. 2rf(y, In all cases the Presbyterians are content to be concluded by the testimony of the Fatliers, or to give a good reason why they can- not And I know no class of Christians that goes farther, or gives an implicit assent to their dictates. The Fathers, themselves, required no such thing of such as were to come after them ; and, in a thousand i)laces, have desired their readers to try before they trusted. And I am sure there is abun- dance of reason for doing so. For there is no man, that has dipped ever so little into the study of them, but is convinced, that any that would swallow their doctrines by the lump, must, at once, believe the greatest absurdities and most palpable contradic- tions 5 and none have noticed this with greater free- dom than the Church of England divines. * The * Scripture,' saith Dr Sherlock,* ' is all of a piece, • every part of it agrees with the rest; the Fathers • many times contradict themselves and each other :* And he tells, ' how it has often made him smile, f with a mixture of pity and indignation, to see what « a great noise the Roman disputants made among • women and children, and the meanest sort of • people, with quotations out of (:Uhers and councils, * whom they pretend to be all on their side.' I shall be glad if this be not the character of some other folks as well as tlie Roman disputants. To the same purpose the incomparable Chillingworth :t * I, * for my part,' saith he, * after a long, and (as I * verily believ e and hope) impartial search of the • PrcscrTativc against Popery, Part I. Chap ii. Sec. S. f Prot. ReL ft smft way, Cfaa|}. vi. Sec. S6. P true way to eternal happiness, do profess, plainly, « that I cannot find any rest for the sole of my feet, « but upon this rock only, viz. the Scripture. I see f plainly, and with my own eyes, councils against « councils, some fathers against others, tha same < fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of « one age against a consent of fathers of another « age, and the Church of one age against the Church < ofanother age.'— Thus he. And thus from two of the greatest men the Church of England could ever boast of, may we learn wluit habile witnesses the Fathers are, and how great weight will hang upon their testimony ; for, if such a character of the Fa- thers be both sense and truth, in the mouths of these great men, when disputing against the Ro- pianists, is it possible but it must be the same in the mouths of Presbyterians, when disputing against the Prelatists? But, indeed, the Presbyterians need no such common-place considerations for defending themselves. So far as Mr Rhind has gone, I am content the debate be compromised, and referred to the Fathers and the testimony of antiquity. He insists on five, viz. Ignatius, Clemens Roma- nus, the Emperor Adrian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. All which 1 shall consider in order, IGNATIUS. The first is Ignatius, ' who,' saith he, p. 91, « was < constituted Bishop of Antioch, upon the death of * Evodius, the immediate successor of St Peter; * and who, in his Epistles, testifies, most favourably, « for Episcopacy.* To which it is answered, in the 16^/ place. It is ridiculous to affirm that St Peter was Bishop of Antioch ; the apostolic character and office being inconsistent with the fixed charge of any particular see. 2dlj/, Supposing it had not been so, yet both Chrysostom and Theodoret * affirm Igna- tins to have succeeded immediately, not to Evodius but to Peter himself. But, waving these things, I • Chrysost de translat. S. Ignatii. Theodor. de Immut. Dial. 1. 140 BKf BNCB af THS I || answer, 3rfi^, That the Epi^tks of Ignatius are sd fer from testifying favourably for the modern Epis- copacy, that they quite destroy it, and the principled upon which it is pretended to be built. This I hope to make good to every man's conviction, by the j^^f following particulars. In the Ul place, Supposing that Episcopacy had obtained at the time when Ignatius wrote his Epistles, yet this is so far from being an argument that it had obtained, in the apostolic age, that the whole strain of these Epistles are an evidence of the contrary. This, I am av;are, will, at first, be thought a very surprising assertion : But I shall make it good from an unexceptionable hand, 1 mean Mr DodwelK* The matter, in short, is this, the Presbyterians had, oftentimes, excepted against the Ignatian Epistles, either ts not genuine, or, at least, as vitiated and cor- rupted on this head ; because they insist so much on the absolute power of the bishcp, they could not believe that such rhodomontade expressions as are used on that subject were consistent with the spirit, character, cr circumstances of Ignatius when be wrote his Epistles. Mr Dodwell saw the force of this objection; and, ilierefore, carefully applies himself to take it off. But how does he do it i Plain- ly to tell us, that the reason why Ignatius insisted so much * on the power cf the Sishop, was, because * Episcopacy was an order but newly introduced • into the Church, that, therefore, it was necessary • that, with all his might, he should assert their new « rights, and urge and establish a power formerly * unknown.* 1^ a word. Episcopacy was not insti- tuted, says Mr Dodwellj till the year 106. Ignatius • Pardcnes. Sec. %3, f. 1C5, 196* Hiac ctiam constat, nullain faisse {qmm crediiierant [gnatianarum Epistolarum Adversarii, nostrarum rattonum nescii) afectationein, immo nectssariuti fuissc, nt noTa U^itMmCt^mt jorm enlzw Tuibus assererentur. — ^Nam prima Fotefltatis iliiut in £pi6Copoa devolutionc inagtt Decesfarium erat ut ignota anteaPotestas urgeretur atqoe stabikrelur. Noatr« autem rationed oslendunt jam nuperam iuissa illam Epiicoporum Potesta- teiii, cum adeo illam eonpesdaftt Igiatias. PRESBYTtHIAK GOVERNMENT. 141 wrote his Epistles in the year 116, says Bishop Uoyd ; in the year 110, says Eusebius; in the year 107, says Bishop Usher. By the longest of these accounts. Episcopacy was but of ten years standing when Ig- natius wrote, and by the shortest of them but of one. And now let the reader say if these Epistles will prove that Episcopacy obtained in the Apostolic age. 2c//^, I ask Mr Rhind if, any where in these Epistles, he finds a Bishop that had more than one congregation under his charge. The Episcopal writers have oftentimes been called on to shew this ; they have never done it to this day, and I believe no wise man will ever attempt it : For nothing is more plain from these Epistles, than that the Bish- op's whole charge met in one place, and communi- cated at one altar. Whether, then, does this look like the Scots Presbyterian or the English diocesan Bishop ? Sdli/j Through all the Ignatian Epistles, as I have shewn before, the Presbyters are always said to re- present the Apostles, the Bishops never. Now, upon this, I ask, 15^, How Mr Rhind's argument holds, that the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters the Seventy? 2rf/^, If the Presbyters succeed the Apostles, how is it possible but that they must have the power of ordination and jurisdic- tion, as well as of preaching and dispensing the sa- craments ? Surely the Apostles had it ; how, then, can the Presbyters, their successoi^, want it ? 2dli/y Seeing, by the Ignatian doctrine, the Presbyters were in place of the Apostles, how is it true that the Presbyters cannot do any pastoral act, in their own right, but as the Bishop delegates ? The Apostles had our Lord Jesus Christ for their imme- diate superior, why should it be otherwise with the Presbyters, their successors ? 4thl2/s The Ignatian Presbytery had a share in the government, as appears from many places of these Epistles. * And that being subject to your • Bishop, and hi^ Presbytery, ye way be wholly and 142 DEFENCE OP THE :^RESBYTER1AN GOVERNMENT. 143 * thoroughly sanctified. • Obeying your Bishop, and « the Presbytery, with entire aflection. t But be ye « united to your Bishop, and those who preside over « you, that is, the Presbyters, t So neither do ye * any thing, without your Bishops and Presbyters. § * But he that is without, that is, does any thing * without the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, is * not pure in his conscience. II Being subject to * your Bishop, as to the command of God, and so * likewise to the Presbytery.' f Thus it was in the Iffnatian times. But where, now, is there any such thinff as this in the Church of England, which Mr Rhind has joined ? Are not the Presbyters entirely deprived of the exercise of discipline ? ^fh^^^ not the Lay-Cliancellors risen up against the Bishops themselves, their creators ? Have they not engros- sed the discipline wholly into their hands ? Hear Dr Burnet, ♦• even before he became revolutioner. « Our Ecclesiastical Courts,' saith he, * are not m « the hands of our Bishops and their Clergy, but put « over to the civilians, where too often fees are « more strictly looked after than the correction of f manners.— Excommunication has become a kind « of secular sentence, and is hardly now considered « as a spiritual censure, being judged and given out * by laymen, and often upon grounds, which, to « speak moderately, do not merit so severe and « dreadful a sentence.' Before I go further, I can- not but take notice, that Mr Rhind, in summing up the evidence from Ignatius's Epistles, has not dealt fairly, when he says, p. 94, • That this exercise of * the Episcopal authority over subordinate Presby- « ters and Deacons, was not peculiar to the churches « to which St Ignatius directed his Epistles, but did * estend (to use that Saint's words) to the utmost * bounds of the earth ; which,* saith he, ' in my « opinion, asserts the unmrsal exercise of the Epis* f Ibid. Sect, 20. § Ibid. Sect. 7. U Ep. to the Tral. Sect. 7. f Ibid. Sect. 13. •» Preface to Vol. ii. Hlit. Ueform. • Ep. to the Epbes. Sect. 2. i Ep. to the Magnes. Sect 6. II Ep. to the Trah Sect. 7. t» life! « copal office ?' Did Ignatius use that word extend^ I mean the Greek that signifies it ? If not, how can the universal exercise of the Episcopal office be inferred upon it ? And yet it is certain, first, that he did not use it, but a Greek word * which signi- fies dejined or appointed, and that too without any mention of the earth in the clause. Secondly, That Bishops did not, at that time, extend to the utmost bounds of the earth : For, Mr Dodwell gives it as the very reason why Ignatius insisted so much on the Episcopal authority, because it had not yet uni- versally obtained. ' The power of the Bishops,* saith he, t * was so long to be urged, till it should * be universally received, and men were brought in * use to obey it.' Why, then, did Mr Rhind, in his reasoning, use the word extend instead of ap^ pointed; especially when, before, p. 93., he had used the word appointed in citing ? Did he not de- sign to take advantage of his readers' inadvertency ? But how shall his conclusion of the universal exer- cise of the Episcopal office in Ignatius's time stand, when it is founded upon a false bottom ? This now is our first defence against the Ignatian Epistles, that they quite destroy the modern Episcopacy, and the principles on which it is built, which I must needs still believe they do, till I have got a satisfy- ing answer to the former particulars. I add, Secondlj/t That these Ignatian Epistles, as to the main of the controversy, contain nothing contrary to the Presbyterian scheme. And it is a great en- couragement to me to venture on that assertion, that €0 great a man as Stillingfleet has done it before me. * In all those thirty-five testimonies,' saith he,t * pro- * duced out of Ignatius's Epistles for Episcopacy, I * can meet but with one which is brought to prove * the least semblance of an institution of Christ for < Episcopacy ; and if I be not much deceived, the f Paraeries. Sect. 25. p. 106. Tautisper certe urgenda erat nova ilia potestas dum a subditis passim reciperetur, et dum illius obse^uio homines assuevissent. X ^renic. p. 309. Editt It 144 DKFEKCE OP THE rRESBTTERIAN GOVERNMENT, 145 tiil uwm^ of that place is clearly mistaken too.— I saul, « to the main of the controversy, to prevent trifling in any body that shall attempt to answer this. Mr BJiind alleges on the Presbyterians, that they affirm the Ignatian Bishop to correspond to their pansli minister ; the Presbyters and Deacons to their ruling eUers and deacons, p. 101. I do not know any IVeAyterian author that ever wrote so widely. I dio not believe ever any of them did, and want to have them named. But if any of them ever did so, I here enter ray dissent from them. It is certain the Pte*}terian Deacons do not correspond to the Ignatian Deacons, because the Ignatian Deacons do not correspond to the Scripture Deacons. It is evi- dent, from Acts vi., that the Deacons were insti- tuted to serve tables, and take care of the poof and of the Church's stock. The very reason ot their institution, was the giving relief to the Apos- tles, who could not at once attend the word of God, md serve tables. And to this, Mr Dodwell ac- cords; * declaring, * that the first institution of the « office of deaconship, was for the distributing ot « the treasures of the Church.' But such is not the Ignatian Deacon : ' For,' saith he, t * the Deacons * arc not the ministers of meat and drink, but of the « Church.' It is certain, likewise, that the Presby- terian Parish Minister does not correspond to the Ignatian Bishop, as to his intensive fpower. The Presbyterians believe that the power ascribed to the Ignatian Bishop is greater than ought to be allowed to any creature, that is not under an infallible con- duct For instance, when it is said, t ' Whatsoever < the Bishop approves, is acceptable to God.' But then I affirm, that the Ignatian Bishop, as to his ex- tensive power, corresponds better to the Presbyte- rian Parish Minister, than to the English Diocesan Bishop ; seeing, as I observed before, the Ignatian Bishop's whole charge did meet in one place, and • One Priesthood, Chap, xii* Sect. 3. p. 339. t Ep. to the Tral. Sect. 2. t % to the Smym. Sect. 8. communicate at one altar. I affirm likewise, that there is not the least hint in all the Ignatian Epis- tles of an imparity among the pastors of the Church. I take pastors here in the current ecclesiastical sense of that word, for such as labour in the word and doctrine ; for otherwise I know that the word Pastor may signify any officer or governor whatsomever. And this now brings me to the main point in de- bate : For I know the reader will presently ask, what I make of the Ignatian Presbyters— were not they Pastors in the current ecclesiastical sense of that word ? I affirm positively, that there is no hint in all the Ignatian Epistles that they were ; and that nothing Mr Rhind has produced, proves, that there 's any such hint in them. He has but two argu- ments for that purpose ; and, that I may not wrong im, I shall set them down fully in his own words : The first runs thus, p. 103.—' I say, that the Presbyters mentioned by Ignatius, did preach and administer the Sacraments. Thus, in the epistle to the Smyrn.: ' Let tliat eucharist be looked upon *as firm and just, which is either offered by the ' Bishop, or by him to whom the Bishop has given * his consent.' Again : * It is not lawful, without the ' Bishop, neither to baptise nor to celebrate the Sa- « crament ; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that « is also well pleasing to God ;' which plainly proves, that though the Bishop was invested with the chief power of dispensing these holy ordinances, yet might the Presbyters perforin them by his allow- ance, and therefore they were not Elders accord- ing to the Presbyterian fashion ; seeing they pre- tend to no such power ; nor can their Parish Mi- nister (wlio, they say, is the true Ignatian Bishop) communicate the same to them.' Thus he. Before I answer directly, I must give a literal tran- slation of tlie two passages produced by him from the The first runs thus :—' Let that Eucha- ori2:inal. 146 DEFBKCB OF TH« « rist be held firm, which is under the Bishop, or « to whom he shall permit.' The other runs thus : « It is not lawful, without the Bishop, either to bap- « tise, or to make a love feast. But whatever he shall « approve, the same is also well-pleasing to God.' Now I ask, 1st, Is there in either of these testimonies, the least intimation, that the Presbyters did preach t No. Neither the word preaching, nor any thing equivalent to it, is mentioned in either ot themi Nor indeed any where else, in these Epistles, is preaching ascribed to the Presbyter. 2dly, Is there the least intimation, in either of these testimonies, that the Presbyters administered the Sacraments.' Wo. Presbyters are not so much as named m either ot them ; nor is there the least hint given, that either baptising, or giving the Eucharist, was more pecu- liar to the Presbyters than to any of the laity. Up- on the whole, then, it does not appear by these tes- timonies, that the Ignatian Presbyters eould either preach, or administer the Sacraments. I know nothing can be reponed to this, uiiless it be said, that it ought to be supposed that the Bishop would not give his consent to any to baptise, or to make a love feast, but to the Presbyters. But this is a plain begging the question, and is contrary to what the Fathers have taught us : For, saith Ambrose or Hilary, the Roman deacon who wrote the com- mentaries annexed to Ambrose's works •,* • that the « Christian people might encrease and be multip leil, « in the beginning, it was allowed to all persoris, both « to preach the gospel, and to baptise, and to ex- « plain the Scriptures in the Church.' And particu- larly as to baptism, it is known that it was usual y dispensed by lay persons ; and Tertullian expressly asserts the lawfulness of it, as we shall hear when we come to his testimony; and the fore-cited Ambrose or Hilary relates the practice of it, even in the presence • Ut ereo cresceret Pkbs et multipUcaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et evangelixare, et bapt.zar^ et Scnpturas m eccieala e^planare. Ambro.. Vol. 1. Tom. 3. p. 239. u. EpLes. cap. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT, 147 of the apostles. * At first/ saith he,* * all taught, and « all baptised, on whatever days or times occasion * offered. For Philip did not wait for a time, or a « dav, in which he might baptise the eunuch, neither « did he interpose a fast. Nor did Paul and Silas « delay, but that they instantly baptised the jailor < with all his house. Neither had Peter deacons, ' or sought a day wherein to baptise Cornelius with « all his house : Nor did he himself baptise them, « but commanded the brethren who came with him * from Joppa to do it/ Thus he. One then might as well say, that the English midwives are Presby- ters, because they have at least the connivance of the Bishop to baptise ; as say, that these in Ignatius who baptised with the Bishop's consent, were Pres- byters, when not only deacons might do it, which Mr Rhind himself will not deny, but every lay per- son too. And as to the other sacrament, viz. the Eucharist, there is no mention in either of the two testimonies of consecrating it, and as for the distri- bution of it, it is certain that not only Deacons, but even lay-persons used to be employed about it. Thus Chrysostom tells us,t ' that it was given in charge « to the Deacons, to keep notoriously unworthy per- * sons from the table, and that the holy gifts should * not be distributed to them.' And by the fourth council of Carthage,1: it is allowed, that in case of necessity, the Deacon, the Presbyter being present, may, being ordered, give the Eucharist of the body ♦ Primum enim omncs docebant, et omnes baptizabant, quibus- cunque diehus fuisset occasio. Nee e'liin Phillppus tempus qua?sivit aut diem quo Eunuchum haptizaret, neque Jejunium interposuit. Neque Paulus et Silas tempus distulerunt quo Optionem Carcerii baptizarenl cum omnibus sui-. Neque Fetrus Diaconos habuit, aut diem quacsivit quando Cornelium cum omni Domo ejus baptizavit. Nee ipse, sed baptizare jussit fratribus qui cum illo ierant ad Cor- nelium ab Joppe. Ambios. ubi hupra. •j- Homil. 82. in Evang. Mattb. % Ut Diaconus prsesente Piesbytero Eucbaristlam Corporis Christi Populo, si necessitas Cogat, 'jusbUs Eroget. Can. 38. Ca- ranza. Sum. Concil. K 2 148 DEFEXCE OF THE of Christ to the people- And Justin Martyr * tells lis, that it was usual in his days, for the Deacons to carry the Eucharist to the absents. But not the Beacons only, but even lay-persons were sometimes thus employed. Thus Eusebius tells us t of Serapion, that desiring the Eucharist on his death-bed, he sent his grandchild to bring a Presbyter to administer it to him. The Presbyter happened to be sick, and was not able to come ; but he sent the Eucharist with the boy, ordering him to administer it to his grandfather, which accordingly was done. And who knows not, that the Eucharist used to be given to infants after their baptism ? But I very much doubt, if there was always a church officer at the doing of it Plainly, the elements used to be consecrated by the Bishop, and the people oft times kept them, and by his allowance, gave them to others. How then does it appear from the testimonies produced by Mr Rhind, that the Ignatian Presbyters did either preach or administrate the sacraments, when there is neither mention in either of them of Presbyters ; nor, sup- pose there were, is there any thing ascribed to them, but what might be, and was frequently done by Dea- cons, yea by every lay Christian ? So much for his first argument. His second is in these words, p. 103, 104. * But « I add, that the Presbyters in St Ignatius's days^ « were subject to the Bishop : This does fully appear « from the testimonies formerly cited : If then these « Presbyters were such as the modern ruling elders, < either this their subjection must relate to the Bi- « shop's superior power in the administration of sa- « craments and ordination, or to the power of juris- < diction : Not the former, for how can they be ac- « countable in these respects, when they are not sup- « posed to be at all concerned in these matters ; and « to say that this subjection relates to acts of juris- « diction, is to destroy that parity of power, of which « all Presbyters, whether preaching or ruling, are • Apoi 2. p. 97. Edit. Colonlae. 1CS6. f Hist Ectks. Lib.vi. 6ip.43. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 149 « equally possessed, according to the Presbyterians/ Thus he. The answer to which is very easy, and therefore may be very short. Through all the Ignatian Epis- tles, there is no subjection required from the Presby- ters to the Bishop, but what every Presbyterian rul- ing elder will own, and that too, agreeably to Pres- byterian principles, to be his duty to pay to the mi- nister. Every Presbyterian ruling elder, owns the minister to be an officer superior to himself, as hav- ing the key of doctrine, as well as of discipline, whereas himself has that of discipline only. Every Presbyterian ruling elder gives, though not a nega- tive, yet the precedency to the minister in all acts of jurisdiction. In a word, every Presbyterian ruling elder is ready to yield all reverence to the minister, which is all that is required of the Ignatian Presby- ter to the Bishop. So much for his second argument. And this is our second defence against the Ignatian Epistles, that as to the main of the controversy, they contain nothing contrary to the Presbyterian scheme. And I hope every reader is satisfied that there is no more needful on this subject. Yet because Mr Rhind mentions another defence, which the Presbyterians make against them, viz. that these Epistles are either spurious or corrupted, though I do not think such a defence needful, yet I homologate the same, and justify my brethren in it. And therefore, In the third place, I assert that these Epistles which go under the name of Ignatius, either are not genuine, or at least that they are vitiated and interpo- lated. For proving this, 1 am not to insist on what the learned Stillingfleet has suggested,* that the story of transporting Ignatius from Antioch where he was condemned, to Rome where he suffered, and of his many excursions by the way, and of the free- dom he got to write these Epistles, smells rank of the legend ; seeing Ignatius himself informs us, that he was bound to ten leopards, that is to say, to such a * Ep. to the Romans, Sect, 5. 150 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 151 n band of soldiers ; who, though treated with all man- ner of kindness, were the worse for it. Waving this, I affirm that nothing Mr Rhind has advanced, though he has taken very great pains on this particu- lar, is in the least sufficient to vindicate them. He insists on these six topics : I. That several Fathers do mention these Epistles, and cite sundry passages from them, which are to be found in those now extant. IL That Calvin, who was a party, was the first who ever alleged such an interpolation. Hi. That at least Vossius's and Usher's editions of these Epistles, are the genuine issue of that holy Father. IV. That such an interpolation was hardly, it at all, practicable. V. That the alleging that these pas- sages which assert the Episcopal authority are inter- polations, is a mean begging of the question. VI. That no one can give a reasonable account, why any such interpolation should have been attempted. Of each of these in order. I. He alleges, p. 95, 96. S. Polycarp, IrenjEus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius and Theodoret. * All « which,' saith he, ' with many other authors, do men- « tion these Epistles, and cite sundry passages from i them, which are tobe found in them now extant' To which it is answered, that this proves only that Ig- natius did write epistles, and that some sentences of them are still preserved. But how will it follow thence, either that these epistles are genuine, or that they are not vitiated ? Especially when we consider, 1st, That all the passages cited from Ignatius by tho ancients are not to be found, even in the best edi- tions of him which we have. For instance, there is a passage cited by Jerome, thus :♦ • Ignatius an aposto- ' lie man, and martyr, writes boldly, * the Lord chused « Apostles who were sinners above all men." Now^ in which of the Ignatian epistles is there any such passage to be found ? Dr Hammond answers,t * that • Ignatius ?ir Apostolicus ct Martyr Bcribil Audacter. Elegit Dominus Apostobs qui super onrnes Homines Feccatores trantf Hierom Dial. 3. con. Fclag. ... f Ajw. to tlic Aaimadvej:. on the ^issert. Chap. iii. 25ect. l*. \ ' * it may well be his saying, though it is not found in « these epistles : Just as our Saviour spake^ many « things which are not written in the gospels, liut this is a mere whim ; for Jerome is not testifying a- bout what Ignatius spoke, but what he wrote. Ihis is a pretty good presumption, that the Epistles are at least mutilated. 2(%, If the ancients* citmg of him be an argument, is it not very strange that no one ot them has cited these passages that are insisted on m favours of Episcopacy ? Is it not strange that his au- thority was never insisted on, in the dispute with Aerius, where there was so fair occasion tor it. Would not one be tempted from this, to think that such passages are foisted in ? 3dli/, Some of these ex- pressions that the ancients cite, which are now found jn these Epistles, are neither cited as from Ignatius, nor as from epistles, either of his or any body else. For instance, that passage which Mr Ilhind, p. 95, cites from Irensus, ' I am the wheat of God, and .« shall be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that 1 * may become the bread of Jesus Christ,' though it is found in Ignatius's Epistles, yet Irenaeus does not say that it was written, much less that it was written in an epistle, least of all, that it was written m any epistle from Ignatius, but only indefinitely, « one .« of our brethren hath said,'* which Eusebius under- stands of Ignatius. . ^ , . • 11. He alleges, p. 97, that the Presbyterians « cannot name an author who ever alleged such an in- « terpolation before Calvin, whom all men know to • have been a party.' And this, (he thinks) might be allowed « a sutficient answer.' This sufficient answer of his, is so gross an imposition upon people s un- derstanding, that I am even amazed he should have been so very prodigal of his credit. 1 he matter is plainly this. Calvin wrote that excellent book ot his Institutions in the year 1536. Therem he has occasion to defend the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, against which doctrine the Anti-tnmtarians • objected the authority and testimony of Ignatius. • Quemaamodam quWam de DostrU dixit, propter Martyrlum im D«um adjudicatus ad Pollias. Quomam frum.ntnm, *c. Mk ^m i ^ I iiM ^^jm, ■■■■ ,^MIb 152 THE Calvin, in answer thereto, rejects • the said pretend- ed authority, and gives a very bad character of the work. * As for Ignatius, (saith he) let these who * attribute any thing to his authority, prove that * the Apostles made a law about Lent, and such * like corruptions : There is nothing more stink- * ing than that trash, which is published under the * name of Ignatius. Whence the impudence of such * is the less tolerable, who furnish themselves with * such forgeries wherewith to impose on the world/ Now, will the reader ask, did Calvin find any such thing in Ignatius as expressions against the doctrine of the Trinity — a pretended Apostolic law for observing Lent and such like corruptions ? Yes, indeed, in the old editions, which alone were known in Calvin's time, there was a great deal of such stuff, as even Coke, a Church of England divine, has noticed.t Thus, in the Epistle to those of Tar- sus, it is mentioned as one of the heresies disse- minated by Satan, that Christ was God over all. And in the Epistle to the Philippians, it is denied that the word which was made flesh dwelt in man. And it is asserted, that * if any fast on the Sabbath * day, he is a murderer of Christ ; and that if any * keep Easter with the Jews, he is partaker with * those who slew the Lord and bis Apostles.' And in the Epistle to the Antiochians, wives are discharged to call their husbands by their own proper name. In a word, the divines of the Church of Rome cited these epistles to prove that the blessed Virgin Ma- ry was void of all sin. I hope it is plain, that as some of these things were great fooleries, so others of them were gross heresies. And must then Cal- vin be traduced as a party-man because he would not sacrifice the fundamental doctrines of Chris- • Ignatium quod obtendunt, si velint quicquam habere momen- ti, probent Apostolos legem tulisse de Quadragessima et simili- bus corruptelis : Nihil Naeniis j'llis quae sub Ignatii nomine e- ditae sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum inpudentia qui talibus larvia ad falkndum se initruunt. Calvin, Instit. Lib. I. Cap* xiii. Sect. 29. f Censura. quorundam Scripf, vet. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 153 tianity to the reputation of Ignatius's Ep sties? But ietusMiere Dr Wake, Bishop of Lincoln :* Be- c fore I enter upon that account which it will be * fitting for me to give of the episles of St Ignatius, c it will be necessary for me to observe, that there c havebeen considerable differences in the editions of ' the Epistles of this holy man, no less than in tlie * iiidcrment of our latter critics concerning them. « To'pass by the first, and most imperfect ot them, < the best that for a long time was extant contained * not only a great number of epistles.falsely ascribed c to this auth'or, but even those that were genuiue c so altered and corrupted that it was hard to find * out the true Ignatius in them. The first that be- c gan to remedy this confusion, and to restore this c Ireat writer to his primitive simplicity, was our * most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher in * his edition of them at Oxford, anno 1644. Ihus Dr Wake. Now, if by the judgment of the most learned of the Episcopalians, there xyas not so much as any tolerable copy of the Ignatian epistles ex- tant till the year 1644, that is, 108 years after Calvin had excepted against them , who that has not thrown offallmodestyf would talk at Mr Rhind's rate, or would seek to blast the fame of that great man, Calvin, in a matter wherein the Episcopalians them- selves have justified him ; or would represent him as a party man, when he was defending the common cause of Christianity. But it seems ^S^^^^'l.^^^^ ties must stand, though the doctrine of the Tiinity and the Divinity of our blessed Saviour should sink Dear Episcopacy, what art thou not worth ! Who would not sell even his religion to purchase thee, without which all religion is nothing ! HI. He adds, p. 97, • That however the name of * the holy man Ignatius may have been abused by ig- * norant or designing men, who have fathered upon * him their own spurious and interpolated work, yet * the epistles of Usher's and Vossius's edition are • The Genuine Epistles of the Apostolical Fathers, 2d edit, p. 30. 2 154 DEFENCE OF THE m iji. I'll 'If' n m c iijj, genuine issue/ But does not Dr Wake him- self own,* *that no one that reads (even these edi- • tions of) thera with any care or judgment, can • make any doubt of it, but that letters or words « have been mistaken, and perhaps even pieces of • some sentences, too, corrupted/ And does not every one know what a great alteration the mistake of one letter sometimes will make? I shall give one signal instance of this, which is related by Dr Wake.t In the acts of the martyrdom of St Poly- carp, as set out from the Barroccian manuscript by Archbishop Usher, there is this passage : ^ That the • souldier or officer having struck his launce Jnto • the side of the saint, there came forth a pigeon, • together with a great quantity of blood.' Here is a fair plump miracle. A pigeon coming out of a man's side being a very curious sight ; but now, by the alteration of one single letter in the origi- nal,t it dwindles into no miracle at all ; and the passage imports only that there came out of his left side a great quantity of blood ; the Greek word which signifies the left, and that which signifies a pigeon, being near in sound to one another. If the mistake of one letter can make such a change, what may the mistake of a word do ? And what may the corruption of a piece of a sentence do ? But Mr Khind is a writer of courage, who sticks at nothing. IV. He alleges, p. 99, ' That such an interpola- • tion was hardly, if at all, practicable.' But pray, why not practicable ? For, 1st, Did Mr Rhiiid never hear of the ignorance or knavery of tran- scribers ? Does he not know that the works of the Fathers were a Jong time in the hands of monks, or others of the like stamp, who, with all their reli- gion, were yet so familiar, and used such freedoms with the Fathers, as not only to pare their nails, that they might not be scratched by them, but even to • Ubi sapra, p. f Ubi snprs, p., 58. S9. PRESBYTEBIAN GOVERNMENT. 155 alter their habit and dress, to fit ^^7? J^^^f^^ E^e^n their own times, and make them iashio"able Lven ti,^ Vossian Greek manuscript is not judgea to ue the Vossian ^^'^^ ohout500vears aterthan above 1 lOO years old, that is,at)oui5ui;yea , ,^ the times of Ignatius -, and how corrupt t»e churcn was Zut the Sooth year of God "eeds not be to d 2d, Is it not a very go«d argument that the IgM Epistles might be interpolated, when it ^ R"^ » ^e yind contradiction, that they actua ly weie inte po- Led? What security bad Bishop Usheis or Isaac thind^T^W, '.considering th^^^^^^^^^^^^ : ^gtUtTnaryf ^{^^T\''i:^^ ' ?l,e apostles, »cre wicked enough to be SUiKJ °' . t':L . .V-, o, -k e„°,^l, .0 b. .jn„ose> on < hv those wdio miiJiiht be thus wicKea. a^ ap'owSorator,°whowill needs l--g-P-Pi«f out of matter of fact ? Let the g'-^=^ «\";^J1""'' ^J thP church be as far from being either wicked or weik asMr Rhind pleases, yet that some persons Tee so wicked as to'be guilty of such a fraucU and others so weak as to be imposed on by it, is so tar from being incredible, that it is confessed on all hands, tha" not only that, but even twenty other thin. Lettei to ou bleLdSaviouk and ou.Saviour's Answer oh rn which Eusebius tells us. with as ™"5,'VT l^Ld he does the story of the Ignatian Epistles, he had faithSuy translated out of the Syruic language, as + Sherlock's Preservative .§«««» P^P"?' ^"*- *' ^^^^' "" Sect. 3. p. 74. I) 156 DEFENCE OP THE IW f.ll , he found them in the archives of Edessa ? Whence came St Paul's epistles to the Laodiceans ? Whence came the letters that passed betwixt Seneca and ■*im ? Whence came St Peter's, St Mark's, St Mat- thew's, and St James's liturgies, which Mr Rhind* makes an argument of, as being of considerable an- tiquity, thougli Dr Wake t, twenty years ago, de- clared, that the learned world seemed to be univer- aally agreed about the falsity of them. Not to speakof many others mentioned by Hottinger, Coke, pupin, and Dr Wake, whence came the Aposto- lical Constitutions, which Mr Whiston, an advo- cate for Episcopacy, asserts t to be the most sacred of the canonical books of the New Testament ? Is there any age can be named upon which more false pieces were fathered than the first and second ? And what charm, then, was there in Ignatius's name, that none should be fathered on him ? Or why should we believe there were not, when the contrary is manifest and confessed by all the world ? For let us take a short view of them ? The Ignatian Epistles, says Coke,§ a Church of England divine, were first published at Strasburg, anno 1502. And though they are now only seven, yet, then, they were eleven in number. In process of time, it seems they begot another among them ; for when, in the year 1562, they were published, in Greek and Latin, at Paris, they were found to be twelve. At length, as if the blessing, ' Be fruitful • and multiply,' had been pronounced on them, they encreased to the number of fifteen, with a letter, also, annexed from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius. Nor did they alter in number only, but in bulk too ; for, io some editions, some of the epistles were twice as large as in others. Notwithstanding all this variety, yet some of the Church of Rome, Canisius by name, insulted the world, as our Episcopal friends do us now, with a great deal of scorn, because they doubt- • Sermon on Liturgy, p. 14. f Ubi supra, first edit. p. 145. I Kssay upon the Apostolical Conititutioiis. I Censura «iuonindani. Script. Vet. p. 55. \ PKESBTTERIAN GOVERNxMENT. 157 ed of any of these epistles. But the world is never, all at once, to be bullied out of their senses. Mas- trfEUs, a Parisian doctor, published a new edition ot them, and, without scruple, discarded four ot them as apocryphal, viz. two to St John the Evangelist, one to the Virgin Mary, and her letter to him. Yet, even so, the remaining twelve did not please learned men. Archbishop Usher has asserted, and proves,* that six of them were spurious, six ot them mixed, and so none of them sincere and genuine. Vedelius, in the year 1623, published an edition of the I-natian Epistles, at Geneva ; but he went so near to work, and castigated them so severely, that the Church of England divines were not pleased with him,t as, indeed, they seldom are with any thine that comes from that quarter, or almost any other except their own. Hitherto, then, the Igna- tian Epistles made but a sorry figure with all who were not willing to sacrifice their sense to their zeal. At length Archbishop Usher fell upon two copies ot them, one in Cambridge, another in Bishop Mon- ta'^ue's library ; yet these were not originals but Latin translations, and these, too, very barbarous. But then, to supply this defect, Isaac Vossius found, in the Medicean Library, a Greek manuscript ot them, and published it at Amsterdam, 1646. Yet, even after all this, the Latin editions are thought to be the best, by learned men ; and Archbishop Usher doubts whether the seventh Epistle, viz. that to Folycarp, be genuine or not. Nay, he was so ill satisfied with it that he would not publish it with the rest ' Nor,' says Dr Wake,1: ' does Isaac Vossius ' himself deny but that there are some things in it ' that may seem to render it suspicious.' Besides, the Epistle to the Romans was not found in the Iklcdicean or Eiorentinc manuscript ; but made up, in some measure, from the Latin versions, by the conjectures of learned men, as the same Dr Wake • Dissert, de Ep. Ign. proleg. + Montac. appar. L. v. Sec. 46. p. 19- J Ubi supra, 2d edit. p. 40. k t y ill) ?! takes notice.* And even as to the whole of the Epistles, though the Doctor translated from the text of Vossius, yet he owns, that where a place was ma- nifestly imperfect, he has, sometimes, taken the liberty to express his own conjectures. And, now, after all, let any man, who can, doubt of the possi- bility or practicableness of these Epistles having been interpolated. But, adds Mr Ilhind, p. 98, * if that * should be granted, I see not how the Presbyterians * can answer the enemies of our religion, who com- * plain that the like freedom may have been used * with the Bible, in some fundamental points, much * about the same time.' Fray, good Mr Ilhind, were the Ignatian Epistles as universally spread as the Bible was? Or was it of as great importance to keep them uncorrupted as the Scriptures ? I do not think but either of these thoughts, much more both jointly, besides what else might be added, would answer the enemies of our religion. But, to com- plete the answer, does not Mr Rhind know that there were false gospels obtruded upon the world- obtruded, too, in Ignatius's own days ? Does he Hot know that Ignatius himself mistook the spurious gospel for the true one ? Does he not know that Mr Dodwell himself has owned that Ignatius was thus mistaken ? ' The holy Martyr/ saith hcjt * did * not cautiously enough distinguish betwixt the ge- * nuine Gospel of St Matthew and the interpolated * one which the Ebionite heretics, now raging in * Asia, used.* Now, if false gospels could be mint- ed in those days, could not false Ignatian Epistles be so too ? If so great an ornament of the Church as Ignatius himself could be imposed on by them, why might not others, as great ornaments, be impos- ♦ Ubi supra, 2d edit. p. 41. f Parisntfs, Sec. 23. p. 98, Nempe in A««fr«f, Hsereticos lo« cum protulerat. Ignatius ex. Evangelic S, Mattbai, quo negavisse dicebatur Christus se Dcemonium esse incorporeum. Non satis caiiie distinxit S. Martyr inter S. Matthai Evangelium sincerum, et quale usurpabant Ebionaei jam in Asia grassantes interpolatum. Hie ergo negant Hseretici, et quidem rede, verba ilia in Evangelic fuiise quale prodiit a S. Mattbao* PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. l$9 cd on by false or interpolated pieces fathered on V! But Mr Rhind, p. 98, « would know, of his adversaries, what these interpolations are. He hopes they will not allege that there are any favour- ing the then or after heresies ; and to say that these passages, which assert the distinction ot Ecclesiastical orders and the Episcopal authority, are of this kind, is a mean begging ot the quest ion ; and so much the meaner still, that this can be proven from other monuments, of that age. though « Icrnatius had never written an epistle. J or an- swer, in the Uf place. Has he read the authors on this controversy, with a scrupulous exactness, and knows nothing of what these interpolations are? Whv then, 1 recommend hiiu to Coke. Da. le, Sal- JJaSs. Bbndel, Owen, the Jus Dn;inum M.nisteru Evanseiici, L'Arroque, Jameson. Scultet. Kivet. For vvhy should I repeat what has been so often in- sis ted on ? After ail that H.mrnond, Pearson. Beverido Dissert. Cliap. ui. Sect. 3. /; i vf '^HT'^ 'K 1 ~* I ! M 1 1'^ J; ' ■I' ' I 4 \ i 162 DEFENCE OF THE ■■■P ^HP '^^^w plainly supposes that there were then no other orders in the Church but those of priests and deacons. « Wherefore ye must needs abstain from all these « things ; being subject to the priests and deacons, « as unto God and Christ/ * VI. Mr Rhind asks further, page 100, * Why « any such interpolation should have been attempt- « ed. For if the testimonies in these epistles that * favour the Episcopal authority are not agreeable * to the faith and practice of the Ignatian age ; then « many living about the time of the interpolation * might have been sensible of this. And as it was^ « next to impossible to deceive such by spurious « epistles, so it is highly improbable that they would « suffer others to be deceived :' To this purpose he. But this is the very same thing he has said so often over, and which I have so largely exposed. It is beyond contradiction, and is confessed on all hands^ that there were interpolations made, *and^ that too in the matter of Episcopacy, whereof I just now give instances. Tliis being clear, where is the ne- cessity of giving either the how or the why of such interpolations ? Let Mr Rhind, or any of his bre- thren, give us the how or the why, these extravagant expressions in the matter of Episcopacy, whi(!h I have just now instanced, and which are confessed to be interpolations, were foisted into the Igna- tian epistles ; and I here promise to give him the how or the why of all the rest which he thinks do make for his purpose. So much then for Mr Rhind's vindication of the Ignatian Epistles. To conclude it, he refers his readers, page 107, if * any of them are not yet fully satisfied, to the in- * comparable Dr Pearson's, and the learned Dupin's « performances on that head.' And 1 refer my read- er to the authors whom I have already cited. It is true the greatest men of the Church of England have made their utmost efforts in behalf of these Ig- natian Epistles : but it is as true they have been ta- * £p. to tlie Philip. Sec* 5, 6. PRESBYTERIAN'GOVERNMENT. 163 hKe, the dmrch of England divines got the last tord : but it is as true, it was not because they^^^^^^^ it, but because they begged it, and owed tlie^keep ing the field, not to the strength of their leasons, but to the earnestness of their ^ P^f ""^^^/^/f; pears from Monsieur L'Arroque's Life, prefixed to Eis Adversaria Sacra, from Walker's transla ion of L'Arroque's History of the Eiichanst, ^^^ liom the author of the Eulogium on Monsieu L Auoque in the Nouvelles de Repithhque de Lettres. iney ;?ave been told of this before,* but it was needf^^^ to tell them over again, because they ^ome me^^^ a^^^ feet to be dull of hearing. But enough ot Ignatius. CLEMENS ROMANUS. The next testimony he produces, is froni Cle- mens Bishop of Rome, in his first epistle to the Co- rinthians. Sect. 40. in which the argumentative words are, ' For tlie Chief Priest has his proper ser- vices, and to the priests their proper place is ap- pointed; and to the Levites appertain their pro- per ministers ; anrl the lay-man is confined with- • in the bounds of what is commanded to laymen. From which he infers, p. 109, ; that to the Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Chris lan Church, such a distinction of offices does belong, as for- merly obtained among the High Priests and Le- vites, under the Jewish dispensation ; which is further confirmed by the authority of St Jerome, (that pretended patron of parity), who says what Aaron and his sons were, that we know the Bishops and Presbyters are.* Thus Mr lUund. Now let us examine all this. ^. ^ /. t> _ In the >5/ place, was Clemens BishopofRome when he wrote this epistle ? Hear DrWakeit I • conclude then,' saith he, ' that this epistle was « written shortly after the persecution under Nero • betwten the 64th and 70th year ot Christ: ana • Jnm. son's Naz. Qutrc 1. Boyse, Forrester, f Ubi iu^ra, Ut edit. p. 34-. L 2 '^ fif m •4 \ '1 ,1' 164 DEFENCE OF THE rRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 165 * that, as the learned defender of this period sup- * poses, in the vacancy of the see of Rome, before * the promotion of St Clement to the government « of it.' Thus he. Plainly, this epistle was written at least forty-two years before Episcopacy was insti- tuted, by Mr DodwelPs account, and before there was any such thing as a bishop in the world, except James, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was in the place of universal Pope, Tliis, I hope, is more than suf- ficient to take off Clement's testimony : for how could he speak of a thing which was not yet in be- ing ? Yet, lest Mr Rhind should complain of ne- glect, Ib the second, place, I ask, does that passage, which he has cited from Clemens, in the least tend to prove that there were then three distinct orders of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the Cliris- tian Church ? No. He uses it only by way of ge- neral accommodation, that the Christians at Corinth should be subject to their spiritual guides, as the Jews, whose polity was yet standing, were to their's- But it never entered into his thoughts to run a pa- rallel betwixt the officers in the one and the other polity. And Mr Rhind might as well have proved that the officers in the Christian Church corresponded to those in the Roman army, because the same Cle- ment says, Sect. 37. * Let us consider the soldiers * who obey their leaders in war, how orderly, rea- « diiy, and with all subjection, they execute their « orders. All are not Praetors, nor Chilliarchs, nor « Centurions, nor Commanders of Fifty. Every one « performs, in his order and station, what is com- « manded by the king and the leaders.' Plainly, one needs no more to convince him that Episcopacy did not obtain in that time, but to read Clement's epistle. The occasion and subject of it is this : The ?eople of Corinth had raised a sedition against their Vesbyters, and would not be regulated by them. Clement wrote his epistle on purpose to compesce that sedition. « They are shameful, yea, very shame- « ful things, beloved,' saith he, Sect. 47. ' to be heard. o « that the most firm and ancient church of the Co- * rinthians should, by (or for the sake of) one or « two persons, rise up in sedition against the pres- « byters.' Does he ever recommend it to them to refer their quarrel to the bishop ? Not once. What could be the reason of this ? had he been absent, Clement might have entreated them to wait his re- turn. Had he been dead, he might have desired them to keep quiet till there were a new one cho- sen. Yet Clement advises to neither of these, no, not by a hint. Does he acknowledge any more than two orders of officers in the church. Bishops and Deacons ? No. * The Apostles,' saith he, Sect. 42, « preaching through countries and cities, constitut- « ed their first fruits, having proved them by the « spirit, for Bishops and Deacons of those that « should afterwards believe.' No mention of Pres- byters here. Did he not positively own that these Bishops were no other than Presbyters? Yes. ' lor « it would be our no small sin,' saith he, Sect. 44, « should we cast off those from their bishopric who, « without blame, ana holily offer the gifts. Blessed « are those Presbyters who, having finished their • course, have obtained a fruitful and perfect disso- • lution.' To confirm all, Grotius, in his epistle to Bio-nonius, proves this epistle of Clement to be ot undoubted antiquity. * Because,' saith he,* ' no • where therein does he make mention of that para- < mount or peculiar authority of bishops, which, by « ecclesiastical custom, began after the death of « Mark to be introduced at Alexandria, and from « that precedent into other places ; but he plainly • shews, as the Apostle Paul had done, that the < churches were governed by the common council « of the Presbyters, who are all called Bishops, both • by him and Paul.' Thus Grotius. But Grotius was a Dutchman. True. But his reasoning was • Qaod nusquam meminlt exsortis ilUus Episcoporum auctoriia- lis, quae Ecclesise coiisuetuaine, post Marci mortein, Alexandrise, atque eo exemplo, alibi iiitroduci cepitj sed plane ut Paulus Apos- tolis ostendit, eccleslas commani Presbyterorum, qui iidem omnei et Episcopi ipsi Pauloque ilicuntur, consilio fuisse gubernatas. (, in . II 1' n ^ III 4 f f < 1 166 DEFENCE OF Tlit PRESBYTEHIAN GOVERNMENT. 167 right English. * They/ saith the learned Stilling, fleet,* ' that can find any one single bishop at Co- rinth when Clement wrote his epistle to them, must have better eyes and judgment than the de- servedly admired Grotius, In the i/tird place, 1 ask how Jerome's words, * what < Aaron and his sons were, that we know the Bishops « and Presbyters are,' contribute to the clearing or confirming Clenent's testimony. Why did not Mr Rhind tell where Jerome has these words ? It was too much niceness in him to think, that citing au- thors in such a case as this would be reckoned pe- dantry : The industrious avoiding of it rather der serves that name. But the reason is evident : Mr Rhind knew very well, that if any one would look the place, he would see how absurdly it were alleg- ed. Plainly, the words are taken out of Jerome's famous epistles to Evagrius, the occasion and con- tents of which are these. A certain deacon of the Church of Rome, had started a pretty odd opinion, viz. * that Deacons were superior to Pesbyters.' — Tor chastising the arrogance of that spark, Jerome wrote the said epistle. * A fool,* saith he,t 'will « speak foolish things. I hear there is one who has « broke out into such a height of folly, as to prefer « Deacons to Presbyters ; that is, to Bishops.' Then he proceeds to confute him by arguments. And the great argument upon which he goes, is this, — * Bishops and Presbyters were, in the Apostles' time, • all one. But it were a palpable folly to prefer Dea- « cons to Bishops.' Ergo, it is the same folly to pre: fer Deacons to Presbyters. The first of these pro- • Irenic. p. 280. f liegimns in Esaia. Fatuus fatua loquetur. Audio quen dam in tantam erupisse vecordiam. Ut Diaconos Presbyteris, id est Eplscopis anteferiet. Nam cum Apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse Presbyteros quos Episcopos, quid palitur mensarum et vidua- rum mioister, ut supra eos se tumidus eiFerat.......Quod autem pos- tca unus electus est, qui caeteris prgeponeretur, in scbismatis reme- dium factum est.... Nam et Alexandrise a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri semper unum ex ge clectum in cxcehiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nomlnabant.... Quid enim facit, cxccpU ordinatione, Episcopus, ^uod Presbyter win faciat, positions, viz. that Bishops and Presbyters were m Sie Apostles' time all one, he proves ftom the very same Scriptures, which the Presbyter.ans have ever tn Ited oS. And though Episcopacy was so far ad vanced in his time, which had been set on foot af- ter the Apostles' days, for a remedy ot schism ; yet even then he decla/es, « that excepting ordination, 'the Sop does nothing which the P-sbyter might . not do/ Is it then imaginable, Ihat after dUh^^^^^ Jerome, in that very same epistle, should allow Bishops lo be superior to Presbyters by d'vme right, ah High Priest under the law was to the ordinary priests. No It is plain, that the comparison runs, not be- fw'en iL'n and his sons under the law -^ ^^^ shops and presbyters under the gospe ; but between Aamn and his sons, as one part "* the comparison under the law. and the Levi esundei them, as «ie other So. under the gospel, bishops and piesny S fmake one part of L comparison answering to Aaron and iiis sons, in that wherein they all agree, ^"the ordei of priesthood ; and the other part un- der the cospel, is that of Deacons, answering to the Lev tes. u' Ser the law. And this gloss upon Jerome's words? as the context necessarily requires, so the llarned StiUingfleet • has expressly confirmed. And beSes Dr Hammond, as we have before observed, bv denyiug the middle order of presbyters in the XS"2ays, has quite destroyed the aj^ume^ from the Jewish priesthood. Was no , then Mr Rhind very well advised, when he would p ess Je- Jome into'his service, in the very face of h^ own protestation to the contrary ; and that, too, for con- Srming Clement's testimony, who never dropt so m^ch^as one syllable in favours of a bishop above a mesbyter. So much for Clement ; and I do not S ink but the reader is by this time convinced that Mr Rhind could have been at no loss, though he had never mentioned him. THE EMPEROR ADRIAN. His third testimony, is from a Letter of the Em- • Ircnic. p, f68. ■'!iiiil 168 DEFENCE OF THE PBESBYTEBIAN GOVEBNMENT. 169 ||l peror Adrian to Servianus ; but, supposing it were for his purpose, it is so very shameful a one, that, for the honour of the Episcopal order, it ought to have been buried in silence. But Dr Monro * had touched upon it, and therefore Mr Rhind thought it necessary he should do so too. The words of the letter insisted on by Mr Rhind, p. 109, are : ' There • are Christians, who worsliip SerapiSy and they are ' devoted to SerapiSy who call themselves the Bishops ' of Christ. There, no ruler of the Synagogue, no ' Christian Presbytery who does not,' &c. From this he infers, ' That when Adrian was in Egypt, anno « Christ. 13J, the distinction of Bishops and Presby- • ters was so notorious, that the Emperor supposeth • it as an undoubted truth.* But the very contrary is evident from the Emperor's words. And it is clear as light, that these whom he calls Bishops in the first clause, are the same with those he calls Presbyters in the next \ — a way of speaking, which every body knows to be according to the constant style of the Scripture, and consequently of all such as knew any thing of the Christian affairs. I have set down t the Emperor's words as he wrote them, that the reader may see this the more evidently. IRENJEUS. His fourth testimony, p, 110, is from Irenacus, Lib. III. cap. iii. contra Heres, who says : * We can • reckon them, who were appointed Bishops by the • Apostles in the Churches, and their successors, to • our day; to whom also they committed these • Churches, delivering to them the same dignity of • power.' It is answered, Firsts Supposing Irenasus were against us, yet his * Enquiry into the New Opinions. t Adrianiis Aug. Serviaiio Cos. S. iEgyptum quern mihi lau- dabas, Serviane charissirae, totam didici, levem, pendulam, et ad omnia faniae momenta volitantera. Illi qui Serapin colunt Chris- tiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi. Qui se Christi Episcopos di- cunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Judaeorura nemo Samarites, ne- mo Chriitiauorum Presbyter, non Matheinaticusi &c. iud-^ment about traditions is of no g^e^'JJJS^'^,^ For in that same Chapter, xvhich Mr Uhind has i;^2l he asserts • not only the pre-eminence of the C huth of Roi e. but thi necessaiT dependence of another churches upon her. A"d else^iere t h^ asserts Christ to have been P^^^ j''^ ^f/^^^ed t i^d tt tte;'Ll that by -dition,^^^^ i;ri"t;.ra\;;rw^ ne IS veiy au^^y ^^mrlio-iouslv in so plam a case. When he ^^"f /^f ^^PJ^jS^to h s traditions about S;:'ruSeSf S Bis^^^^^^ i« generally ac. itwTedged ry the EpiscVians tl--^^ ^^ ^« ^ „ost Per>-d and -^^^^^^^^^ tr 'Ed has t,raSethir^a\'Te%^^^^^ Bishops the same dignity of power ? No . His woi ds n.p.t « Whom also/ (viz. the Bishops), they lett "Ui-e r suSeTsors. ddivUgto Jem fh-r own p^^^^^ . r.f mastership ;' that is, the Apostles constitutea them Uie supreme officers in the Church, so that trwtetohave none above them any more than eYpostles had. But. that they d? ™d^ei*e to Bishop or Presbyter, the same dignity of power, ire- ""SS Tte i! no need either of declining Ire- J.k teiimony. or refining "P"" ^is woi^s^ M S^ Sii^rbSlh hS SS^^- ^ent of i he could. For that the Apostles appomt- • Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, „e.esse est ""•"^^ '=°;~,^SSn>'' -"' qumqu^ge^™" an- + Lib. II. cap. 39, 40— A 1"„™^ _„.„ habens Dominus nos- ""Veb^tTcit fvtgerreTorr sSres testantur. qui ter docebat, sicut riVdugcim T^_.„:n: convenerunt, idipsum in Asia apud Joannem d'sc.pulmn ^omm con ^^^^^ ^v^^^^ tradidisse eis J°a""«'";-^"'SuaSo anno abstitit. i^U"etrc"es"otneU3t! suum ip~ locun. ma. gisterii tradentes. \ IP* * ^"^ DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 171 ed Bishops in the Churdies, every Presbyterian owns. But that he appointed Prelates, or Diocesan Bishops, BO Episcopalian has yet proved. If tbey will slill no on to expose themselves, by insisting upon the word ^i^Aop, nobody can help it. Presbyterians must take care they be not imposed upon by mere sounds. It is certain, that Irenaeus took Bishop and Presbyter for one and the same officer. « Wherefore,* saith he, • ' it behoves us to hearken to those who are Pres- * bvters in the Church — to those who, as we have * shewn, have their succession from the Apostles ; * who, together with the succession of the Episco- f pate, have also received the gift of the truth, ac- * cording to tlie pleasure of the Father.' Thu§ Ire- naE^us. — • And what strange confusion,' says Stijling- lingfleet, t ' must this raise in any one's mind, that * seeks for a succession of Episcopal power over * Presbyters from the Apostles by tlie testimony of * Irenaeus, when he so plainly attributes both the suc- * cession to Presbyters, and the Episcopacy too which * he speaks of.* So much for Irenaeus. TERTULLIAN. His last testimony, p. 110, is from Tertullian^ * who,' saith he, • began to flourish at the same time * with Irenaeus, that is, in the declension of the second « century;' and says, Lib, de Haptismo^ * The High * Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving « baptism, after him the Presbyters and Deacons— * but not withoutthe Bishop's authority.' For answer: In thejirst place, 1 should be glad to know where Mr Khind came by this piece of chronology- It is true, Tertullian began to flourish in the declension of the second century, viz. after the year ii>2; and wrote his book, de Baptismo^ from which Mr llhind cites, about the year 201. t But Irenaeus's flourish- • Qua propter eis ijui in ecclesia sunt. Presbyteris obaudire oportet. His qui successionem habent ab Apostolis, sicut osten- dimus, qui cum Episcopatus successione, charibma veritatis cer- tum, lecundum placitum Patris acceperunt. f Irenic. p. 307. | Spanheim, Hist. Ecclei. p. 719. • ^^s well nidv blown off ere that time. 5 For ing ^^^^ ,T ,1,J lir Dodwel^ * before the persepu- • he died, says M^ .^ ^^^ .^ : 'no'^r^ It i Ten?^^^^ hard to conceive, ;„°;fe«ull!an'b4»'.o aou-Uh a. the .a»e ..me .^ith Iren^us. But Pass.ng thjs: ^^ ^^^.^^ In the second place, x asK, >viiat T? ''''?resbv e? and Deacons, in the beginning Bishops, Presbyters, »»" ^ p,esbvterian owns it. f -^".ftSSps hSt is pralunt power of Is ,t, that t^>«SXe Presbyters and Deacons, by baptising, beyo"d ^5 ; > ^^^.^^ j^^ ^^^ ^hat Divine right? lertuiuan i^ ^ ^^.^^^ in the veiT nf xt -ord to tl -- "tef^^^^f ,his little . It remains, f!tl\he,T lo ^,^g ^i^^ervatioa « matter, to adv.se also concemin .^_ . of giving -.=i,[-S^>^- 1; BTsho'p. im the . deed, the High P'fJ^,j;jVni Deacons; yet not . riglit, f ^"/^^^,^^;rS^:?the Bishop, /or the ho. . without the auUout^^^^ peace is safe, « nour of the Unircii, wmc » . ^^j. . --oiherre even laprwn have the^^^^^^ ,^,^^^ Ms equally ^l^^^y^^^^^^y^l ^U, ff Mr Rhind ^'"" i'^ithe^ very m' Snish.d of testimonies, or was not *>ither ve y 111 .^^.^^^^ ^^ ^,^,g .very ^eU with assu.ance vv ^^.^ ^^^.^^^_ And thus, now 1 1 ave ^o ^,7^„ i,, ^^, en- ty ; and hope bat^iP'j; ^Js harangue, tering on it, '^^ ™;=> , ^1,^ Presbyterians to ap- xvherein he would P^'^"fj7'f,,„dly believe he has peal to the Fathers ; for 1 c^» ^'/'"/^ And if gained much by referring to these Judges. • Dissert. 3. in Iren. _.,priolatn, de observatione quo- + Superest, ad «=°-'"En-^um conlmo^efacere. Dandi qui- que dandi et accipiendi bapt.=.mura E,,iscopus. Delunc 2em habet jus '"•".■""^tm^^" irEpfscopi auctoritate, prop- Presbyteri et D.acon., non tamen s ne bp j^^ ^ pJ;^Z Z^'S^ ex «quo accVtur, ex «quo dan po- test. 172 DIFENCE OP THE his own conscience was satisfied with these testi- monies he has produced, I must needs say it is no ill-natured one. ARTICLE VI. Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for Prelacy y from the impossihility of its obtaining so early ^ and uni' versally, if it had not been of Divine Institution, is examined. From p. Ill to p. I \9. , il III I ' ,*i There can be nothing more ridiculous, than to dispute against the possibility of a matter of fact. If I had seen Mr Rhind some time at Edinburgh, and, within a short while after, had heard from unexceptionable witnesses, that he was at a hundred miles distance from it, must I believe, notwithstand- ing, that he never changed places ; because I am not able to tell how or when he did it, nor perhaps answer all the objections one might puzzle me with, against either the physical or moral impossibility of his hav- ing done so. Because Mr Rhind was educated pres- byterian, was a zealot in that way, and profited (more ways than one) above many of his equals ; must I, therefore, deny, that he is now Episcopalian, and of the new cut too ; because neither I, nor indeed any body else, can account for his change. Has he not heard Mr Dodwell so often affirming, that the go- vernment was changed about the year 106 — changed too, not only without any account of it, but with- out any warrant for it, contained in the Scriptures ? Why, then, will he dispute against the possibility of a change ? But it was his pleasure, as it has been of many of his brethren writers, to do so j and we must attend him in his performance. "ft i* PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 173 That a change of the government of the chu^^^^^^^ by a parity of pastors into a government by Pr^^^^^^^^ £d been morally impossible, he argues, I. FromU^ piety and zeal of the primitive tunes IL From Sie universal spread of Episcopacy. HL F^om the vigilance of the Governors of the Cluiich iv F?om the unparalleledness of the case. J F on^^the non-oDPOsition made to the change, and the want Tan insinuation that ever the church was goven ed according to the Presbyterian model. Of these '"T He argues p. HI, 112, from the piety and zeal' o? the pStlie times. ^ If the Presbyterian had bmi the divine form of government, t rould never once have entered into the thoughts Smen who had shared in or been subject to this ?orm of government, to attempt or allow its change Culd Uiese primitive persons, who were bishops in the first ages, have usurped an anti-scriptural au- thorrty' What could have tempted them to i? t5o tie love of riches, they forsook all for the iove of Christ. Not ambition, for they knew he momotion rendered them more obnoxious to their PSors. Suppose the, had bee" ac'-f^* Iw worldliness or ambition, yet would the rresoy Jjrs and Deacons have suffered such an encroach- r^ent to be made upon their divine right ? Or w^uld the people ha/e submitted to -di an usur- ' nation ?' To this purpose he. For answer, it caCt be denied, tha^ th^e zeal -d piety o t- pri- „,itive times was much greater than of 0"^ • But ^vhy would he impose upon people by \^^l^^''^} Temesentation of these times, contrary to the faith of XS y ? Men still were, and always will be men Tt V very corrupt how holy soever^^he relieion is which they profess. The churcnmen are men too ; and, even in the primitive times, lve"«any and very scandalous examples, and were gave many "^"^ •» corruption of Christians, the greatest cause oi tne uoiiin^>- -u/u-f „ and sometimes of their persecution too. What a i 174 DEFENCE OF THE complaint does Eusebius • make of the wickedness of Christians in general, and of churchmen in particular ? * Bishops,* saith he, * rushed (like mad « beasts) against bishops. Most detestable hypo- • crisy and dissimulation advanced even to the very « height of wickedness. We were not touched with « any sense of the divine judgment creeping lu up- • on us, used no endeavours to regain his favour; • but wickedly thinking, that God neither did re- « gard nor would visit our crimes, we heaped one • wickedness upon another. And those who seem- « ed to be our pastors, rejecting the rule of piety, « were inflamed with mutual contentions against « one another; and while they were ^only taken up • with contentions, threatenings, emulations, mutual « hatred and enmity, and every one eagerly pursued • his ambition in a tyrannical manner, then the • Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud « in his anger, and remembered not his footstool in • the day of his anger, but raised up the Dioclesian « persecution against them.* Thus Eusebius, and a great deal more to this purpose. Fifty years be- fore that, Cyprian t complained of an luiiversal depravation in the clergy as well as the laity. « That the priests had wo d votion, the ministers • or deacons no fidelity, that there was no charity « in works, no discipline in manners.' And does not Jerome t tell us, that * the primitive churches • were tainted with many gross errors whilst the A- • postles were alive, and the blood of Christ yet • warm in Judaea?' But why do I insist on human testimony? Does not the Apostle Paul himself make the like complaint. Phil. tii. is. * mant/ walk, of whom • I told you often, and now tell you, even weeping, • that they are the enemies of the cross of Chris?; • wliose God is their belly, who mind earthly things.' • Hist Eccles. Lib. VIII. Cap. i. ^ t Non in Saceraotibus Religio devota, non in M'lnl^trls fides Integra, non m operibus ratiencordia, non la morlbus disciplina, &c. Cyprian de Lapsis. '^ f Adfersoi Luciferian. t rilESBYTEEIAN GOVERNMENT. 175 And chap. ii. 21. * all seek theif own, not the things « which are Jesus Christ's.' Even in those early times, and while the Church was under persecution, a Dio- trephes could aspire to the pre-eminence, 3 John, ix- And even the people's liberality made so consider- able a provision for the maintenance of church-men, that the Apostles found cause, oftener than once, to caution them against taking the office for filthy lucre's sake, 1 Peter v. 2. 1 Tim. iii. 3- Where then was the impossibility of a change, even upon the principles of ambition and covetousness ? Might not one, at Mr Rhind's rate cf reasoning, prove, that it w^as not possible there should have been any such officers as sub-deacons ? The deacons, (good men) would not be so ambitious as to seek to have underlings. There could be none so mean-spirited as to submit to be such. Suppose both these, the peo- ple (of whose charity the deacons were the trustees) would not have suffered it. Yet Cyprian ♦ makea mention of them as undisputed officers in his tinie ; though it is certain there was no divine institution for them, any more than for Acolyths and Exorcists, whom he also speaks of. Again, it is certain all bishops were originally equal; how is it possible,then, that ever there could arise archbishops or metropo- litans ? Would any of the bishops have usurped the honour ? Would their fellow bishops have sub- mitted to the encroachment? Would the people have suffered it ? Yet, how impossible soever it was that they should be, Mr Rhind himself, I hope, will not deny that they were ; yea, and that they were brought in so early, and with so little noise, that some learned men have thought they were from the beginning. We see, then, how insufficient Mr Rhind's iirst argument is. II. He argues, p. 112, from the universal spread of Episcopacy. Though such a change might have happened in a corner, yet, if Prelacy had not been of divine institution, how could it have ob- tained universally? Which yet it did: ' For,' •aithhe, p. 117, * it was fully established over all • Ep. 24. 176 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. Iff #!| * the earth, without any opposition or noise, a do- * zen of years or so after the sealing of the sacred « canon.' It is answered. It is a very insufficient argument. • Episcopacy spread itself through the * whole earth/ Why, so did Arianism. * The * whole world,' says Jerome,* ^groaned and wondered * to see itself turned Arian.' Besides, it is false that Prelacy prevailed universally. Many instances might be given to the contrary ; but not to wander from home : Though Christianity was planted here in Scotland in the days of the Apostles, and got the legal establishment in the beginning of the thud cen- tury ; yet we had no such thing as prelacy till near the middle of the fifth, that Palladius brought it hither from Rome ; as Bede, Fordun, John Major, Hector Bcethius, Buchanan and Craig, with others, do testify. HI. He argues from the vigilance of the Gover- nors of the Church. * For,' saith he, p. 1 15, ' if errors « in doctrine, which may more easily pass without « notice, did not escape their observation and cen- « sure ; how can it be supposed that they would not • have observed and condemned any encroachments « made upon the constitution of their Society ?' But who sees not how false this way of arguing is? Whence came all the usurpations and corruptions, both in principle and practice, which began to take place from the earliest ages of Christianity ? Does not every body know, that at least a great many of them crept in insensibly ; and that the tares were sown while men slept? No, says Mr Rhind, p. 117, < these did not obtain till after some centuries. They « were remonstrated against by many.' They were never allowed by one half of the Church. This, I must needs say, is confident enough talking. I shall give one instance for Mr Rhind to try his skill on ; it is the giving of the Eucharist to infants. It ob- tained early. Cyprian t speaks of it, not as a new thing, but as an ordinary practice. It obtained uni- • ma. Ubi .upra. t Senn. de Lapsis, Sect. 20. versally : Augustine • calls it apostolical tradition. No wonder ; for it was pretended to be founded on that text of Scripture, John vi. 53. 'Except ye eat « theflesh,*&c.andheisso brisk on that head, that ne affirms * that none who minds he is a Christian ot « the Catholic Church, denies that exposition, or * doubts of its truth.' It prevailed so long, that the famous BenigneBossuet, Bishop of Meaux,t brings it down to the twelfth century ; and affirms it to be used at this day, in the Greek Church. It is plain that the practice was unaccountable, and the princi- pie on which it was built, false. But can Mr Rhmd name the person that remonstrated against the mtro- ducing it ? Can he name any Church that refused it ? Can he tell the century in which it began ? JNo, :ure in one tning, now snau n, uu ... . ■•-- - IV. He argues, p. 116, from the unparalleledness of the case, ♦ that the Hke never happened m the government of any other society, whether ot tor- mer or latter times. For instance, the estabhsh- ment of the consular dignity, upon the expulsion of their kings by the Romans, and the change ot the republican into a monarchical form, occasion- ed a vast expense of treasure and blood. And m the days of our King Charles I. the monarchy was not destroyed, nor the common-wealth estabhshed, • till after a considerable resistance.' From all which he infers, thatsuch an insensible change in the govern- ment of the Church ought not to be supposed. Ihis reasoning is built upon grounds so notoriously talse, that it scarce deserves the name of a poor piece or sophistry. For it is contrary to all history and ex- perience, which shews us there have been great changes, the authors, and the beginnings and oppos- ers of which cannot now be known ;— though no man can doubt there hath been an alteration made. Hot * Vide Ep. 106. Lib. I. contra JuUanum. Lib. L De Peccat. merit, et rcmissione contra Pclagianum. ,, -t Jt^- t Traite de la Commuuloii sous Les Deux Especes, p. 81. ac. 1^ m H 178 DEFENCE OF THE the body spiritual, and civil too, is like the body na- tural; in which, as there are some diseases which make such a violent and sudden assault, that one may say at what moment they began ; so there are otliers, which grow so insensibly, and b}^ such slow de- grees, that none can tell when the tirst alteration was made, and by what accident, from a good ha- bit of body to a bad. It is true, the instanced changes, both in the Roman and English govern- ment, occasioned a- vast expense of blood and trea- sure. But, within the memory of man, the Portu- guese, in the year 1G40, shook off the Castilian yoke, and set up the Duke of Braganza for their king. And yet, so far as I can learn, there was nei- ther a farthing treasure spent, nor a drop of blood spilt, in the quarrel. Because the Protestants can- not (which Bellarmine • challenges them to do) in all cases, give an account of the author of the change, the time when it began, the place where, who opposed it, and so on ; must we, therefore, be- lieve, that the Church of Rome hath made no change at all as to her doctrines and practices which Christ and his Apostles settled ? Who can give us the history of the Communion in one kind ? It grew by degrees to be a general custom ; but nobody, I suppose, can tell where or when it began ? Who is able to trace the beginnings of the lying oracles a- mong the Pagans ? But must we therefore ascribe them to God ? According to Mr Rhind's way of rea- soning, the traditionary law of the Jews must pass for true, and that it came from Mount Sinai by word of mouth, as the written law did : For none can shew its original, much less name the authors of the several traditions, and who opposed them, as Dr Symon Patrick, late Bishop of Ely has observed, t and from whom I have taken the substance of all this answer, that the Episcopal party may see how tlieir reasonings against the Church of Rome, quite • Lib. IV. Cap. ▼. De Notis Ecclesiae. f On BeUarmine^s Second Note of the Church. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 179 destroy their reasonings against the Presbyterians- nay, are indeed the very reverse of them. lUis mi^ht be sufficient to take off his next argument, yet" ea: superabundantly I shall consider it Particularly. I should, according to the order of his book have inserted it before ; but for a reason which will just now appear, I have delayed it till the last- ^ V. He argues from the non-opposition made to the change, and the want of any insinuation, that ever the Church was governed according to the ^lesuy- terian model. Thus : ' When Antichristian Prelacy * is supposed to be universally established upon the * rmmoUure Divino Presbytery, there is no con- * siderable body of Dissenters, not one Presbytery, * not a single Presbyter or Deacon, nor so much as * one contemporary Christian, testifying against the * one, or declaring for the other, or once insinuating * that ever the Church was governed according to * the Presbyterian model. Nor did any in the sue- * ceeding centuries pretend it did obtain, except * Aerius and St Jerome, in the fourth. Ihe one an * infamous heretic ; witness Epiphanius, Heres. 75. * So that his testimony can be of no great advantage ^ to any cause, and Jerome's as little serviceable, on ' man/accounts.' Thus he, p. 113, 114. lor An- ^"^ First, Does not Mr Rhind know how insufficient a negat'ive argument in this case is ? Does he not know how few monuments we have of these times i Or has he himself recovered them ? Does he not know how ill furnished even Eusebius himselt was, with documents, when he wrote his history, and what broken scraps he went on? It is no wonder we cannot give a distinct account of the rise and first steps of episcopacy : For, from the death of the apostles Peter and Paul, in the end of Nero s reign, about the year 6S, for the space of 28 years, that is, till the year 96, we have either no history to give us licrht, or what is worse than none, a parcel ot la- bulous legendary stories. The learned Jesuit Peta- M 2 ^ m U ^ \ jssl!!-. I DEFENCE OF THE vius*, spealting of that period, delivers himself thus : ♦ The Christian affairs of this period stand in a ftunt • light, rather through scarcity of writers than mat- * ter. For it is not credihle, but that the Apostles '• and Disciples of Clirist, in all the world, acted ' things both great, and worthy to be known. But « they are generally blinded with fables and un- • certain narrations/ And it is very observable, and I desire the reader to remark it, that, at the very time wherein, by Mr Dodwell's account, Episcopacy was set up, that is, about the year 106, or somewhat sooner, the Christians are represented as famt and lan«Tuishing in their profession, and inclmed to apos- tatise. The author of the younger Pliny's life, pre- fixed to his Epistles,t observes, p. 33, that he wrote his letter to Trajan, concerning the Christians, be- twixt the month of September 103, and Spring time in the year 105. Now, in that letter, he gives a most lamentable account of the Christians. For though, as he there relates, Christianity had spread itseli through cities, villages and country, yet he was ot the mind, that a stop might be put to it. And as evi- dence of this, he tells the Emperor, that the temples ofthe heathen gods, which were formeriy almost de- solate, now began to be frequented, and that sacrifices hitherto neglected, were coming from all hands ; and that the return of the Christians to Paganism might be yet greater, if they were pardoned for what was past.? 2dlt)y Is there any improbability in conceiving, that • ChrlstlanK res illluB tempOTis liand magna in Luce versantur. Scriptorum magis Inopia, quam quia mandari q.io.l posset L.ter.s extaret nihil. Nam neque parva, neque scitu iiiUigna cred.bile est Apostolos, «c ChristI •di.cipulos toto orbe gess.ssc Sed pleraque fabulis et incertis Narrationibus aspersa sunt. Tetav. Kation. Temp. par. 10, Tom. post Lib. V. Cap. v. f Edit Oxon. 1703. ± Neqoe enim civitates tentum, sed vicos etiam atque agTO» roirstiSoBU. istJns .ontagio perragata est, qu» v.detur s.st. et Cflwigi posse. Certe satis constat, prope jam desolata templa eapiTse celebrari, et sacra soleonia diu intermissa repeti : passim- qoe venire victimas. quarom adbuc rarjss.mas emptor mven.ebatur. Ex qoo facile est opinari, qua turba hominum emendari possit, u sit peoitentix locus. PUn. Lib. X. Ep. 97. PRE6BYTERIAN GOVEHNMENT. 181 testimonies given against a governnient w uch after- wa ds obtained universally, might be neglected and lost perhaps industriously s.r.otb.ered and destroyed ? l°t Safn that there were passages foisted in a books, in favours of episcopacy, as we have already proved in the case ofthe Ignat.an l^Pf f«' ^"^ ^ is confessed, as to the old editions ot them, even by E^scopalians themselves. And tlu.se that could Sd in their heart to foist in passages for themse yes. would make no bones of razing out such as might be a- St them. 3rf/y,What though we had not the con- fempomles who testified against the change, or at St insinuate that parity of pastors did at fust ob- tab • may not those Ihat lived shortly after do as well, esDecially when it was against their interest to give Ssuch testimony ? But indeed we need not run toC' The Fathers of all ages, (so far as their test mony is worth the regarding) have given as amortestimony in fovours of Presbytery as heart c3d wth -, ^^'llereof it will not be amiss to give some instances. TESTIMONIES FOR PRESBYTERY FROM ANTIQUITY. Clemens Romasus, Am. Chr. 66. Tlie epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is the earliest and perhaps the purest piece of antiquity extant We Wve already heard Grotius observing and St llingfleet justifying him in his observe tlia k is written on the Presbyterian scheme. And I need not add to what I have already advanced, to shew Sat father to be on our side : Only, it is no mSleasant diversion to behold the episcopal scuffle E S! By Mr Dodwell's calcidation theie was T^o hishoD fin the episcopal sense) in the woild at ?he time of\he writing & the Epistle, save James, sitrinrPope at Jerusalem. All were Presbyters. NoTonde", then, that Clement was silent of bishops above presbyters. « No,' saith Dr Hammond,* Cle- » Vind. ofthe Dissert, Chap. iii. Sect. L ....:.;mMl^l^mi^t!^>^Z lOiS DEFENCE OF THE 1) r J I 1 !i « ment's presbyters were all bishops — ^there was no « middle order of presbyters at that time/ ' Nay/ saith Dr Burnet,* now b'shop of Sarum, *you are • both wrong ; Clement makes mention both ot « bishops and presbyters.' But pray, where ? For in all that epistle there are but two orders of eccle- siastics spoken of, viz. bishops and deacons. That is notiiing : ' Clement,' saith he, ' by deacons means • presbyters.' 1 am sure, however decent it may be, yet it is pretty difficult for one to be witness to this skirmish and keep his gravity. Ignatius, Ann. Chr. 116. Ignatius, who wrote his epistles, as Dr Wake tesr tifies,t An. 116, is the first who distinguishes hfc- twixt bishop and presbyter. And he, as I have shewn, quite destroys the modern episcopacy. And, that the Ignatian presbyters were employed either in preaching, baptising, or giving the eucharist, I have shewn to be mere supposition, which there is not one tittle in the epistles themselves to support. Dr Hammond mocks t Salmasius mightily for say- ing, * that the Ignatian Epistles were written when • Episcopacy, properly so called, came into the « Church ; because, in all his epistles, he speaks • highly in honour of Presbytery as well as of Epis- • copacy, that so the people that had been accusr « tomed to the Presbyterian government might the « more willingly and easily receive this new govern- « ment by Episcopacy, and not be offended at the « novelty of it.' And yet I have already produced Mr Dodwell saying the very same thing on the matter. PoLYC ARP, Ann. Chr. 1 1 7. Polycarp, who wrote his Epistle to the Phillppians immediateV after Ignatius, as Dr Wake § would have ti$ believe, though he had the fairest occasion lor • Hist, of the Rights of Princes, p. 6, f Ubl «upra, 2d edit, p^ 50. I Ubi supra, Chap. iii. Sect. 4. J Ubi supra, p. 20. i # -4 PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 183 it, yet. as I observed before, makes not Ae ^east mention of two orders of pastors, but of I^nests Tnd deacons only. And Dr Ha.T>mond M»mself can find no other way to shift the f^'-^e «^^^'"\ „„"' by lu.ning these pnests or pre^^y^e'-^ "\'° ^'^^^^^^^ and is content to drop the presbyters to save the Jishops, who yet. without presbyter to back thetn. can make but a very whiggish tigure. Justin Martyr, Am. Chr. 150. Justin Martyr, in his Apology for ^^^l^^^^^^l relates, that in every one of t'^eir assembbes t ere was one whom he culls president, who P'ffcnea, maved consecrated the eucharistical elements SS:h by the deacons were distributed to those that we e present, and sent to those that were absent, t But tlat tlh, president, whereof there was one m Tach Christian Lembly.. was under the junsdtct on of another superior to h.mselt ; or tha he had any others, except the deacons inferior to Inmsd^ Justin gives not so much as the least hint liom tlie one end of his works to the other. Iren^eus, Ann. Chr. 180. Ircnseus. as we have heard the learned Stilling, flee abeady confessing, attributes both the apos- fol successln and the%iscopate to the presbj-^ers ; and most expressly makes them both one oider.T fit "necessary,' saith he. ' to withdraw horn all . sud wicked mesbyters, but to cleave to such . "iK^, a we have said before, both keep the doc- . trine of the apostles, and sound speech with their . iSvterial order, and also shew an inoffensive . ^c^Son to the information -^ correction of ' the rest.-Such Presbyters does the Church bring . UP concerning whom' the Prophet also says, 'I « "?11 ' ive thy pnnces in peace, and thy bishops in ..rislu''eousness.' And concerning whom the Lord M. T-r. . r!.o« ;;; «;#.r4: 2 + Apoll. 2d edit. Grace. Lat. Colon. 1686. p. 97. +*-»" t * » ■ V J i DEFENCE OP THE • said, * who IS that faithful and wise steward whom •' the Master sets over his household." It is plain, then, that Irenaeus m^kes his presbyters bishops, and bishops and presbyters to be one and the same cirder ; and, by necessary consequence, presbyters must needs have all the same powers with bishops, which is the main thing contended for. In a word, though bishop and presbyter were distinguished iu Irena^us's days, yet in all his writings he has not given so much as the least hint that that distinction was of divine right ; but, on the contrary, still in- sinuates that they are one and the same officer in point of order. Tertullian, Ann. Chr. 203. Terlullian, as I have observed before, founds the distinction betwixt Bishop and Presbyter, not upon divine right, but the honour and order of the church, and represents the Presbyters as presiding in the ecclesiastical courts for the exercise of discipline. « Judgment is passed,' saith he,* ' with great weight, « as by those who are persuaded that God is eyeing « them ; and it is the greatest fore-token of the fu- « ture judgment, ifany one have so offended, as to « be excluded from communion in prayer, and of < the assembly and of all religious commerce. Cer^. « tain approved elders preside, who have obtained « that honour not by price, but by testimony.* Thus ne. Clemens Alexakdrinus, Arm. Chr. 204. Clemens Alexandrinus is manifestly on our side. • Those offices,' saith he,t * are an imitation of the • angelic glory, and of that dispensation which, as « the Scriptures say, they wait for, wiio, treading « in the steps of the Apostles, live in the perfection « of evangelic righteousness ; for these, the Apostle « writes, shall betaken up into the clouds, and there, « first, as deacons, attend, and then, according ta * Apolog. Cap. xxxix< \ SUomtt. Lib. VI. p. 481. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 185 « the process, or next station of glory, be admitted ♦ into the presbytery ; for glory differs from glory, « till they encrease to a perfect man. VVhich pas- sage, as Sir Peter King has most judiciously ob- served,* proves, that in the judgment of this U. ther, there were but two ecclesiastical orders : the inferior, that of deacons, who never sat at ttie ec clesiastical conventions, but like servants stood, as the saints, when caught up in the clouds at the last day, shall stand and wait on Christ's judgmen -seat. The superior, that of Presbyters, designed also by the name of bishops, who in the ecclesiastical con- sistories, always sat on thrones or seats, just as the saints, when the judgment is over, shall be relieved from standing or waiting, and have then glory per- fected in being placed on the celestial thrones of that sublime Prisbytery, where they shall be forever blessed and happy. In a word, as there are but two processes of t^h^e^aint's glorification, viz. standing before the iudgment-seat, and being seated on a throne of glory, beyond which there is no higher dignity •• so Clemens makes but two orders of church officers-deacons to attend and serve, and Presby- ters to sit and judge. OaiGEN, Ann. Chr. 226. Origen does indeed distinguish betwixt Bishops and PFesbyters. But no where can I find him found- ine the distinction on divine institution. But 1 frequently find him making most horrid representa^ tions of the pomp and pride and prodigality of the bishops, even in those times of persecution. Ihus, upon these words, ' The princes of the Gentiles ex- . ercise dominion, but it shall not be so among you, he runs out into a most lamentable complaint. « Thus,' saith he,t ' the word of God teaches us. . But we, either not understanding the will of God « laid down in the Scripture, or contemning Christ s • Enquiry into tbe Constitution of the Primitive Church, p. 72. + In Matlh. Tract. 12. t'l ''i^ • '• • 186 DEFENCB OP THX 1:1 K I 4 C f « c i c < c * recommendation, are such that we seem to ex- ^ ceed the pride even of the wicked princes of the work! ; and we not only, as kings, seek armies to go before us, but we make ourselves terrible and most difficult of access to the poor ; and are such to those who apply to us for any thing, as even tyrants and the more cruel princes of the world are not towards their subjects. And we may see in some churches, especially of the greatest cities, the princes (thai is, the bishops) of the Christian people have no attability, or allow access to iheai- selves. And the Apostle indeed charges even mas- ters concerning tlieir servants, saying, ' Mas ers •* give unto your servants that which is just and equal, *' knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven/ * And he commands them also to forbear threaten- * ing. But some Bishops threaten cruelly, some- * times indeed upon the occasion of sin, but at other * times out of contempt of the poor.' Thus Origen. And all this state which the Bishops took on was the more inlolerai)le, that their title to the chiefty seemed somewhat dubious to him. * It shall }iot be * so among you ; that is,' saith he, * let not those * who sec7n to have some chiefty in the church act * the lords over their brethren, nor exercise power * over them.'* Gregorius Tiiaumaturgus, Jmi. CJir. 233. Gregory Thaumaturgus, as Dr Burnet,t from his life, written by Gregory Nyssen, relates his story* * being much set on the study of j)hilosophy, was * afraid of engaging in the pastoral charge, and, * therefore, avoided all occasions in which he might * have been laid hold on and ordained ; which Phe- * dimus, a neighbouring Bishop, observing, though * Gregory was then distant three days journey from • Inter fm aoteni qui cstis mei, non erunt liaec. Ne forte qui videntur habere aliquem in tcclcsla principatum, clomlnentur fra- tribus propriis, vel potestatcm in eoij exerceaol. OiigeQ Tract l2m io Mattli- Lat. Genebrard. Parisiis. ]604. f Hist, of tbe Migbit of Frioces, p. y. *\'' ■' *» PBESB-X^TEBIAN GOVEBNMEXT. 187 f C c « him, he did, by prayer, dedicate him to the ser- vice of God, at Neocesaria, where there were then but seventeen Christians ; to which the other sub- mitted, and came and served there. Whether he received any new orders, is but dubiously and darkly expressed by that author.' Thus Dr Burnet. From which two things appear. First, That imposition of hands is not absolutely necessary to make a church officer, as Mr Rhind would have us believe. Secondit/, That though Gregory was a Bishop, yet it was but of one congregation, and a very small one too, at first, so that he neither had nor needed Presbyters. Cyprian, Ann. Chr. 240. Cyprian need not be insisted on. Mr Jameson • and Mr Lauder t have so learnedly and largely prov- ed that the Cyprianic Bishop had neither absolute power, nor plurality of congregations, nor a nega- tive voice ; nor, in a word, contributes any thing to support the modern Episcopacy ; that to add were superfluous ; and, therefore, 1 must refer the reader to their labours. Basilius Magnus, Ann. Chr. 370. Basilius Magnus, in terms, asserts the equal- power of all pastors and doctors. ♦ And this, saith he,t • we are taught by Cluist himself, when he • constituted Peter pastor of his own Church, alter « himself. For he saith,—' Peter lovest thou me « more than these— feed my sheep.' And to all • pastors and doctors, that were to come alter, he ' cave an equal power. And it is a sign ot this, « that they all, in like manner, bind and loose as he • did.' Thus he. ' ' Aeuius, Ann. Chr. 371- Aerius is confessed to have been Presbyterian. But, saith Mr llhiud, ' he was an infamous heretic. • Cypr. Isot. t The ancient Bishojis considered. X Coastitut. Monastic, Cap. xxii. « !i I DEFENCE OF TH^ Beit so. yet not a gireater ?"«/|!^ ^ertuJUaa, whom, yet, Mr Rh.nd cited m favours of ep.sco- nacv. For, besides his Montanism, some of the iearnedest doctors, in the present Roman Church, ha" taken a great deal of pains, sa.th Dr Symon Patrick.* to make the world beheve that leitullian, and a number of other ancient Fathers, were .nlect- ed with the Arian heresy. But who says that Aerms Was a heretic ? Mr Rhind answers .t was Ep.pha- nius, Heres. LXXV. But who knows not that Epiphanius's testimony is of ^;ery small weight f Is S^nSt his own character that his leammg w-as above his judgment, but his invention above them both ? wi there e^er a more pitiful piece written than his book about heresies ? Was there ever any thing weaker than what he has advanced against Aerfus, even upon the point of episcopacy ? i)o Z. the Episcop^ writers.t themse ves own, hat he has spokeS nonsense on that head ? Must not every Protestant own that Aerius >yas a better man than himself, and more orthodox in the /f 1^ jj?^" ^ condemned prayers for the dead, which Epiphanius Undertakes t^ justify against him, s it not known that a creat deal more has been said to purge Aerius, from the charge of Arianism than ever was or per- haps can be said, for proving him guilty of it ? Mr SnSthen ought to Lve been a little more modest S his character of Aerius. till he had discoursed the matter more fully. Ambrose, Am. Ckr. 376. Ambrose, or the Hilary, whom I cited before, upon these words. Eph. iv. 2. ' And he gave some . Apostles,' gives a plain account of the change. • After,' saith he,t * that churches were planted in • On Bellannine's 2il Note of the Chnrch. . t DrBeS^'" Letter to Sir Francis KnoUes. Bellarmwe, Tom. J, Contra. 5, Lib. !• Cap. xv. ^^^ctWnta* et 1 Tmmn postquam omnibus locf ecclesiie sunt ^^n^^^^uta.' ^^ ffitu m-amala • Alittr composlta res est, quam caperat. Idto omua oittinaia. ixmi-i vu r ' ^rJinatloni auec nunc ift poa per omnia conveaiunt bcripta Apostoli ortUnatiom quec nunc PRESBXTERIAN GOVERNMENT. nm all places, and offices ordained, matters were settled otherwise than they were in the begin- And thence it is that the Apostles' writ- nmg. ings do not, in all things, agree to the present / constitution of the Church, because they w^ere * written under the first rise of the Church : For * he calls Timothy, who was created a Presbyter by * him, a Bishop : For so, at first, the Presbyters * were called, among whom this was the course of « governing churches, that as one withdrew another « took his place ; and, in Egypt, even at this day, * the Presbyters ordain in the Bishop's absence. * But, because the following Presbyters began to be * found unworthy to hold the first place, the method < was changed, the council providing thiat not order « but merit should create a Bishop/ Thus he. And Augustine, as Stillingfleet* observes, cites these com- mentaries with applause, without stigmatizing him for a heretic. ChrysostoxM, An?i. Chr. 398. Chrysostom delivers himself with abundance of freedom, on the Presbyterian side. * The Apostles,* saith he,t ' having discoursed concerning the Bishops, « and described them, declaring what they ought to * have, and from what they ought to abstain ; omit- « ing the order of Presbyters, he descends to the « deacons ; and why so, but because between » Bishop and Presbyter there is no great odds? and * to them is committed both the instruction and the < presidency of the Church : And whatever he « said of Bishops agrees also to Presbyters. In or- ecclesia est, quia Iiacc inter ipsa Primordia sunt scripta. Nam et Timotheum Presbyterum a se cieatum Episcopum vocat, quia pri- muni Presbyter! Kpiscopi appellebantur. Ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet. Dcnique apud iEgyptuni Presbyteri consignant, si prxsens non sit Episcopug. Sed quia Caeperunt sequentes Presby- teri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos j immutata est ratio, prosplciente concillo: Ut non ordo, sedmeritum crearet Episcopum, multorum Sacredotum judicio constitutuai, ue indignus temere usur- paret et esset multis scandalum, Ambros. in Eph. 4j. * Irenic. p. 313. f ^^ V^^^^ ^P* ^^ '^i""' ^^"™' ^; ^^<« + ' V IT- I, 1 190 DEFBNCB OB THE . dination alone they »^^^%g«"« ^2° p;esb"vtr!" . ilw nnlv thev seem to defraud • the Presbyters. t£s he 'And.' saith Willet,t ' the distincUon .of Bishops and Presbyters, as it is now received, ^nnot be directly pioved out of Scripture: And ; of tto judgment! Bishop Jewell agamst Hard.ng . sheweth Chrysostom to have been. So that here ^e hive two fchurch of England dmnes owning Chrysostom to be on our side. ' Abgtjstxne, Ann. Clir. 420. Anmistme in his epistle to Jerome, disclaims the DitffnSuo; of W and fo-d, « J-n, T7^«ioc;n«t;r use. * Although, saith he,* accoiauio ?She worSsk honour.^which use has now made . fasSonlble in the Church, the Episcopate is great- . ^TtS the Presbyterate :' Yet in many t^^^^^^ ALustine inferior to Jerome. That this testimony f „r tSned. I appeal to^ Bishop Jewel ^decWa- •lion. In St Jerome's time,' ^^'^h he § 'there w^re . Metropolitans. Archbishops Archdeacons and . others; but Christ appointed not these distinc ouicia, bcnnninff. lliis is tlie : rn'/whil'i/TfeS Sr Jerome saith, • Let ..Sops understand that they are in authority over .. Sts more by custom than by order of God s Truth ' And A^ustine declares ' That, the office ' of a kshop is ab^ove the office of a priest, not by .. aut1.o. Hy of the Scripmre. but after the names of c. honour which the custom of the Church hath now .« obtained." Thus Bishop Jewel. Thkodoret, Ann. Chr. 420. Tlieodoret. in like manner saith.ll ' th« ^P^^' . ties call a Presbyter a Bishop, as we shewed . Viae l/hess C V ; j ■^,«^:!:: ^Q^u! ^'.'J S # • "t i PRESBYTERIAN COVERimENT. i9l < c c € when we exponed the Epistle to the Phillppians, wliich may be also learned from this place ; for, after the precepts proper to Bisiiops, ^e describes the things that agree to deacons : But, as I said, of old they called the same men both Bis iops and Presbyters.' Thus Theodoret. Primasius, Anno Chr. 440. Primasius, who is said by some to have been Augustine's disciple, puts the question, * why ths * Apostle leaps from the duties of bishops t) the * duties of deacons, without any mention of pres- * byters ?* and answers plainly, as before, * that * bishops and presbyters are the same degree. • Sedulius, A?ino Chr. 470. Sedulius, our countryman, in his Commentaries on Tim. 1. asserts the identity of bishop and pres- byter, that not only the names are interchangeable, but the office the same ; many of them being to be found in one city ; which couhl not be true of dio- cesan bishops. And for proof and instance he adduces the elders of Ephesus, Actsxx. who, dwell- ing all in one city, though they are called elders or presbyters, in the 17th verse, are yet called bishops in the 28Lh verse. Indeed it was no wonder Sedulius was Presbyterian : For, though he wrote not his Commentaries till he went abroad, yet, in Scotland, where he was born and bred, there was no such thing as a bishop while he lived in itjt whatever Spottiswood hath said to the contrary. Concilium Hispalense II. Anno Chr. 619. The secondCouncil of Seville plainlydeclares, «That * though there are many functions of the ministry, « common to the presbyters with the bishops, yet * by the modem and ecclesiastical ruleSy there are some im. 111. • In I Til t See Dalrymple's Collect, c. it. 5. Seaulii Poem, Prefmt Dupin, Cent. v. p, fiQ. 19f DEFENCE OF THE f#f I'M < .;!t . functions denied to them, such as the ordm^it.on . of presbyters." That councd, we see. pof "o' insi/upon divine right, but upon ecclesiastical rules, and owns the appropriation of ordination to the iH^op to be a modern practice. Theoph^lact, Anno Chr. 880. I might also give the testimony of Theophylact ^hoislaid by tome to have ^onvM ^bout^y^e year 880, but placed by Baronius in the year 1071. S his testimony being the same with tlvat of Chrysostom, whose echo StiUingfleet calls him, 1 need not repeat his words. Oeccmenius, Anno Chr. 900. Oecumenius, said by some to have lived in the eighth, by some in the ninth, and by others put oft till the eleventh century, upon Ac s ^x. 17, "lus delivers himself. ' Many are ignorant of the manner, « especially of the New Testament, whereby bishops . are called presbyters, and presbyters bishops. This may be observed both from this place, and from the Stle to Titus, and from the EpisUe to the Philip- pians, and from the first Epistle to Timothy. Fi om displace, therefore, of the Acts,.we ™«y «^"^^^^ .^^^^ certainty of this matter : For thus it s written, ^ From Miletus he sent and called the elders of the « church.' it is not said, the bishops ; andy^t alter- wards he subjoins. « over which the Holy Ghost has . made you bishops, to feed or rule the church. And from the Epistle to Titus, ' that thou mightest appoint « elders in every city,' which elders were after- v^ards called bishops. And from the Epistle to the Philippians. • To all that are at Phliipi with the . bishops and deacons.' And, as I bcheye, the same may be gathered from the First Ep'^^ /^ Timotliy. ' If any man desire the oflice oi a • Caranz. Somm. Concil. Hispal. Can. 7 p. [m!!.-.] 269, quam- v« cumEpiscopU plurima illis MlnUteriorum communis sit dispen- wtio, qnsdam Novellis et Ecolesiastici. rcgulu slbi prohibita novc- rint, «icut Presbyterorum eonsectatio. PKESBYTEBIAN- GOVERNMENT. 193 ii« ,/ ' bishop, he desu-es a good work. Thus Oecume- nius. CANON LAW. To all these we may join the Canon Law, in which we find Pope Urban pronouncing in these words : * We call the diaconate and the presbyterate the « sacred orders, for these alone the primitive church * is read to have had,'* Jerome, Ann. Chr. 385. And now I think I may conclude with Jerome's testimony, who has declared more roundly for Pres- bytery, than any, perhaps all the Fathers together, ever did for Episcopacy. Jerome, I say, of whom Erasmus witnesseth that he was, without contro- versy, the most learned of all Christians, Prince of Divines, and for eloquence that he excelled Cicero. We have heard him ah-eady in his famous Epistle to Evagrius. And Mr Rhind, p. 114, seems as if he would have his reader believe that this is the only place in which he declares for presbytery. But here- in he imposes upon his reader: elsewhere, viz. in his Commentaries upon the Epistle to Titus, he declares yet more explicitly for presbytery, if more can be, than in that famous epistle. Nor does he manage his business, as the pretended patron of Episcopacy, the false Ignatius, does his, by a flow of words and high ranting expressions, which must needs give scandal to all the world ; but he talks like a learned man, reasons the matter, applies him- self to his reader's understanding, does not put him off with rapture and harangue, but convinces him by plain downright argument. I shall give his testimony at large, and so much the rather, that it contains almost all the Scripture arguments for Pres- bytery. * Let us,' saith he, t * carefully heed the words of * J^ecret. ima pars Dist. 60. c. 4. nullus in Epis. Sacros autem ordmes dicimus Diaconatum et Presbyteratum. Hos siquidera •olos Primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia. t Comment, in Tit. N II (. / 194 DKIXNCE or TUB PRES3YTERIAX GOVER.VMEMr. 195 F'lllliJi . 'J I ';♦ J I ^ % I'll. \i £.1 4.>„etlo Qivinff « that thou mayest ordain eld- * tlie Apostle, sa) ing, viidi. I , .„, • i ,!,„„ • Who, " ers in every city as I have ^Pl 0'"^^^';.^''^ „^^i' gr' . discoursing in .hat folio., .ha^ so^t ^Vre^^^ <■ ought to be ordamed, says this n ai y « blameless, the husband of one ^f ' ^^^i;;;';, . wards adds, • for a Bishop "^f*, be blameless •' the steward of God/ A Presby e - .,^^^^ ^^^^ « same with a Buhop. Ana ue. ,.eH„ion, •devil's instinct, there were Pf^^"l\*" f p^"^,, f » and it was said among the people, I am «* ^ ^"''^ . :? Apolios, and 1 of Cephas, t e chu>clie e g « verned by the common counci of leshuers . after that, every «»« ^^S"", ° ^"^„ot Ch s^'s. . .hom he '-'l^f P'.f/j: ^HcUharonc chosen « It was decreed in the wlioie ^^"'»^Y , ^j ^ . fr„,„ among ^^:/';^=:;:;:'s:^2'.z£i:^g. ' and that me bi.ti.» iiulfment, and not • If any one think ^at th s is om jm ^^^ . the judgment «^ ^he bcupUii . tha _^ ^ ^^1^^^ ^^ • Presbyter are one ; ana mat m^ . age. L other of office, et V,";.,;^:^^,:^" "ing, . words of the Apostle to the I'^dipi^ans saying .. PauUnd T.motheus, the servants ot •J^^"^ <- "^ ' .. fo all the saints in Jesus Christ that are at Ihd.pp.. .. with the Bl.hops '^"d Deacons guceo you a^ peace,' and so on. P^iLpp. » one ci^y o^ j^ .cUnia; ,'^"'1, -^i^.i Tare Lued Bishops. : Bl'Uc\'^•i^hL tht they called the same • But becaiist mux , , \here ore he spoke • persons bishops and pi esb> te> S " '^.,^i, « rndiffereiitlv of bishops as ot pie&i)}ie's,. indineiemiv , , ' {• j to some, unless it be • may yet seem '•o^^'tun to , ^^. ^^^^ . proven ^v^""^ jer te.t.monj In ^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ : e^r ^MiltXl-eSfto Ephesus ina -lled . J,"e presbyters of that -ej^^^^^^^^^^^ €« \ « with his own blood.* And here observe carefully, « how, calling the presbyters of the one city of Ephe! « sus, he afterwards calls the same persons bishops. * If any will receive that epistle, which is written * to the Hebrews under the name of Paul, there * also the care of the church is equally divided * among many ; for he writes to the people, « Obey "them that have the rule over you, and submit "yourselves, for they watch for your souls as those " that must give an account, that they may not do *• it with grief, for this is unprofitable for you/ And « Peter, who received his name from the strength * of his faith, speaketh in his epistle, saying, « The " presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am " also a presbyter, and a witness of the sufferings " of Christ, anil a partaker of the glory that shall " be revealed ; feed the flock of the Lord which is ** among you, not as of necessity, but willingly/ * We have alleged these things, that we might shew, * that among the ancients the presbyters were the * same with the bishops : but that, by little and little ' the roots of dissention might be plucked up, the * whole care was devolved upon one. As, there- * fore, the presbyters know, that by the custom of * the church, they are subject to him who is set over them ; so let the bishops know that they are greater than the presbyters rather by custom, than the truth of the Lord's disposition or ordering, and that they ougiit to govern the church in com* mon, imitating Moses, who, when he had it in * his power alone to govern the people of Israel, * chose seventy with whom he might judge thepeo- * pie/ Thus Jerome. And I know not how any Scots Presbyterian could have written more patly in favours of Presbytery. Yet Mr Rhind has many tlungs to except against Jerome's testimony, whom therefore I reserved to the last, putting him out of the due order of time, tliat I might consider these exceptions without interrupting the list. 1. He excepts, p. 114, nhat Jerome lived too « late to testify concerning matters of fact that hap. N 2 t c c € / ,fji,|i JJI 1 ■!; •J 196 DEFENCE OF THE « pened about the beginning of the second century/ Now, Jerome was born Anno Chr. 329. Did he live too late to testify of wliat happened within less than 200 years before liis birth ? If so, the testi- mony of m'ost part of the Fathers, nay, indeed of almost all historians, will be of very little worth. Do we at this present live too late to testify con- cerning the form of government which obtained in Scotland about the year 1520, when almost every ploughman can tell it was Popery ? 2. He excepts, that Jerome is but testis singulariSy (iUd.) It is true, if a score or more be the same thing with one, then Jerome is testis singtilaris. But when we have found so many of the Fathers con- curring with him, I need not fell how false that ex- ception is. 3. He excepts, (ibid.) *that Jerome destroys the « credit of his own testimony, by contradicting him- • self in this very point. — In Epist. ad Hehodor. and « Nepotian, and in Comment, in Psal. xlv. ver. 16.' The very truth is, there are few of the Fathers who do not in some points contradict themselves, as well as one another. But, for these places which Mr Rhind has cited, they signify nothing unless he had pointed to the particuhir words of them wherein he thinks Jerome lias contradicted himself. For instance, in the Epist. to Heliodor, be makes the presbyters to succeed to the apostles, and to have the power of excommunication, &c.* I apprehend this is no argument either for Episcopacy, or that he has contradicted himself. And that he has nei- ther there, nor indeed any where else, contradicted himself in this point, Stillingfleet is a pretty compe- tent witness. * Among all the fifteen testimonies,* aaith he,t * produced by a learned writer out of Je- * rome, for the superiority of bishops above pres- • Absit ut dc liis quicquam sinistnim loqimr, qui Apostolico fradtti succedentes Christi corpus sacio ore conficiunt. — Mihi ante resbyterum sedere non licet > JUi, si peccavero, licet tradere me Sfttuiii* f liente. ^< t77« PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 197 * byters, I cannot find one that does found it upon « divine right, but only on the convenience of such * an order for the peace and unity of the Church of ' God/ 4. He excepts, (ibid.) * that it reproacheth the * wisdom of our Lord and his apostles, to suppose * that they did establish a form of government ne- * cessarily productive of schisms.* This is to his old tune of prescribing to Christ and his apostles. The government which they established, which, I hope, we have proven to have been Presbyterian, did not necessarily, that is, in the nature of the thing, produce schisms ; but by accident only. Our Saviour foresaw that schisms would arise even under the government of divine institution. ' Suppose ye ' that I am come to give peace on earth ? I tell you * nay, but rather division.' Luke xii. 51. And the apostles not only foresaw but felt it. * I hear that * there be divisions among you.' 1 Cor. xi. 18. And yet they would not prevent them, by setting up a government that should be utterly incapable of them. No. God had infinitely wise ends to serve by not doing so. * I hear that there be divisions * (schisms) among you, and I partly believe it. For * there must be also heresies (sects) among you, that * they which are approved, may be made manifest * among you.' 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. 5. He excepts, p. 115, « that it is too severe a « charge to be offered against the Catholic Church, * that it would endeavour to heal these breaches by * a device of its own invention — that is, do evil that * good might come of it* I answer : It is con- fessed, the charge is severe ; but that which makes it so is, that it is perfectly true ; and not in that only, but in a thousand other cases ; as is evident from the innumerable corruptions, which, by degrees, did overspread the whole church. And Whittaker — their own Whittaker^ — discoursing of Jerome's fore- said testimonies, very frankly tells, * that the remedy * was almost worse than the disease. For, as first * one Presbyter was set over the rest, and made Bi- L \'ir All jnr I' IV'^ t: l^g BEFENCE OF THE • shop, 80 afterwards one Bishop was set over the ♦ rest I and so that custom begot the Pope with his « monarchy, and, by little and little, brought them « into the church.' Thus he ; * and it is certain that schisms were never so frequent as after Episco- pacy prevailed ; and Bishops themselves were gene- rally either the authors, occasion, or fomenters of them. And ancient histories supply us with such dreadful accounts of such murder, bloodshed and horrid barbarities, committed by the contending parties at the election of bishops, as are not to be paralleled among the heathens. So much in vindi- cation of Jerome, who, 1 hope, is still safe to us, after all Mr Rhind's exceptions. And now, to conclude this argument : It was so far from being morally impossible that prelacy should^ obtain, even in spite of the divine institution of Presbytery ; that, considering tlie corruption of hu- man nature, it had been next to a miracle if it had not obtained. For is there any thing to which man is more violently addicted than the thwarting God's institutions? Did not this humour begin to work even in the Paradisaical state ? What a fine speech icould Mr Rhind make to disprove the Israelites making the golden calf at Horeb ! * No. It was < morally impossible they should. God had deli- < vered them out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and * in a wonderful manner : He had dried up the Red « Sea before them, and drowned their enemies in it : « He had given them the law, with all the solemni- « ties of miijesty and circumstances of terror ; there- * in he had expressly inhibited them to make unto « themselves any graven image: they had in the f most solemn manner stipulated obedience. Would < they now, after all this, within forty days too, so • impiously oppose God, so perfidiously violate their • Scd ipso morbo deterius pene Rcmedlum fuit i nam ut prima UDiis Pr€8b)ter reliquis piaelatiiJi est, et lactus Episcopus : Ita postea unos Episcopus reliquis est pitelalus. 8ic ista consuetude papam cum sua monarchia peperit, ct Panlatim ia Eccle»iam in: yextt. De Regim. Ecclet* p. 540. i •&^i ^Mi PRESBYTEHIAN GOVEUNMENT, 199 « own engagements, as to contravene that law ? No. * The men of them surely were masters of more * reason : the women and children were more fond « of their jewels and ear-rings, than to part with * them to be melted down into an idol : all of them * had either a warmer sense of God's late mercies, « or a more terrible impression of his majetsy and « justice, from the late appearance he had made on * Mount Sinai, than to venture on such a prank. * Suppose they had been all willing, yet, would * ever Aaron have complied with the motion ? No. * It must needs be all legend and fable. ^ And, * which confirms this, Josephus, who has given us « so judicious and accurate a history of the Jews, is « utterly silent of it.' And yet, how impossible so- ever it was, there is, notwithstanding, a certain book which common folks call the Bible, and Christians believe to be the divine oracles, that assures us that the people urged it ; Aaron did it, and the molten calf was set up and consecrated with great triumph and without contradiction. ' These be thy gods O * Israel, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt :' and without any farther act for conformity, the people got up early next morning, and oflered up their oxen to the calf, the god and the sacrifice being out of the same herd. So easy a thing is it to make a change in religion to the worse, yea, and to bring about" an universal compliance with the change. Vain man would be wise, though he be born like a wild ass's colt. There is nothing men in all ages liave been more bewitched with, than an itch of refining upon God's appointments. And a conceit that they were able to better them, and that execrable principle, that they had power to do so, have been the original of all the corruptions that have ever defiled or pestered the church. It is plain that all the fopperies and ceremonies, that have crept into the worship of God, owe their birth to this. And it is no less plain, from Jerome's former account, that Prelacy was hewn out of the same quarry. Some aspiring men have coloured their ambition with the .,! ■■ J I \ •,.r I 1 ' 80Q DEFENCE OF THE pretext of remedying schisms j and the rest, either through want of thought or courage, have been gulled into a compliance, or blinded possibly witb the hopes, that the dignity might one day fall to their own share. But enough of this. Sect. VI. Wherein Mr Rhind's Reasonings against t1t£ Presbyterian Muling'Elders and Deacons^ are examined, from p, 10^ to F' 107. The main part of the controversy, viz. * Whether « the order of Bishops, as superior to Presbyters, be * of divine apostolical institution,' being thus dis- cussed, we are next to consider what Mr Rhind has advanced against the Presbyterian Ruling-Elders and Deacons. And first, against the ruling-elders. ARTICLE I. Wherein Mr Rhind* s reasonings against the Freshy* terian Ruling-Elders are examined. 1, He objects that the Presbyterian ruling-elder is an officer of Calvin's institution, p. ]02. But here his history has failed him ; for the churches of Bohemia had such officers before ever Calvin set up the discipline of Geneva. And Martin Bucer, di- vinity professor in Cambridge, approved and com- mended the Bohemian practice ; and justified it, both from the Scriptures and the writings of the Fa- thers. This was long since suggested by the Pres- byterian authors,* and I do not find that ever any ^ Alt. Damasct p. 695. PRESBYTEIIIAN GOVERXMENT. 201 answer was returned to it ; but there is no other way of furnishing out the Episcopal books, but by repeating the same baffled arguments over and over again. It is plain, then, how modern soever the order of ruling-elders may be, yet it is not of Cal- vin's institution. 2. He objects, (ibid.) * that such an officer was « never heard of in the church till 1500 years after * the sealing of the canon of the Scripture.' But here he is out again, in point of history ; yea, and contradicts his former argument. For, by the com- mon account, the canon of the Scripture was not sealed before the year of Christ 96. The discipline and ruling elders were established at Geneva in the year 1542. So that he is wrong in his account by more than 50 years, even keeping within the bounda of the reformation by Calvin. 3. He objects, (ibid J ' that there is not a tittle « concerning them in the Bible.* This is not argu- ing, but impudence. We have an account of them, Rom. xii. 8. in these words, * He that ruleth, with « diligence.' And 1 Cor. xii. 28. we have them mentioned under the title of ' Governments.' And 1 Tim. V. 17. 'Let the elders that rule well be « counted worthy of double honour, especially they « who labour in the word and doctrine.' — ' By which « words,' saith Dr Whittaker, in his Prelections, * the Apostle manifestly distinguisheth betwixt the * bishops and inspectors of the church. If all that * rule well are worthy of double honour, especially * they who labour in the word and doctrine, it is * clear there were some who did not labour ; for if < they had all done so, the text had been nonsense ; « but the word especially makes the difference. If 1 * should say, that all those who study at the Uni- * versity are worthy of double honour, especialljj « they who labour in the study of theology, I be- * hoved either to mean, that all do not apply them- « selves to the study of theology, or I should speak * nonsense. Wherefore I confess that to be the * most genuine sense of the text, by which the pas- 203 DEFENCE OF THE i M ^.•I' iiA % * tors and doctors are distinguished from those who * only governed : Rom. xii. S. And concerning * whom we read in Ambrose on 1 Tim. v.* Thus that great h'ght and patron of the Church of Eng- land.* But what says Mr Khind to it ? Not one syllable. He owns that Presbyterians found upon texts of Scripture, but is so wise as not to name them, ftir less to essay to wring them from the Pres- byterian sense. And indeed his conduct in this is wiser than any where else in his book : For, it would touch any man of bowels with commiseration, to fee into what various forms the Episcopal writers twist themselves, to avoid the force of the text last cited. Jt has but foiu'teen words in the original, even particles included, and they have put at least fourteen senses on it. Didoclavius discussed ten of them in his days, and they have been ever since in- Yenting new ones. And had Mr Riiind told us which of them he pitched on, I do not believe it would be any hard matter to discuss that too, un- less it be one of his own, which the world never yet heard of j for indeed the sense of the text is so very obvious, that none can miss it who does not industriously resolve to torture it. He saw very well that he could have made but a scurvy figure, had he tried his critical talent on it ; and therefore he liad recourse to the popular art of declaiming a- gatnst the ignorance or disingenuity of the Presby- terians. And every body must own that tliis was both more easy and innocent than if he iiad fallen to the wresting of the Scripture, which would have both exposed his weakness, and made him liable to dam- nation. And yet he is unlucky even in that same popular art, the E|)iscopal writers themselves hav- ing proclaimed it ignorance to take the said text in mny other than the Presbyterian sense. * Art thou « so ignorant,' saith the fbrecited \Vhittaker,t to • Apud. Didoclav. p. 681. Ex Slieervodio. f ha ignaius cs, ut esse in Christi ecclesia Prtsbyteros ncscia* ^ui gubernationl lantum, non Tcrbi aut sacrameotfuum adminit- traUoni opeimm diMrent. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 203 U Dury, the Scotch Jesuit, « that thou knowest not « that there are elders in the Church of Christ whose • work it is to govern only, not to preach the word • or dispense the sacraments.' 4. He objects, p. 10:5, that this, viz. the busi- ness of the ruling elders, seems to be the weak side of the party, their more learned advocates having abandoned its defence. Who are these, pray ? Nay, we must wait for a third edition of this book be- fore we know that. It was his business to assert, not to prove. For my own part, I neither know, nor can hear of any Presbyterian, learned or unlearned^ that has abandoned its defence. It is true, Mr Jame^ son of late has said * that the ruling elders are not in a strict sense church officers, and retracts any thing he had said before to the contrary. And him indeed I acknowledge to be a very learned man. But has he therefore abandoned the defence of the ruling elders ? No. He owns they are the repre- sentatives of the sacra plebs ; he has proved by very many authorities. Episcopal, toOj among the rest, that such ought to be in the church. — Nay, the very argument of his chapter is the divine right of ruling elders sustained. W here, then, is that advocate for presbytery that has abandoned its defence? If any has, we are not likely to be altogether losers, the advocates for prelacy having taken it up. Not to name again the learned Whittaker, Dr Whitby on the forecited text has delivered himself according to our hearts wish. ' The elders,' saith he, * among • the Jews were of two sorts. 1st, Such as govern- ed in the synagogue. And, 2db/, Such as minister- ed in reading and expounding their scriptures and traditions, and from them pronouncing what did bind or loose, or what was forbidden, and what was lawful to be done. — And these the Apostle here declares to be the most honourable, and wor- thy of the chiefest reward: accordingly, the Apostle, reckoning up the offices God had appoint? • Cypr, hot, p. 540, 3 € <0 I 204 DEFENCE OF THE 1 1 ill r r ' * ed in tlie church, places teachers before govern- * ments,' 1 Cor. xii. S. He objects, p. 104, * that all the Ecclesias- * tics in the apostolical age were initiated into their * respective offices by the imposition of hands ; * whereas ruling elders arc admitted by no such ce- * remony ; or if there be any solemnity used at all * in their designation to the office, it is performed * by every parish minister in his private congrega- * tion 5 which is contrary to Presbyterian principles, * and is to exercise the sole power of ordination, * which is not so much as pretended to by bishops.* It is answered, 1st, The want of the imposition of hands will not argue them to be no church offi- cers. Not to mention the Apostles and Gregory Thaumaturgus, of whom before ; — Ignatius himself, if all traditions are true, was not ordained by impo- sition of hands.* Nobody doubts it is very lawful, and for my own part I heartily wish it were practis- ed, but I deny that it is absolutely necessary, there being no precept enjoining it, and the gift of the Holy Ghost in his extraordinary Charismata, which accompanied the imposition of the Apostles hands, being now ceased. And of this judgment are not only Presbyterians, but even the most learned men of the Church of Rome herself, though otherwise so much addicted to ceremonies. Of this, to omit other testimonies, that judicious historian, Father Paul, informs us,t ' Melchior Cornelius, a Portu- * gal,' saith he, ' seemed to speak much to the pur- * pose, who said, the Apostles did undoubtedly use * imposition of hands in ordination, so that none is * mentioned in the Holy Scripture without that cere- * mony, which, in succeeding ages, was thought * to be so essential, that ordination was called by * that name. Notwithstanding Gregory the Ninth * saith, it was a rite brought in, and many divines * do not hold it to be necessary, howsoever others • Dr Wake's Genuine Ep. 2d. edit, p. 4^ f Hist. Council of Trtut, p. 555. puesbytehian government. ^05 be of a contrary opinion. And the famous canon- ists, Hostiensis, Joannes Andreas, Abbas, and others, do affirm, that the Pope may ordam a priest with these words only, * Be thou a Priest •, and which is of more importance, Innocentius, Father of the Canonists, saith, that if the forms had not been invented, it had been sufficient it the ordainer had used these words only, or others equivalent, because they were instituted by the church afterwards to be observed. 2rf/z^, That Bishops do not pretend to the sole power of ordina- tion is shamelessly false. We have given testimony before, p. 65, that they not only pretend to it, but practise it. And after that heap of proofs which Mr Jameson has brought in his Cypnanus Isotimus for that purpose, a man must be even steeled in the forehead that denies it. And even when the Pres- byters are admitted to ioin with the Bishop m acts of ordination, it is merely as witnesses or consenters, not as having the least share of power. Ihis, Mr Drury has most roundly asserted m the Vindication of his Answer to Mr Boyse's Sermon concerning the scriptural Bishop ; and, as I am informed, is dig- nified with the title of Doctor for his pains.—' All, saith he, ' that the Presbyters had to do, was only « to give their consent, and to let the church know « that so sacred an action was not done rashly, nor * out of favour and affection. That they had no < divine right to concur with the Bishop, that ' the power of ordination was in the Bishop alone, « the Presbyters were only allowed to perform a < share in the outward ceremony.* 2dli/, That the solemnity used in the designation of the ruhng el- ders to their office, is contrary to Presbyterian prin- ciples, Mr Rhind ought to have proved, not merely asserted : for, by doing so, he has mightily exposed himself. It is true, it is performed by every parish minister in his private congregation ; he alone en- joins them their duty, takes their engagements, and by solemn prayer sets them apart tor the oflice. And, as this is their constant practice, so they have 2 » I, -=N- 206 npfxw Still owned it to be their principle, that it is lawful so to do. But then the trial is made by the minister and eldership of the congregation ; or, in want of these, by the presbytery ; and the whole people are, by a public edict, allowed^ nay required, to repre- sent their objections against their admission, if any they have. This is to treat the people like ra- tional creatures : whereas, tlie bishop's putting men into deacon's or priest's orders privately in his own chamber, which was tlie constant practice in the late Episcopal times, not only chokes reai:on, makes beasts of the people, but is contrary to the whole stream of antiquity, ' The people themselves, * as it is in Cyprian,* having especially the power of * chusinir worthy priests, or of rgecting such as are * unworthy.' 6. He objects, p. 105, that the Scriptural Pres* byters were to continue ad viiam aut culpam, I an- swer, so are the Presbvterian elders. For, once an elder still an elder, unless he is deposed for malver- sation. If, in some great towns, they are relieved in course by others, or honmnably dismissed upon their desire, when age disables them for service, this is only such an allowance as was made to the Levites under the law ; and, therefore, is not incon- sistent with the character of a church officer. 7. He objects, (ibid.) ' that the Scri|)tural Pres- byters were allowed their proper maintenance, whereas the Presbyterian Elders plead no title to any such thing, but are rather losers by the inter- ruption of theip> trades.' 'J'he answer is plait>. The same scripture which founds their office, entitles them to maintenance — For the double honour cer- tainly imports no less. But that they do not plead it, is because the government has settleil no fund for that purpose, and tiiat, in the present circumstances, they know it would be in vain to plead it. But will that make them no church officers ? Was Paul no * Plebs ipsa maxime habet potestatem vel Eligendi dignos Sacerdotet vel indignos recusaodt. £p. 67. PKESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 207 church officer, because he made the gospel of Christ without charge ; 1 Cor. ix. 18 ? Are not the Epis- copal deacons church officers ? They are not now provided in any maintenance, whereas, in the pri- mitive church, they were, as Jerome witnesseth, better seen to than the presbyters themselves. It is true, the Presbyterian elders are sometimes avo- cate Irom their employments by their office. But this only speaks forth their generous temper, m that they prefer the public service of the church to their private interest. Nor are they likely to be loser» thereby : l-'or, God will not be unmindful, nor tor- get their w ork and labour of love. 8. He argues, (iOid.) ' were there any foun- ' dation for such an office in the Holy Scriptures, whence was it that ruling elders did so early, so universally, and so tamely give up their divine right, that there is no once mention made of any such by divine ri-'ht in the Homilies and Commentaries of - the Fathers.' For answer, I shall read, to Mr Khind, a homily from the commentaries of one ot the ba- thers. ' Age,' saith the forecited Ambrose or Hi- lary, + ♦ is honourable among all nations ; whence * fir'st the Synagogue, and afterwards the Church, * had Elders, without whose council nothing was . done in the Church. Which, by what negligence « it is fallen into desuetude, 1 know not, it it be not . through the sloth, or rather pride, of the Doctors, « whilst thev alone will seem to be something. Ihus he I think it is tolerably clear from this testimort}-, that there were Elders in the Church at first: For it is not possible Hilary could understand either Bishops or preaching Presbyters by them, seeing these still continued in the Church. And I think it is as clear, that their being disused, was owing to • Aut si ex Dlacono orilinatur Presbyter, noverit se lucri* minorem, sacerdotio esse majoreni. F.p. ad + Nam apud omnes utique gentes ho..orab.l.s est senectus, un- Ae\t SvnaROga et postea ecclesia feniores habuit. quorum sme contlio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod, qua negligentia obso- Uverit!nescior nisi forte dnclorum desidia aut magis superbw. aum wli volunt aliquid videri. Comment, m I lim. v. 1. t c « i DEFENCE OF THE miESBYTtniAN GOVEllKMENT. i09 the prelatic spirit of ambition, which has been the mother of so many mischiefs to the Church. It is, tljerefore, no wonder that we do not find the names of the Ruhng Elders in the acts of the General or Provincial Councils, when the Doctors were of such an usurping temper. And perhaps that is the rea- son why there are so very few councils that had a good issue, or of whom we have a comfortable ac- count. Even the Fathers of the first Council of Nice were in peril of throwing their Bibles at one another's heads, had not Constantino wisely mode- rated their choler, and charitably burned their scan- dalous libels against one another. Mr Rhind, in- deed, p. 218, taxes the Presbyterians, that they dubbed here a godly Webster, there a sanctified Cobbler, Ruling Elders. But I cannot see why ei- ther the webster or the cobbler might not be as use- ful members in a council as many of the Bishops. For, we have uncontested evidences, • that many of them could not read or write their own name. Mr Rhind ought to have been aware how he inferred that the Ruling Elders are no Church oflScers, be- cause they were not present at councils, nor their names recorded in the acts of them : For, if that argument be good, it will prove that even the Epis- copal Presbyters are not Church officers ; Bellarmine having shewn, t at great length, that Prelates alone have power to sit and vote in councils. However, this is enough for the Presbyterian practice, that in the first and best council that ever was, I mean that • Melius Episcopus Hadrianopolitanus definiens subscripsi per Momanum Episcopum Mjronum, eo quod nesciara literas. Ca- jumus Episcopus Phaenicensis definiens subscripsi per coepisco- pum meum Dionysium, propterea quod literas ignorem. Concil. Ephei. 2. in Act. i. Chalced. Cone, in Arab. Tom. i. p. 830. Cone. Epliei. i. Patricius Presbjter de vico paradoxilo, raanu utens naximi compresbyteri, ob hoc, quod literas ignorarem. Zenon cborepiscopus— manum accomodavi pro eo ego FJavius Palla- diu8, ob hoc quod presens dixerit literas se ignorare, in Act. 1. Con. Chalced. in Crab. p. 816. vide plura apud Clarkson, Disc. cmiceriilng Liturgies, p. 196. t Be Concil. Lib. i. cap. 15. fit Jerusalem, Acts xv. both the Apostles and Eld- ers ; yea, and the whole Church, v. 22. were Mem- bers ; and the acts and decrees thereof passed, not only by their advice, but with their suffrage. Thus, now, we have seen that the Ruling Elders are of Divine institution ; that they obtained in the Primitive Church ; that they fell into desuetude through the pride of the Bishops ; and that, m the best constituted churches in the world, they were revived again upon the first dawning of the iletor. niatioh. And indeed the wisdom of our Lord, and his care of his Church, is very much seen in the institution. For, as he has appointed Ministers, that the faith of the Church may be kept sound ; and Deacons, that the wants of her poor members might be sup- plied ; so he has appointed Ruling Elders to over- see the manners and outward conversation of Chris- tians, that they be such as become the Gospel. Be- sides, by this constitution, the discipline is the more willingly submitted to by the people, being exercised by persons chosen from among themselves, appoint- ed to represent them, to take care of their interest, and that they may have no reason to complain of the rigour or severity of the Ministers. To illustrate this a little from the constitution of the civil govern- ment : Princes ordinarily live in state ; see nothing but coaches and six, fine rooms, and full tables ; nor does any body appear before them but in his Sunday's clothes. All this is very necessary and reasonable ; yet it leaves them very much unac- qUainted with the condition of the country; nor can they have other than a very faint sense of the pressures and calamities their people may be groaning under : And were the legislature solely in their hands, they could hardly escape being blamed for every thing the people might think a grievance. But now, when a Parliament meets once a-year, the Prince gets the condition of the people in the most remote corners of the ki»:^dom represented ; and the people cannot but besatished, whien they consider they I 210 DEFENCE OF THB I'RESBYTEUIAN GOVEIINMENT. 211 111 I I i are coverned by no other laws, nor burdened with :Se?t7xeTtha'n what were f^ed and enacted w.th their own consent ; or. which is the same, th ng. by representatives of their own choosing. Just so , mi nisters, through their retired course of Jif^'/'^ °^ dinarily very much strangers to the way o^the world, and are ready to measure the world by the abstrac^ notions they have gathered ou of b<>ok«' °™ their own solitary ™"«'"g% S'' wlcfit comes suit with the P':-^'-! Pf ,fj;[:„ee'ire^^^^^^^^^^^ to pass, that, till age and experience n^ve " c them, they are apt to have too much l^eenness on their'spirits, and to express too """^^ "g^"""^^*^,^^ actines. But Ruling Elders are more conversant ?nSf world, know better what the fmes wdl bear^ and what allowances are necessary to be made m this or that case. Now when the Pejle 0" t^« case of scandals), see themselves Judged by such Lsons. and that there is no other disciphne exer^ iised oA them, but what even their own neighbours as well as their ministers, think reasonable, they can have no just cause of complaint. To conclude : It is very stfange that the Episco- pal writers should inveigh against officers, ^hose pro- vince it is only to govern, not to preach, I mean by hemsSve's. 'scein'g they have l-tS^h Zt J the world, that they lof J^pon then Bi.hop^^^^^^ ly as such. Thus, Dr South,* m his Se>mon. preach id at the consecration of the Bishop ot Rochester, unon Titus, ii. verse ««.-' These thmgs, speak and " exhor Mn a flat contradiction to the text, says, .Thafa teaching talent is not absolutely necessary * in a Bishop, nor is of the vital constitution of his . function, if he have it, it is not to be refused * but 5 "e have it not. it is not much to be desired ' And if any of their Bishops do make conscience of instant preaching, as some of them have done it is reckoned a labour of love as not havmg a^^^e o* loais. Thus, the Bishop of Sarum, m his Funeral • VoL I. p. 809, *c. Sermon on Dr TiUotson, the late Archbishop of Canterbury : « In his function,' saith he, * he was « a constant preacher : For though he had no care « of souls upon him, yet few that had laboured so « painfully as he did.' And yet the Archbishops and Bishops have, above all the other clergy, the great- est honour and the largest provision. I wonder up- on what account, if it be none of their duty to la- hour in the word and doctrine. And I wonder how Episcopal Ruling Elders can be lawful, and Presby- terian Ruhng Elders not so. But enough of this. ARTICLE II. Wherein Mr Rbind's Reasonings against the Pres- byterian Deacons, are examined. F. 106, 107. ' 1. He objects, that the primitive Deacons did preach and baptize, which the Presbyterian Deacons cannot do ; therefore they are not the same. It is answered: The Scripture Deacons, by virtue ot their office, were neither to preach nor baptize, but to serve tables: For the Apostles unloaded them- selves of the latter function, because they could not, with it, discharge the former ; Acts, vi. 2. 'It is no^ « reason that we should leave the word of tod, and « serve tables.' ' But,' says Mr Rhind, * Philip, ' who was ordained a Deacon, Acts, vi. did preach « and baptize,' Acts, viii. 12, 13. It is answered : 1st We have heard Hilary before declaring, that it was allowed to all in the beginning to preach the gospel, and to baptize. 2dly, Philip was an Evan- gelist ; and in that capacity, preached and baptized. * But,' says Mr Rhind, ' we read of no second ordi- * nation he had for these purposes.' Is not this pret- o 2 i/ st% DEFENCE OIv THE PRESCYtEniAN GOVERNMENT. 318 i Ji tv ? Is he not expressly called an Evangelist, Acte, xxi. 8 And shj we think he took up the office at hi own hand, without being ordained to it, because te Slnot read of his ordination I Or does he thmk that Evangelists hnd not power ^^^^^^^^.^^^^^^ adds he, ' we find Peter and John connnjssioneci oy •U'e Apostles to confirm the SamarUaj winch ot^ • fice Philip could have discharged, had he been an . Evanc^e St.' I answer: He could not. ior the confimfation that is there meant, is the g,v»ng of the Holy Ghost in his extraordmary c//«r,5«»./«. as s eitdent from the whole history-and this none but S XoSe" could give ; nor is tl-re one instance either^in the ^^^:: J^t^'T^:^ ever any but the Aposues emi. i u ^ ♦u.,f fhp it. But Mr Rhind has strongly unag.ned, that tl e pesent usage among the.Prelat.sts is according to the New Testament practice ; ^^^^■•^'^"^^^jf'S. copal confirmation is a thing unheard-of in the Sc. ip^ t.,re and so is a baptizing Deacon. Nor can 1 look Zu baptism, administered by an Episcopal Deacon 3 otherwise tlian as if it had been administered by Hebst^r or cobbler Ruling Elder or peacon among the Presbyterian. I arn sme the^ i no^ tlie least re^Sgn oH'^e Se^fto^Hice declares that^^- tizin- is no part of it. I am sure, likewise, the Pi e^- by erian Deacon is the only Deacon by bcnpture Warrant, ^hen the word is taken as s.gmty.ng an of- ficer inferior to a Presbyter. n^^^^n, a\a 2 He objects, • that the ancient Deacons did . constitute one of the ordinary and P^rpetua or « ders of ecclesiastics, vhereas the Piesbjtenau . DeLons are only in a few of the Jarg- to^^^^^^ • there being none such in any other part ot the na- . Sol' It IS answered : They are in every congre- Jtrnn where they can be had ; and, to my cer- gallon Where ^»^) Us^eras well as larger towns j SsrerS po'sed upon^t by the Fresby^^^ i^ce^ y^ar, whether his session be caostituted with deacont aft well as elders. Possibly some congregations may have little or no stock ; and perhaps as few poor that want it. What is the great hazard, though, in such a case, they have no deacons? ' O,* saith Mr Rhind, • it is a fundamental defect, if they beh'eve < them to be of Divine institution.' Very well ar- gued ! As if Deacons were absolutely necessary to the constitution of a church. But time was, when there were no such officers in being, nor any order for them ; nor, in all probability, would there ever have been any, had not the emergent circumstances of the Church made it necessary. How many in- stances have we in Church history, of Bishops with- out Presbyters ? But was that a fundamental de- fect ? Or would it be sufficient whereupon to infer, that Presbyters are not Church officers ; or that the office is not of Divine institution ? It is nauseous to answer such stuflF. So much for the Presby- terian Deacons. Thd Conclusion of the Chapter concerning Church- Government. Thus now I have got through the controversy of the government of the Church ; and hope I have made it sufficiently clear, that, neither from the na- ture of the thing, nor the form of government among the Jews, nor political necessity, nor the institution of our Lord, nor the practice of the Apostles, nor the pretended Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, nor the apocalyptic angels, uor the testimony of an- tiquity, nor indeed from any thing else Mr Rhind has advanced, does it appear, that, by Divine right, there is, or ought to be, any officer in the Church superior to the preaching Presbyter. Consequent- ly, the Presbyterian government is not schismatical, but that which was originally instituted, and did at^ 214 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT, lit' ''"i*"' \ I fir^t obtain. Consequently Mr Rbind. in separat- ing from it, (the same is to be said of all others in his casO is become a schismatic. Consequently Episcopal ordination is so far from being "^ces ary that it |s without, and therefore contrary to Uivine institution. i.i„„v„nr>nir And now to conclude. V'""°V^ i IsTiven as one of the nicest turns I ever heard was given to a cause, that our Scotch Episcopalians, who he other day. while they were in possession were giaa to find a few colours, and watery ones they were God wot. to prove Episcopacy lawful ; and wou d have been heartily well content, i people would have acquiesced in it as tolerab e ; that hey. 1 say^ should, now when they had lost all. set up foi the absolute necessity of it. and hope to recover the saddle by that politic j I cannot help saying, in the words of Catullus, Res est ridicuh et nimisjocottt. It is much such another trick as the cWh of Bnine serves the Protestants : A^'hen she finds her ^''eHgron'almost one continued scab of errors and c^- ruptions, she puts on a brazen >mpudence, andjUl needs have them to dispute her mfaUibility. I must then advise our Episcopal writers to be ^o modes , as not to grasp at all ; but to content them>,elv es S Sr falher^s did before them. -^^ essays to ^ the lawfulness f Episcopacy. jithou insisUn ^o„ the necessity of it. And, as tor otners oe clergy, who are become disciples to jh's new hjpo thesis. I cannot but serious y «-»^°^Vbloodv cruel «iHpr the horrid unchantableness, and bloody cruei fof tno wLre to be paralleled, except amongst the most bigotted Papists. I crave leave, then, to •"iTr" SnUemLr^oi know .ha. .here jre Other X ches in the world, besides the Presby- £.s1n S^^^^^^^^^ which neither believe the nec^s- sity of Bishops, nor maintain ««3%^;^;^^^^ There are our brethren dissenters in England ana Ireland, a pretty considerable body. There was the French reformed Church, while she stood, and what yet remains of her in a dispersed condition. There are the Belgic Churches, the Church of Geneva, the reformed Cantons, with their Prote/tant Confede- rates ; and New England on the ot'ier side of the ^orld — all which own no such office as that of a Dio- cesan Bishop. Now, pray Gentlemen, do you think it nothing to unchurch all these ; and, which is the necessary consequence of that, to give them to the devil ; when yet all the world sees that, generally speaking, their conversation is at least as good, and as becoming the gospel as your own ? Do ye think it nothing, by your bigotted notions, thus to weaken the Protestant interest, and to make such a dangerous concession to the Papists, that so fair a part of the Protestant world is in a state of schism, out of favour with God, and incapable of salvation : and all this merely for the want of Prelates, gf whom there is not the least mention in Scripture ? And yet the malign influence of your principle does not sist within these bounds I have mentioned. No, all the Churches who have only superintendents, are in quite as dangerous a condition as the former. For, besides that these superintendents positively disown their superiority over their brethren to be by divine right ; we have, p. 45, heard Mr Dodwell declaring, that they are not sufficient for a principle of unity, and consequently cannot be the medium of union with Christ. Now, pray consider what a ha- vock this must needs make of the remaining Pro- testant Churches. Lest you should think me par- tial in giving the detail of them, take it in Stilling- fleet's words. ' In Holstein,' saith he,* • Pomeren, « Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Lunenburg, Bremen, « Oldenburg, East Friesland, Hessen, Saxony, and « all the upper part of Germany, and the Protestant « Imperial cities, Church-Government is in the hands « of Superintendents. In the Palatinate, they have « Inspectors and Praepositi, over which is the eccle- * Irenic. p. 411. PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENTi 215 1214 DKFENCE OP THE i) first obtain. Consequently Mr Rhind ^n sepa at ing from it, (the same is to be sa.d "^ ^» «^^^^^ his case,) is become a schismatic. Consequent ^ Episcopal ordination is so far from being necg^ary^ that it IS without, and therefore contiaiy to X^ivine ^"tndtw to conclude. I cannot but look upon k asone of the nicest turns I ever l^^^/^^ 8"^f^ to a cause, that our Scotch Episcopal.ans, who he other day. while they were ^\Vosse^ou,y^ereg\^^ to find a'few colours and watery ones they we God wot. to prove Ep'scopacy J^^^^^^^^ have been heartily well content, ^^ peoP j have acquiesced in it as tolerable ; that they^^l say should, now when they had lost all. ^^t up lo absolute necessity of it. and hope to recover tne Lddle by that p Jitic j I cannot help saying, m the words of Catullus, Res est ridkula et nimisjocom* It is much such another trick as tlje church of Rome serves the Protestants : \\ hen she hnds her religion almost --"Xzl'^uL^^^^^^^^ STh^vf tTmrdi:putX Inf nihility. I mi.t Zn advise our Ep^^jT— thems^^ S th^faS dldtfo^e-iie^m. ^^^^^^^l^Z the lawfulness f EpUcopacy, withou — ng ^o^ . the necessity of It. ^"^V-iLtn this new hypo- clergy, who are »;-"-;. J'^"?':^^^^^ {In. thesis. I cannot but seriously «x"^" " , ygi. sider the horrid '^"charitableness and bloody crue ty of it. no ^vhere *» JjP- '^^'^^^^^^^ ?hen.'to the most bigotted rapists, i crave address you in a few words. I hoje, genUemen, you ^^"^J, ^^^ other churches in ^^^-TSthe f^^^^^^^ terians in Scotland, which .^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ them : sity of Bishops nor "^^^l^^^^^^^^^^ and There are our brethren disaenters in x-nb Ireland, a pretty considerable body. There was the French reformed Church, while she stood, and what yet remains of her in a dispersed condition. There are the Belgic Churches, the Church of Geneva, the reformed Cantons, with their Protestant Confede- rates ; and New England on the other side of the world— all which own no such office as that of a Dio- cesan Bishop. Now, pray Gentlemen, do you think it nothing to unchurch all these ; and, which is the necessary consequence of that, to give them to the devil ; when yet all the world sees that, generally speaking, their conversation is at least as good, and as becoming the gospel as your own ? Do ye think it nothing, by your bigotted notions, thus to weaken the Protestant interest, and to make such a dangerous concession to the Papists, that so fair a part of the Protestant world is in a state of schism, out of favour with God, and incapable of salvation : and all this merely for the want of Prelates, gf whom there is not the least mention in Scripture ? And yet the malign influence of your principle does not sist within these bounds I have mentioned. No, all the Churches who have only superintendents, are in quite as dangerous a condition as the former. For, besides that these superintendents positively disown their superiority over their brethren to be by divine right ; we have, p. 4.5, heard Mr Dodwell declaring, that they are not sufficient for a principle of unity, and consequently cannot be the medium of union with Christ. Now, pray consider what a ha- vock this must needs make of the remaining Pro- testant Churches. Lest you should think me par- tial in giving the detail of them, take it in Stilling- fleet*s words. ' In Holstein,' saith he,* * Pomeren, * Mecklenburg, Brunswick, Lunenburg, Bremen, * Oldenburg, East Friesland, Hessen, Saxony, and « all the upper part of Germany, and the Protestant « Imperial cities, Church-Government is in the hands < of Superintendents. In the Palatinate, they have * Inspectors and Praepositi, over which is the eccle- * Irenic. p. 411. I DEFENCE OF THE \\ 1 1 A I * siastical consistory.— And so they have their Prte- • positors in Wetteraw, Hessen and Anhalt. And m • Transylvania, Polonia and Bohemia, they have « their Seniores. AU these,' he adds, ' acknowledge * no such thing as a divine right of Episcopacy, but • stiffly maintain Jerome's opinion of the primitive * equality of gospel ministers.' And, therefore, they must all go over at the same ferry, with plain parity men ; and you-know you have assigned them but m- different quarters against their landing. Yet further, even in Denmark, Norway and Swe- den, though there are a few that have the name ot Bishops, yet they are very far from being looked on as the centre of union, or mystical High Priests, or the visible representatives of God and «-n"st, by whom, alone, people can have union with the Divine persons, which is your scheme. No, they have nq such whimsies among them ; on the contrary, writers speak most diminutively of their power. ♦ Here, viz. « in Denmark,' saith the author of the present state of Europe, for the year 1705, p. 134, 'are Bishops, ' but they are not much different in effect from su- « perintendents in other places, depending on the su- « Jerior consistory.' « And,' saith the excellent au- thor of the account of Denmark, for the year 1692, third edition, p. 231. 'there are six superintend- « ents in Denmark, who take it very kindly to be • called Bishops, and my Lord. 1 here are also four « in Norway. TLese have no temporalities, keep na • ecclesiastical courts, have no cathedrals with Pre- • bends. Canons. Deacons, Sub-Deacons, &c. but • are only prini inter pares.' Thus he. And it is certain, that in the beginning of the reformation it was Bugenhagius, (who was but a Presbyter.) that ordained their first seven superintendents, or Bishops, from whom all their succession to this day does flow. The same is the case of Sweden. ' Ihe Archbish- • ops and Bishops of this kingdom, saith the tore- cited author of the present state of Europe, p. 147, • Vide Chytrjeum Saxon, p. 484, PRESBYTEKIAN GOVEENMENT. sn f retain little more than the name, and a bare pri- « mary sort of superiority over other superintendents, » the establishing of the Lutheran religion having de- f prived them of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which f they exercised before the reformation.' Thus he. And to the same purpose, Stillingfleet, • concerning both these kingdoms. ' In Sweden,' saith he, ' tliere « is one Archbishop and seven Bishops, and so m « Denmark, though not with so great authority.' By this calculation, the whole foreign reformed Churches will be found to be of Presbyterian prin, ciples, and consequently not a true Church among them all, by your scheme. You will perhaps say, that as for Sweden and Denmark, it is enough to save them from the guilt of schism, that they have such as are called Bishops, how small soever their authority be; and though the Divine institu- tion, qr necessity of them, is not believed. But, pray Gentlemen, consider if their practice save them from the guilt of schism ; does not their belief involve them in the guilt of heresy ? If union with the Bishop be, by Divine command, a necessary duty, then, certainly, the belief of it is a fundamental ar- ticle, and, consequently, the denying thereof, as all those of the Lutheran communion do, must be here- sy. And so you have very charitably disposed of all the Protestant Churches, sending them whole- sale to hell, upon the account, either of heresy, or schism. 11 V I foresee what reply you will make to all this, viz. that the uncharitableness of a doctrine is no argu- ment against the truth of it. That our thoughts do not alter the nature of things, nor can change Di- vine establishments ; and, therefore, if it be true that; Episcopal ordination is necessary to make a minister, without which his acts are not valid ; and that union with the Bishop is necessary to eternal life, without which, people cannot expect it, be the consequences of this never so heavy, or extend themselves to never • Irem& ubi »upra / 218 DErENCE OF THE K » \ J m many, that is what you cannot help, — the truth must be maintained, and that you express your cha- rity sufficiently, by telling us of our danger, and that it would be the most uncharitable thing in the world to conceal the same from us, or to shew it less than really it is, to which I answer : — It is very true, our thoughts do not alter the nature of things, nor will your rigour, or our charity, make the other's prin- ciples either truer or falser. But though it do not make, yet it may go a great length to shew whether they be true or false. For, it is a shrewd presump- tion in most cases, that the opinion which wants charity, is not from God, and that the error lies on the damning side. This the Divines of the Church of England have oftentimes observed in their dis- putes against the Church of Rome, but their late writers for Episcopacy quite forget it in dealing with the Presbyterians. A good and wise man, even though he have the truth on his side, will yet make all the allowances the case will reasonably bear for those that differ from him. He will consider that their dissenting from him may proceed from education, the difficulty of the controversy, the want of due helps, or of a suitable genius and capacity. And if he himself make allowances for them, on these, or the like accounts, he will readily believe that a mer- ciful God will do so much more ; but when a man's mind is darkened with error, at the same time his temper is soured, and because he cannot reason others into the same opinion with himself, therefore he essays to fright them into it with the argument of damnation. And this, gentlemen, I must take the freedom to say, I apprehend to be your case ; for, pray, whence all this height ;— on what is all this as- suming in your own case founded ? Mr Rhind, to give him his due, has laid out all your best argu- ments in their strength, and set them off with abun- dance of elegancy ; I appeal to yourselves, whether every one of them is not answered to satisfaction. I. Is it on the Scriptures you found ? Mr Dod- well has fairly quitted that fort, and frankly owns PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 219 that your prelacy is not to be found there, and that the original of it is at least ten years posterior to the sealing'of the canon of the Scripture, and half a dozen years to the death of John, the longest lived of the Apostles. And as to the busmess of ordina- tion which you so much insist on, he not only sup- poses* that Presbyters might chuse their Bishop,— might use all tbe ceremonies of consecration to him, —might invest him in his office by prayer and impo. sition of hands, but also tells, • that he is apt to think ^ that this must have been the way observed at first c n the making of Bishops.' Now, if the Presbyters have power of ordaining Bishops, is it not strange that they should want the power of ordaimng Pres. byters like themselves,-has God any where forbid- den it ? No : But Mr Dodwell would persuade us of it by a simile, which yet is but a weak way ol ar- guing, viz—That, as though a Prince is inaugurated by hfs subjects, yet when once he is inaugurated, they have not any power over him, nor can act any thing without him, or withdraw their obedience from him, so neither can the Presbyters, when once they have ordained a Bishop over themselves, do any thing, either without him, or in opposition to him ; and that all such acts are not only punishable, but invalid. But all this reasoning is founded on two most precarious suppositions, viz. 1st, That the Pres- byters are obliged to have a Bishop over them. And, 4/y, That every Bishop is a monarch in his own diocese, for which there is just as much to be said as ther; is for the French King's being universal monarch of the world, or the Pope ot the Catho- lie Church. Such things ought to be proved, not presumed ; so much the rather, that in fact, we find Se Presbyters of the Church of Engknd, even the Hiffh-ChurchPresbyters,havedisownedthat principle. For in the late famous contests between the two houses of convocation, the plurality in the lower house assumed to themselves a power over, and set them. » Separat. of Churches, Chap* xxiv. p. 522. ■IIIIIWIIIB ^^ £30 DEFEXCE €^ TIfB selves in opposition to their superiors : and would Bccdshave their metropolitan and bishops to be ac- •oiintable to them for their conduct in their visita- tions ; they would needs censure the bishop of Sa- rum's book on the XXXIX articles: nay, would needs sit and act too, after the Metropolitan, their president, had adjourned them. By this conduct of their's they broke through the Ignatian and DodweU Han scheme at once, and loudly proclaimed to tl)e world that they did not believe their bishops to be iiisolute monarchs. Thus, the Presbyterians were beholden to the lower house of convocation. — But indeed the upper house obliged them no less. For, the lower house, apprised of the constrMctions were made of their actings, on December 11, 1702, sent a declaration to the upper house, whereof the import was, • That whereas they had been scandalously and * maliciously represented as favourers of Presbytery, * in opposition to Episcopacy, they now declared. * that they acknowledged the order of bishops to be * of divine Apostolical institution.* Several of the lower house had dissented from this declaration, and refused to subscribe it But did not their Lordships jn the upper house go into it ? No. Notwithstand-. ipg the lower house, by an additional address, begged their Lordships to abett and support the foresaid doc- trine, yet their Lordships objected against the lega- lity of asserting it, and in end flatly refused it. So that, even in Ens'land itself, to this day there has never been any declaration made of the divine in. stitution of prelacy, either by parliament or convo- cation : nor can I iind that there is any thing in any of their public formulas asserting it, except some words in the preface to the form of ordination, which are too loose and weak to bear such a weight- And j4 is ceitain, that, at the reformation, prelacy was att up in Englajid on a fur different footing from that €«f divine right. For in King Henry the VllL's reign, anno 1539, * The bishops,' saith Dr Burnet,* * took * JSiil* ItfiMi* JUnridf . Tdl. I. p. ffli. PRESBYTEIIIAN GOVERNMENT. V k- AAm * out commissions from the king, by which th y ac- * knowledged that all jurisdiction, civil and ccle- « siastical, flowed from the king, and that they ex- * ercised it only at the king's courtesy, and that as * they had it of his bounty, so they would be r jady « to deliver it up at his pleasure ; and therefore the ' king did empower them, in his stead, to or 'ain, « give institution, and do all the other parts of the * Episcopal function.' Upon which the historian makes this remark, ' By this they were made the * king's bishops indeed.' Nor was tlie matter mended by King Edward Vf., « in the first year of whose reign,' says the same historian,* * all that held offices were required to come * and renew their commissions. Among the rest * the bishops came, and took out such commissions * as were granted in the former reign, viz. to hold * their bishopricks during pleasure, and were em- * powered in the king's name, as his delegates, to * perform all the parts of the Episcopal function ; * and Cranmer set an example to the rest in taking * out one of them.' And indeed Heylin acknow- ledges, t that King Edward's first parliament forced the Episcopal order from their strong-hold of divine institution, and made them no other than the king's narnisters only. Upon this footing was prelacy settled even in Eng- land at the reformation : and 1 challenge any man to produce documents where, ever to this day, they have bettered its foundation, or settled it upon scrip- ture authority or divine institution. And must the Scots Presbyterians be schismatics for not believing what the whole foreign Protestant Churches have de- clared against, and England herself durst never as- sert ? Gentlemen, I can assure you there is nothing in the world makes a party apj)ear with a more con* temptible figure than weak arguments and a high air. Please, therefore, only to lower your air in pro- portion to your arguments, and 1 hope it will be no hard matter to deal with you. It is true, your late • Ubi fupra, Vol. II. p. Is. f Hbt. Edw. VI. p. 51. fl 999 DEFENCE OF THE writers will needs persuade you that all Christianity depends on prelacy, and that there cannot be any church where it obtains not : and their plot, viz. the ruin of the whole Protestant interest through the world, is too evident either to be mistaken by us, or coloured by themselves. But I must tell you, that Cranmer, Therleby, Redman, Cox, Whitgift, Cosins, Low, Bridges, Hooker, Downham, Willet, Mason, Chillingworth, Sutcliffe, and all those great names who, for several scores of years after the re- formation, baffled Popery by their arguments, or gave testimony against it by their blood — though they were deeply engaged in the interests of prela- cy, and loved it with their soul — yet they still either denied the necessity of it, or frankly disowned its being founded on Scripture. And when the Scrip- ture fort is forsaken, pray, what will ye betake your- selves to ? For, II. Will you found on the Fathers ? It is true your writers amuse you with their names, and dazzle your eyes with citations out of them, which mention Bi- shop and Presbyter as distinct. But, pray desire them to cite the Fathers declaring for the divine right of that distinction, as the Presbyterians cite them declaring for their Scripture identity. With- out this, all their endeavours are only a learned la- bour to bubble the world, and does either discover their own, or presume their readers' want of judg- ment. Stillingfleet has spoken ingenuously on this head. ' As to the matter itself,' saith he,* ' I be- * lieve upon the strictest enquiry, Medina's judg- ' ment will prove true, that Jerome, Austin, Am- * brose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodo- « ret, Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment * as to the identity of both name and order of Bi- « shops and Presbyters in the primitive church.' I have shewn how, not only these, but several others of the Fathers, are on the Presbyterian side ; and ac- knowledge not only that the names Bishop and Pres- byter are common, but also that the office and cha- • Iremc. p. *76. i'l PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. «23 racter was the same in the Apostolic times. I have produced them interpreting the Scriptures that relate to this controversy, as the Presbyterians now do. I have shewn that the Divines of the Church of Eng- land, even her bishops and doctors, acknowledge the Fathers to be on the side of Presbytery. If the Epis- copal writers can produce as many of the Fathers de- claring as expressly for the superiority of Bishops above Presbyters by divine right ; if they can find them interpreting the Scriptures that way, and then back all with the approbation of our Presbyteriani writers, as I have done what I alleged with the ap- probation of the Episcopal ; I hereby engage to be- come their proselyte. If this is not to be done, you must blame yourselves you have not more disciples. But it is high time to proceed with Mr Rhind- CHAPTER III. WHEREIN MR RHIND's SECOND REASON FOR SEPARAT- ING FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEIR ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE AND PERNICIOUS, IS EXAMINED. FROM P. 119 TO P. 148. ■ This is a very high charge, and for making it good, he insists against the doctrine of the decrees in general ; the decrees of predestination and repro- bation in particular ; the doctrine of the efficacy of grace, and the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. For answer, I shall first particularly consi- der his objections against these doctrines ; and, se- condly, prove that they are the doctrines of the whole Christian churcli. fff jmttHCE or nit Sect. IIL Wherein Mr Rhind^s Objections against the-Preshyterian Arti* cles ofFaithj are considered^ <)!' THE DtVINE DECREES IN GENERAL. In tlle/r.5/ place, Mr Rhind insists against the doctrine of the eternal decrees in general, which, in the Westminster lesser Catechism are defined to be • God's eternal purpose, according to the counsel of « his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath « fore*ordained whatsoever comes to pass.' One would think the truth of such a doctrine was beyond debate. For, doth not the infinite perfection of the divine nature, awd the dependence of the creature upon God, in its actions as well as being, argue such de- crees ? Does not the infallible omniscience of God necessarily infer them ? Is it possible otherwise to conceive how events, that flow from rational free agents, or depend upon contingent causes, should be certainly known, when they are not certainly to be? Does Mr Rhind think that God has forsaken the earth,orlaid the reins on the neck of the creatures, allowing them to hurry both themselves and him whither they list ? Has he formed his notions of the Deity upon Lucretius's system, who would com- pliment him out of his concernment for the world. Immortali avo summa cum pacejruatur ' Semota a noslris Rebus sejunctaque longe. Or doth he think him such a one as himself, to take Ms measures upon the spot as he sees things are like- ly to frame ? In the confidence of what did he op- pose such a doctrine ? ♦ Why,' saithhe,p. 120, * nothing comes to pass « more frequently than sin : And therefore if God * has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass, then * it will follow that God has ordained sin, and con- * sequently must be the author of sin, which is bias- « phemous, and destroys the essential distinction be- ZSM FRESBYTERIAN FAITH. ^25 * twixt good and evil, all just notions of God, the •• natural freedom of man's will, takes away rewards « and punishments, and in a word, excuses the sinner « and lays the blame upon God.' This is the full mm of what he has offered against the Presbyterian doctrine of the decrees. But, I. These are not arguments against, but conse* quences wrung from it ; consequences, too, which the Presbyterians refuse with abhorrence, and that in their public formulas. Thus, in their Confession of Faith* they teach, * That God from all eternity did, * by tlie most wise and holy counsel of his own will, * freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes « to pass: Yet so, as that neither is God the author « of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the * creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of se- * con d causes taken away but rather established.' U is therefore not only uncharitable but unjust to load the doctrine with such consequences, when they ex- pressly declare, that they do not understand the doc- trine in such asense^ as to admit of these consequen- ces. IL Cannot Mr Rhind conceive, that it is very f>0ssible for the Divine majesty to decree the event, without decreeing the sin that adheres to it, any further than that he will permit, direct, and over- rale it, to serve his own wise and holy ends ? Whe- ther he can conceive it or not, there is no one thing more expressly laid down in the Scripture than this. 1 am very sure that Shimei sinned grievously in curs- ing David, and yet I am as sure that the Lord said 4anto him. Curse David.t I am sure it w^as with wick- ed hands that Herod, Pontius Pilate and the people jof the Jews took and crucified and slew the Son of jGod.t But I am as sure, not only that he was de- livered by the determinate counsel and foreknow- ledge of God, but also that they did nothing to him but w^hat God's hand and counsel determined before to be done.§ Are the expressions in the Presby- ♦ Chap. iii. Sect. 1. f 2 Sam. xvi. 10. % Acts, ii. 23. § Acts, iv. 27. 'i28. .',./ SS5 DIFENCE OF THE rRESBYTEUIAN FAITH. 227 ii r i I ( i f terian Catechism harder than these of the Scripture ? And must not Presbyterians teach as the Scriptures do, because Mr Rbind will needs harangue a little against them ? III. How does the decree of God excuse the sin- ner ? Does not Mr Rhind know, that it is not the decree, but the precept, that is given to be the stand- ard of our obedience ? No, indeed ; this Mr Rhind knew not, or did not advert to : For he has expressly made the decrees and the commands of God the same thing ; and the decrees to be the rule of our duty. * If,' saith he, p. 121, «God has decreed sin, • it is our duty to commit it, his commands being the • standard of our obedience.' This is a horrid blun- der he has made. So far are the decrees from be- ing the rule of our duty, that it is both impossible to know them, and a crime to enquire into them, any further than as God has revealed them in his word. • Secret things belong unto the Lord our God : But • those things which are revealed belong unto us.'* And therefore God very justly punishes the sinner, not for fulfilling his decrees, in which he was not con- cerned, but for transgressing his precepts, which he had revealed to him. God decreed that the son of man slwuld be betrayed, and betrayed by Judas too. * The • son of man goethas it was determined;' t yet this de-- Ciee could not excuse Judas, because he neither de- signed the fulfilling of it by his treachery, nor indeed was it given him as the rule of his behaviour : And therefore it is presently added, ' wo unto that man • by whom he is betrayed.* And therefore when Mr Rhind affirms, p. ISO, * that it is nonsensical and bias* • pbemous to suppose that God's secret and reveal* • ed will are not one, he contradicts express Scripture, • and thereby makes himself guilty of that blasphe- • my he imputes to others.* IV. Whatever difficulties there are in the Presby- terian doctrine of the decrees, the Arminians must be intolerably fanciful, if they do not own that they are at least equal on their side j with this verj • Deut. »jtix. f^ f Luke, zxli. 2t. considerable difference, that generally the objec- tions against the Presbyterian doctrine arise from pretended reason, whereas the objections against the Arrainian doctrine are founded, not only upon plain reason, but express declarations of Scripture : And where these are, and the contest is betwixt seeming reason and the clear revelation of God; it seems but good manners to yield to God, Mr Rhind cannot digest this doctrine of the decrees, because he cannot (without submitting his judgment to the Scriptures), by mere strength of natural reason, ani swer all the difficulties and objections that may be brought against it. But can he answer all difficulties and objections agains a Trinity of persons in the Divine nature ? Can he answer all the objections that may be made against the resurrection of the body after the infinite and inconceivable changes which time and corruption bring upon it ? If he can answer these, I say, upon the mere strength of reason, it must be owned he is the ablest divinethe world was ever yet blessed with. If he will not believe them, because he cannot answer all objections against them ; then it is plain he ought to have continued in his state of discreet scepticism to this day. But if he can believe these doctrines notwithstanding his inability to solve the difficulties that hang on them ; why might he not also believe that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass ; for the one is as plain- ly revealed in the Scripture as the other ? And, V. There is so much the more reason for this, that the belief of the decrees is necessary in order to the conduct of life. For when I am afflicted by the hands of wicked men, and suffer from their sins, how shall I possess my soul in patience, or keep my- self from revenge, if I do not believe that, though God is absolutely free of their sin, yet he uses them as the tools and instruments of his providence for serving his purposes upon me, and that such things were measured out for me by his decree ? It was upon this consideration that Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly, notwithstanding the injuries F 2 J I i / f • 111 yj ■Hi i ii C ii m w i i i iii i n i Il l S2B DEFENCE OF THE I I) i I I f I \ t I / the Sabeans and Chaldeans had done him. — It was this preserved Joseph from all resentment against his^ brethren for their barbarous usage of him : • Ye * thought evil against me, but God meant it unta * good/ Gen. 1. 20.— It was upon this that David quieted his spirit, • and was dumb, not opening Ins * mouth, because the Lord had done it.' Psalm xxxix. 9 : And what God does in time without sin, might lie not from all eternity decree without sin ?--It was upon this argument that our blessed Saviour bore the contradictions and cruelty of sinners with a perfect composure of spirit : * The cup that my Father hath * given me to drink shall I not drink it ?' John xviii. 11. Nay, even a heathen Seneca prescribes the belief of the doctrine of the decrees to his friend as a remedy against all ruffling of spirit under inju- ries and troubles. 'Losses,' saith he, * * woundsy * fears are come upon you ; these things are usual. * That is little, these things are needful, they are * decreed and do not come by chance.' I hope, then^ in all this doctrine there is nothing either false or pernicious, much less any thing that is fundament- ally so. OF THE DECREE OF PREDESTINATION. In the second place, Mr Rhind insists against the Presbyterian doctrine of God*s irrespective decrees^ relating to mankind, contained in their Confession of Faith, Chap. III. viz. * That God has, by his * eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret * cotmsel and good pleasure of his own will, chosen * some to everlasting life, without any foresight of * faith or good works, or perseverance in either of * them. And that he hath, by the same eternal and * unchangeable counsel of his own will, passed by, * and ordained others to wrath for their sin.' ' This * doctrine,* he argues, * contradicts the holiness, jus- * tice and truth of God, is contrary to the design of * all revelation, and to express testimonies of Scrip- • Damna, Vulnera, Metus inciderunt ; solet fieri. Hoc paFum '^1^ debuit fieri. Decernuntur ista, iion accidunt. Senec. Eix 9£L PBESBYTEllIAN FAITH. 229 * ture, and is perniciously influential upon Christian * life,' p. 122 — 135. It is against iny will that I engage in this mysterious controversy, in which Bvery man ought to be wise to sobriety. But, I hope it will not be difficult to suggest as much as will take off Mr Rhind's objections, without going beyond my line. For answer, then, I. It is abundantly strange that this doctrine should be opposed by such as have read the Scrip- ture and the Epistles of Paul, who has insisted on it at large in the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans ; and besides, has frequently asserted it here and there, in particular hints, which Mr Rhind, p. 182, very mannerly calls dismember- ed shreds, as if the Apostle had lost his connection always when he touched on that doctrine, But what can Mr Rhind say to those many places of Scripture, which he cannot but know are insisted on by the Presbyterians in defence of that doctrine ? Why, he has rid his hands of them by one fearless stroke, boldly pronouncing, in the place just now cited, that these are the passages hard to be understood pointed at by the Apostle Peter, 2 Ep. iii. 16, * which * some wrest to their own destruction.' But who told him that Peter pointed at these passages ? Did any spirit reveal it to him ? Do the Church of Eng- land doctors teach him so ? No, surely. Drs Ham- mond and Whitby, the two most famous expositors that have yet appeared, assert, that it is the doctrine of the coming of our Lord that Peter there points at, and not the doctrine of predestination, or any thing near it. And, if Mr Rhind had consulted the Greek original, he had seen that Peter did not refer to Paul's Epistles, but to the subjects he had been treating of, when he used these words, ' in which * there are some things hard to be understood.' 11. It is very true the Presbyterians teach, that by the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death : And there does indeed lie a shrewd objection against ■■* ^ 230 DEFENTCE OF THE pnESBTTlHIAN FAITH. 231 J I I" \ I it, viz. « That it is not in the power of man to pre- * vent his own damnation, if he has been fore-or- * dained to it :' But then (which might have dis- couraged Mr Rhind to bring it into the fiehi again), the Apostle Paul both foresaw it and silenced it, Eom. ix. 14. &c. * What shall we say then? Is there ' unrighteousness with God ? God forbid. For he * saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will * have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom « I will have compassion. So then it is not of him * that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God * that sheweth mercy.— Therefore hath he mercy on * whom he will have mercy, and whom he will, he * hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why « doth he yet find fault ? For who hath resisted his * will ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest * against God ?' Here is a full assertion and fair vindication of the Presbyterian doctrine; and what- ever objections our minds may raise against it, yet there is no one doctrine more clearly expressed, or strongly asserted, in all the Scripture, than this. And, which confirms all, it is beyond all controversy, by observations from Providence, that God acts with an absolute sovereignty, even in the dispensations of the means of grace in time, which is a certain docu- ment that he acted the same way in his eternal de- crees. The world was for many ages delivered up to idolatry ; and, since the Christian religion has ap- peared, we see vast tracts of countries which have continued ever since in idolatry ; others are fallen under Mahometanism ; and the state of Christen- iiom is, in the Eastern parts of it, under so much ig- norance, and the greatest part of the West is under so much corruption, that we must confess the far greatest part of mankind has been in all ages left destitute of the means of grace, and great numbers of men are born in such circumstances, that it is morally impossible that they should not perish in them. If God thus leaves whole nations in such darkness and corruption, and freely chuses others to pmmunicate the knowledge of himself to them. then we need not wonder that he holds the same method with individuals, that he doth with whole bodies : for, the rejecting of whole nations by the lump for so many ages, is more hard to be account- ed for by us than the selecting of a few, and the leaving others in that state of ignorance and bruta- lity. * But it becomes no man to quarrel with God, ^nd impeach him on his other attributes, because he will exercise his sovereignty, when we are both as- sured by the sacred oracles, and see it with our eyes in the course of his providence, that ' his judgmerits ' are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.' III. There lies no just objection from this doc- trine against the holiness, justice or sincerity of God. Fir^^, Not against his holiness. He has given men holy laws, he forces none to transgress them. It is true they cannot keep them without his grace ; but is God a debtor of that to any man, * who has * first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed ?' Secondly, Not against his justice ; for he damns no man but for sin, nor does he damn one repenting sinner and save another ; but he damns all impeni- tents and saves all penitents, without respect of per- sons. It is true he gives repentance to some which he denies to others ; but that is an act of his grace, ppqn which his justice can no more be quarrelled, than fo? bis giving the means pf grace to Christians, which he has denied to Pagans. Plainly, he created our first parents perfect and upright, he gave them 9 power to stand, he did not force them to fall ; yet he permitted them to do so through the freedom of their own will, to which they were left. By theiv fall their whole posterity became at once guilty and cor- rupt, just as a leperous parent begets a leperous child, and a rebel father forfeits the estate, not only for himself, but for all his posterity that are, by the mere strength of nature, to descend from him, unless they be restored by the prince's grace. If, when God found all mankind in this condition, and from all eternity foresaw that, by his permission, they would throw themselves into it ; where is the injufru ^ * 8ft Bp. Burnet e» tke zzxix. Art. p. I5i. 1^ 2dS MMmWrnKx^m %Jr IJtlJBi PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 2SS I I tic^ in chasing some of them as vessels of mercy f and passing by others, leaving them to inherit the choice which their first parents or themselves, or both, bad made for them, and then reprobating them to damnatioti for their sins? Wliere is there any thing of injustice in all this ? Nay, is there not here a most glorious scene opened, wherein at once justice is magnified, and mercy gratified ; and both love and reverence secured to the divine majesty ? And it is upon this consideration that we find the Apostle sa- tisfying the oWection which formerly we heard him silencing. ' What if God, willing to shew his wrath, * and to make his power known, endured with much * long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruc- * tion : And that he might make known the riches ' of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had * afore prepared unto glory,' Rom. ix. 22, 23. Thirdly^ Not against his sincerity. For, why ma^ not God require obedience from the elect, when his Very requiring it is one of the means by which he de- termines them to it. Why may not he threaten them with damnation in case of disobedience, when the threatening is the mean appointed for scaring them from it. Is there any thing here but the use of a most rational mean for compassing a most holy end ? Is it any objection against Providence, that the sun is suffered to shine, and the rain to fall, on the tares as well as the wheat growing together in the same Common field, though the first are to be burned, the latter to be gathered into the barn ? As little objec- tion is it in this case, that, while the elect and re- probate live mixed together in the visible church, the exhortations of the gospel are directed, and the offers of life and salvation made in a general style. And, to call this dissimulation, and a cruel and disin- genuous procedure, as Mr llhind does, j). 129, when it is so easy to be accounted for by reason, even upon the Presbyterian hypothesis, was the most pre- sumptuous blasphemy. IV. The *aiJ Presbyterian doctrine is no way contrary to the design of revelation, nor to any one testimony of Scripture. 1st, It is no way contrai7 to the design of revelation : And Mr Khind's medium, for proving that it is, discovers either a mo^t vicious mind, or a most prodigious igno- rance of the controversy. * According to this doc- * trine,' saith he, p. I iiO, ' our faith and obedience « cannot make our case better nor worse ; it being • unalterably fixed by a prior will, without regard to « either,' Was it malice or mistake made him talk at this rate ? Does not the Apostle teach * that God has chosen us to salvation through sanctifica- tion of the spirit and belief of the truth ? Did ever any Presbyterian teach otherwise ? Do they ever separate betwixt the end and the means ? Do not they constantly affirm that holiness and happiness, sin and misery, are linked together, as in the nature of the thing, so also in the decree of God ? To assert, then, that the doctrine of the decrees sup- posed! God to admit to heaven, and dispatch to hell, without respect either to faith and obedience on the one hand, or infidelity and impenitence ori the other, was to bid a defiance both to modesty and truth. 2d, It is not contrary to any testimony of Scripture. Mr Rhind instances two, 1 Tim. ii. 4. f That God would have all men to be saved/ But, were that to be understood of God's secret will, pray, how could any man be lost ; ' For who hath * resisted his will ? The counsel of the Lord stand- * eth fast, and the thoughts of his heart to all ge- * nerations.'t The meaning of the place, then, is obvious, viz. That we should pray for kings, and all that are in authority, as well as for others, be- cause there is no rank or order of men whose faith and obedience he will not accept of, and upon it save them at the last ; in token whereof he has given them his revealed will, which commands all men every where to repent : and it is with respect to this, that he is said to will that they should be saved, and not with respect to any uncertain hover- ing purpose to be determined by the creature, which ♦ 2 Thess. ii, 13. f Rom. ix. 19. Psal. xxxlii, 11. '■'Vlfip as 234 DJEFINCE or THE PRESBYTEllIAN FAITH. 235 ii a thing inppnsislent with the perfection of his na. lure. The other Scripture is Mark xvi, 16. * He f that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but « he that believeth not sshall be damned.'—* Which,' saith he, * plainly supposeth, that a man may or • may not believe/ But this is manifestly false. The design of the text is not to shew what man may or may not do, but to express the connection there is betwixt faith and salvation, infidelity and damna- tion. Faith is not of the growth of our own nature or will, but is the effect of the operation of the Spi- rit of God ; and to deny this, as Mr Rhind does all along, is quite to subvert the gospel. To th^se two scriptures he adds, p. 131, an argument, whjch is this : * All to whom the gospel is preached are ot^lig- f ed to believe that Christ is their Saviour, and die4 ^ for them. But none can be bound to believe a ^ lie, therefore Christ most certainly died for all to ^ whom the gospel is revealed ; and if so, then the * doctrine, which asserts the salvability only of a ^ select few, is demonstratively false.' But this ar^ gument stands on a lame foot. All to whom the gospel is preached are indeed obliged to believe, in the general, that Christ died for, and is the Saviour of all that believe ; and from thence, if they (with the joint testimony of God's Spirit), are conscious to themselves, that they do believe with such a faith 9S is necessary to salvation, they may confidently infer that Christ died for them, and is their Saviour: but to believe that Christ died for me in particular, while 1 make no conscience of answering the terms of the gospel, is to believe both without warrant and eyidenc^. The foundation, then, of his argu- ment being false, the whol^ iframe of it must needs fall to the ground. V. I add, that this doctrine has no pernicious im iuence on the Christian life, when it is improved as it ought to be. Mr Rhind expressly asserts, p^ 132, that it has, as running people into the most sinful security, or into 1 he height of despair, be- yond the capacity of a Calvinist cauist to givo check to either. But, in opposition to Mr Rhind, I affirm, with the Church of England, in her 17th Article, * That though, for curious and carnal per- « sons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have conti- f nually before their eyes the sentence of God's Prcr f destination, is a most dangerous downfliU, whercr f by the devil doth thrust them either into despe- f ration, or into wretchlessness of most unclean f living, no less perilous than desperation. Yet the « godly consideration of predestination and our e- « lection in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and « unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as « feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of * Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and « their earthly members, and drawing up their mind * to high and heavenly things, as well, because it * doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of « eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as « because it doth fervently kindle their love toward^ « God.' Thus far the Church of England, Be- sides, it is plain, from the nature of the thing, thaf the said doctrine teaches one to think meanly of himself, and to ascribe the honour of all to God, which lays in him a deep foundation for humility j and that it inclines to secret prayer, and to a fixed dependence on God ; which naturally both brings his mind to a good state, and fixes it in it.* And, which confirms all, we see in fact that these that believe that doctrine are generally serious and cour cerned about their soul, so that the goodness of their heart is an argument of the rightness of their head. I do not know if as much can be said of such as go on a contrary system. Sure I am, they are under shrewd temptations to procrastinate the work of their souls : For when the Scripture tells one, that all that believe and repent (at what time soever it be), shall be saved. And Mr Rhind tells him, that he may repent and believe when he will, that he has it in his own power to do so, without the assistance of any uncommon grace, if the mai^ • Bp. Burnet, ubi supra, p. 1 66. HHI 1 $ \ ^ n jBuff" JT f BEFENCE OF THE re both these ; I mean, both the Scriptures and Rhind's doctrine. I refer it to any one to say, whether, in that case, corruption will not incline him to take his swing in sin, in hopes that he may have a quiet hour at death to dispatch all his busi- ness. But enough of this. OF THE EFFICACY OF Gil ACE. In the third place, the next Presbyterian doc- trine which Mr llhind attacks, is that concerning the eflScacy of grace. ' They teach,' saith he, p. 135, * that God, to attain his eternal purpose, does, by « an irresistible force, work grace in the elect, and, * at the same time, denies it to the reprobate.' This is horridly false: for they expressly disown all force re- sistible or irresistible in the operation of grace ; and teach,* that though the elect are effectually drawn to Christ, yet it is so, as that they come most freely,being made willing by his grace. And is it not very easy to conceive how there may be efficacy, yea. and in- superable efficacy too, (which the Presbyterians own in this case), without the least force ? Is it not plain, that the greater evidence there is for any truth, and the stronger motives there are to any duty, the more pleasure the soul feels, and, conse- quently, the greater freedom it exercises in assent- ing to the one, or complying with the other ? Is this to make machines of men ? When a man tells me that two and three make five, the native evi- dence of the proposition commands my assent. But is there, therefore, any force offered to my under- standing ? Is it not very possible lor the Spirit of God to set home the sense of my danger through sin upon my conscience so powerfully, that I shall be necessarily, though without the least force, de- termined to fall in with the overtures of the gospel, in order to my salvation ? And is it not needful that the Spirit of God do act thus, considering how deeply • Confess, of Faith, Cliap. x. Sect. 1. PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 257 we are immersed in corruption, blind to duty, dead in trespasses and sins, who cannot of ourselves so much as think one good thought. And does not the Scripture assure us that the Spirit of God does act thus ; that he works in us both to will and to do ; that his people shall be willing in the day of his power ; that he puts his spirit within us, and causes us to walk in his statutes? But Mr Rhind cannot away with this doctrine, it is with him opposite to truth, and destructive of Christian life. YinU Saith he, p. 1 35, ' It is opposite to truth. * For how can I be reasonably commanded to believe * and repent, who am supposed to have no strength * to do either ?' How could Christ reasonably bid Lazarus ' Come forth,' or the lame man, * Take up « thy bed and walk,* when the one was dead, the other an absolute cripple ? Has Mr Rhind, with Presbytery, renounced the gospel too? Does he believe there is never any secret efficacy attends the dispensation thereof? 'But,' adds he, * how caw * that, in propriety of speech, be called my act, * which was never elicited by me ?' Very strong I Because another raised me up, therefore my stand- ing or walking is not my act ! Because, when I was lying dead in sin, the spirit of God quickened me to repent and believe ; therefore, repenting and be- lieving, when I am quickened, is not my act? Be- cause Christ draws me, therefore it is not I that run, notwithstanding he has made me willing to it I Was this to argue ? Secondhj, ' It is,' saith he, p. 1 36, ' destructive « of Christian life, in that it excuses the greatest « villanies under pretence of exalting the free grace « of God, and discourages all the good endeavours * that should be used.' To make this good, he in- troduces a Calvinist teacher endeavouring (but with- out possibility of success), to reclaim a debauchee of the party. Mr Rhind has acted the debauchee, fur- nishing him with arguments, formed, as he imagines, upon the Presbyterian hypothesis. 1 shall crave leave i li. ,^^11^^ *»■»• 238 DEFEN'CK OF THE PRKSBYTEBIAW FAITH. 2i50 i lo act the Calvinlst teacher; and dare promise, though not actually to convert the debauchee, (that is God*s work,) yet to satisfy his objections, even by the Presbyterian scheme of principles. The dialogue then stands thus« Dialogue between a Cdhinist Teacher and a Debauchee of the Party. Calv. Sir, I find you still go on in a course of de- bauchery ; I have often told you before, and now tell you once more, that unless you reform you will go to hell. Deb. Alas, Sir, you know, that I cannot effectu- ally reform without irresistible grace, and I am not to blame that I am not yet passive of it, p. 136. Calv. What, Sir! cannot you give over your de- baucheries, your drinking, cursing, swearing, whor- ing, gaming, without irresistible grace ? Did 1 ever teach you so ? Have not I always told you, that a man may reform these vices without special grace ? How can you say, that you are not to blame that you have not yet been passive of grace ? Have you used the means, cultivated your natural faculties, improved your reason ? When you have not been faithful in that which is less, why should God com- mit to your trust that which is more ? Are not you then to blame ? That which God has already given you was sufficient whereupon to have either prevent- ed or broken off a course of debauchery ; nay, as I have often told you before, you might have gone, upon the mere strengtii of nature, as far as ever a Plato or a Seneca went* Deb. True, Sir. But even then my best actions, without this grace, would be but so many splendid sins, p. 137. Cah. Right. But is it not better that you should be guilty only of these splendid sins ; that is, actions which, though not fully acceptable with God through want of a right principle and Christian motive j yet have not only the colour, but matter too, of virtue j and make one that he is not far from the kingdom of God ; were not this better, I say, than that yoii should swell (as you do) in vice and sensuality, and makeyourself the reproach of human nature, and the scandal of the town ? Deb. But, Sir, the reformation which you preach can be of no advantage to my soul without grace ; and seeing this grace is not in my power, I hope you will, and it is but reasonable you should, allow me to gratify the body, seeing the contrary cannot in the least advance the interest of my soul. Ibid. Calv. What do I hear ! Would such a reformation be of no advantage to my soul ?— Not in the least advance the interest thereof? Where did you learn such divinity ? Are there no degrees in guilt ? And is it not a huge advantage to want the least degree thereof, seeing your punishment in hell must rise in proportion thereto, in case you repent not : or the stings and remorse of your conscience here, even suppose you do ? And is the insincere and transitory pleasure of sin to be laid in the balance with either of these, even in point of plain reason ? But, ab- stracting from the advantage such a reformation would be of to the soul, is it reasonable I should al- low you to gratify the body with vice ? Vice, I say^ whose pleasures are hollow in the present enjoyment^ and will at long-run ruin your body, and all your temporal interest: when even that virtue, which you may attain to by strength of reason, carries it» own reward in its bosom; and recommends itself both by the much more manly pleasures which at- tend its exercise, and the solid advantages that fol- low upon it even in this life. Do not you see the drunkard for the most part reduced to poverty, while the sober man, by good management and indus- trious frugality, enjoys a comfortable competency ? Have not you observed the first seized with burning fevers ; or surprised with a sudden death, drowning in his own vomit, while the other has enjoyed a healthful and vigorous age ? Did you never see the I:|f i DEFENCE OF THE ruins of lust in the old adulterer ; his weak h'mbs^ mid meagre carcase, and his body as loathsome as his name ? Have you not observed what confusion, jealousies, discords, and misunderstandings such lewd persons have begot, both in their own and their neighbour's family ? Has not this one sin ruined some of the greatest families, and left the fairest estates without heirs ? While on the other hand, the chaste and continent person has retained a healthful body, a savory name, and left a numerous posterity behind him. So tliat, upon the whole, your reform- ing from your open debaucheries is in your power by the strength of nature : and is the most prefer- able course in point of reason. Deb. But lam uncertain wliether I be one of the elect or reprobate. Ibid. Cah. No wonder truly, seeing you still continue in your debaucheries : for, tlie sanctification of the spirit, and tlie belief of the truth, are both the fruits and evidences of election, of which no man can possibly be certain without them^ nor in an ordinary way, but by tiiem. Beb. But mj practice depends upon my know- ledge of this. For if I be one of the elect, I will, some time, were it only at the hour of death, be de- termined by this grace, and so will certainly be sav- ed, notwithstanding the lewdness of my bygone life ; and if I be not, why should I abstain from sin, when an abstinence, without grace, can be of no use to me ? And this grace I cannot command : and if I iie none of the elect, I am not to expect it ; there- forej, seeing I am to forfeit the joys of heaven, which is my misfortune, not my fault, you must excuse me if I do not lose tlie pleasures of sin, which I may so freely enjoy ? Ibid. Calv. Pray, Sir, does eitlier reason or Scripture dictate such a conduct to you ? Or are these ration- 4 inferences from the doctrines of election and grace wJiich you have been taught? Is it not necessary in all sciences to begin at what is most easy and ob- yious, and thence to come to tlie knowledge and 241 PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. „,^5„,y Of „hat U »»^ difficult Are you »ot^-- ine, such as, the "seiessness u ^^ sin which I have dready discoui.ed;, you „ he wrong end ? Whether you ar^ o^. * J^^e dis- not is a secret with God ; ""f-.^'^^^Yt j m covered by you but by the fmit of M .„^^ ,, his ness in heart and hfe. ^hi^ Lxoa na j ^^ revealed will; and. tJj^'^J^Suffei of any latent study and endeavour It vvi^houUear^ ^^^^7 ^^ .,^ decree lying against yo^ ' =«*f ^ iom it both your you may then "'^sV' But vou will needs invert election and salvation. ^^^^ ^^^w his secret God's order : you ""^^ needs t^^'^obey ^^.^ ^^^.^^^^^ ,vill. before you apply y«?'f f^'° ,, J obey his re- fill ; whereas he ^as enjoined yo ^.^^ ^^^_ vealed will, and thence « S^^^^^j !^^^„,Ue better use cerning yourself. ^01 shame ' ^^^^ ^^^^^^^ of your reason. Apply youi" K ^ ^ gxpect you are sure you <>»f J to do , and a ^^^^ J^ ^^ L be saved in the "^S^^^^^.^f^^' "Csly said that he your election-when God has expjey ^.^^^^_, ^^ Ls chosen us thatwe to d be holy .^^ „f y^^^ discouraged from it with the app ^^ ^^ ^^^^^.. reprobation ; seeing yo"/,^" ^f^^ertain duty for un- ^r'^Vkn'r^ Nri^ont^^^^^^^^ certain danger r r^o ^^^ weakly about his temporf affairs ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ Deb. But, Sir, wbetUer i 01^ ^^ j ^^^^j. bate, there is «» ^oingof my dutj, sn ^ ^^^^^^^ ^o much endeavour It, -t^-t g ace^,^a ^,^ ^^ Il'slXfe- GoSt determine me by his mesi^t. ^^^Lr5;w,'s:fl Maynotyeaomore^ha^^^^^^^^^^^ Have not I shewn you how far you y B ^^^^^_ strength of nature o^ common gr^^^^^^ ^^^^ 5^. Bity then are you "Pj^"^ *« f "^i"„s. you would pray sidles, if tog^" 7,f,^*e yCS ould certainly ob- to God for eff«^.tual grace, yo ^^^^^^^i,. t^n it J if you do not, you o«rit iilliaHni«„ 246 DEFENCE OF THE i M Solomon, who was guilty of repeated adultery and idolatry ; Hymeneus and Alexander, who were guil- ty of apostacy and blasphemy. As for the two first examples, the Angels and Adam, they are impertinent It is the perseverance of the saints under the covenant of grace which the Presbyterians affirm, and not of any creature in it* natural state. It is true the best saints cannot pre* tend to equal either the angels or Adam in holi- ness ; but it is not upon the measure of holiness, but the immutability of God's decree, and such other grounds as I have already mentioned, that the per- severance of the saints depends- As for David and Solomon, Mr Rhind does not affirm that they fell finally away, and were damn- ed ; and therefore I need not stay to disprove that they were. The Presbyterians grant that their grace was not only impaired, but laid asleep for a time like live embers, raked up under the thick ashes, chok- ing both the light and the heat. But Mr Rhind avers it was totally lost. Let us consider on what grounds he avers this. Firsts As to David. — And here Mr Rhind falls into a couple of the most prodigious blunders I have readily heard. Take his words : * If,* saith he, p. 142, * this commination, viz. « that murderers and •• adulterers cannot enter intothekingdom of heaven/ • be not false and delusory, David was, upon the * commission of these sins, liable to damnation ; and « if so, he had certainly fallen from the state of grace ; * seeing, according to our adversaries, none who are • in that state can be thus liable.' Thus he. Now, FirsU Did ever the Presbyterians teach, that none who are in a state of grace can be liable to damna- tion ? So far from it, that they teach,that there is not one man, even in a state of grace, who is not liable to damnation. Secondly^ Is every one who is liable to damnation fallen from a^'slate of grace ? Why, then, the most righteous man on earth falls from a stale of grace every day : For he sinneth every day, aid the least sin makes him liable to daronation,unle8s 547 PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. *^ ./^Se. legist r Bu. God is rgjr^enu^^^^^^ his people. JNow, aiauiei umj frown upon to be angry with his son, ^-^ -^^J ^ ^^^^^^eThe rL- him. but to chasten Inm. But toj^n^^^j^^t ^hi^g tion of afather, and d.s.nhe t "«';^^^;^ ^^^^ja had p^ V"n^ ktSiS-did 'Z^^o:^^^ l„tteSr?> hfs penitential V^^^n ^^.^.Z casion. though 'f P->'-^ ' ^T sal^a dS wS in- store unto hnn the 3°^/^ /"^^'^^ ,Tsof hiscou^ 4.«o fViaf ho WHS under the iiowning5»ui timates that »\;"^' ".' j^i^^rath, yet he does notpray tenance,and tokens ot niswidu., J S. ao uf S^2^:/t1olrrS». he had at a mighty «t«, and m the ^'''.'T^f^S become deed they >™'=>«'y g'^'j Jt ,!« upot. ".n tl'«- him nor any man else, to be naiaei upui Tspirit o? God iu 'i^StKrh :« : 'notpe'! lect wiui uic X. where does it in- « fully after the Lord : liiit no wneic juiij aiLv, nnitp nff from nun. ivir « that two contrary habits cannot lou^c a . t e same subject;' and it is very true that n the „ost intense degree they <=,^"j\= ^,"1 tnd eS philosophy that ever was heard of, teacheth, • 1 Kings, xi. *. e« A ^ fli .'/ \\ m Hi 248 DEFENCE OF THE Ilerience convinceth, that in more remiss iegr^t^ they may ; and that this was Solomon's case, the forecited soft expressions of the Scripture allow us 16 believe. As for Hymeneus and Alexander, the Apostle in- deed says, !• Tim. i. 19, 20, « that they had made « shipwreck concerning the faith,* that is, they had thrown off the Christian profession: But he does not say, that they had made shipwreck of the faith ; for indeed he never so much as insinuates that ever they had been endued with the genuine grace of faith. But, says Mr Rhind, 1st, * how could it of- • fend God, or harm them, to lose that which was • not the true and saving faith ?' It seems, then, that When a wicked man openly renounces Christ, it does not, by Mr Rhind's account, either offend God or harm himself. This is pretty strange doctrine. 2rf^, Saith he, « why should they be delivered unto • Satan for renouncing the faith, if it was not that « genuine grace, when without this (according to « our adversaries) they were already in his clutches ? ' Strong sense ! A scandalously wicked man is in the clutches of Satan, why then should the Church, in case of his obstinacy, by excommunication, declare him to be so ? Is not this mighty judicious reason- ing ? S%, Saith he, * it was the same faith which « Timothy is advised to hold in the 19th verse.' Right. It was the Christian faith, the profession whereof they had cast off; but how does it appear that ever they had been subjectively possessed of it ? 4thl7/, He excepts, upon the 5th and 6th verses, where it ' is said, « now the end of the commandment is charity, out • of a pure heart, and of a good conscience,' and « of faith unfeigned : from which some having swerv- « ed, have turned aside unto vain jangling.* But the original word irrcjcn^umiy which is rendered ^ttert?- i?rf>ow, properly signifies wo/ /o aim at; and so it cannot import that these persons had ever been possessed of the genuine grace of faith. Plainly, the meaning of the text is, that some preachers aimed not at the great design of the gospel, but PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 249 ^f nnf of the way to a divinity made up of em]^- went out oi the way X ^J^^^^ expounds it. *^„rJh:;rXuontarhrhi.ei*er to Ming or ,ot '1^' HTarfue'-from the nature of the thing ' M; saith he pX ^ the truly gracious not only may c hP hut actual y are guilty of very hemous sins, : t^iScannrbe didf ...en either the^ .n, they are offensive, and tnereoy oou » v incurred, and his holy sprit g"^^f ' ""^ "^Xre^ 1 ulyrA frnm the Con ession ot Jbaitn ; ana meie f:Je%;i SiS'h-^^^^^ a wretchedly abandoned rreatme he is. Avhen he represents us as teaching, ^ tlir*e mo t horrid impieties are not such when . corim tted by the saints.' But what would he • r Tnm this « that the sins of the saints are offen- 1" "e' o G dt' 'Why.' saith he, ' if he be angry « with men because of them, they cannot at the . Tame Time be in his favour ; and if they have lost . hlfavour, they have fallen from his grace.' Men- \L nonsense' A father cannot frown upon or JoTrecthi" oTmit of love- He cannot be angry Shm unless he disown him ! A prince cannot be iSased with his subjects, but he must instant- wSunce them rebels! This is such weak stuff, that I doubt if it can be paralleled. , , .„„ .f Thus now, I have gone through the doctrine of the decries with its dependencies, impugned by Mr $uind and t ough I acknowledge these doctrines Se such as t^^at one cannot have full and adequate SnsAem, the largest ™-d being too narrow to comprehend them, the most penetrating wit to Sund all their depths, and the most indefatigable rJv to conauer all the difficulties that may be cSed upuSm any other way, than by submi^ t hi our iudgments to the revelation of God yet 1 ifope 1 have made it evident, that they are so for from being false, that they are, indeed, the very doc- trom Demo » fi' cnel, and most consistent with a Christiai £ BuTthe writers of Mr Rhind's stamp. 250 f t III form to themselves an imaginary scheme of chimeri- cal notions, and having christened them Presbyterian- isra, they fall a disputing against them ; and when they have demolished the brat of their own brains, they crow over the conqueat, as if they had confuted the Presbyterian doctrines. That nobody may be imposed upon by their misrepresentations, as the Presbyterians' doctrine may be easily known by their fuhlic form ulas^ so I shall give a just representation of the conduct of their ministers, relating to these doctrines, which is this : We never teach our people to take it at first hand for granted, either that they are of the elect, or that they are of the reprobate ; but we teach them first to examine, and then to conclude. And in the ex- ercise of this examination, we never teach them to beginjat that question, — Am I elected ? But at these, Do 1 believe,— do 1 repent,— have I a conversation suitable to the gospel ? If their consciences, when thoroughly examined, give a satisfying answer to these, we bid them from thence conclude their elec- tion, and exhort them to go on in working out their salvation with fear and trembling : But if their con- sciences bring in a negative answer upon these ques- tions, we tell them they are in a most dangerous state, yet we forbid them to conclude themselves re-* probate ; for we do not think, that in the militant church, the words e/eci^ and believer^ are of the same extent, — all believers are elect, but all the elect are not as yet believers, though they certainly shall be so. Upon this principle, we exhort them to use the means — reading, hearing, meditation, prayer^ and the like. And though we dare not teach them the doctrine of merit, either de covgrvo or condignog yet we assure them, upon God's proniiwse, that, in the use of means, he will not be wanting to them with his grace« But if they shall continue to neglect the means, we assure them that final impenitency is an infallible mark of reprobation, and the cause of liimnation, — and that it is presumption to conclude themselves elected^ when they feei not the gospel PRESBYTEKIAN FAITH. 261 evidences thereof, telling them, in the ^^r J^^^^^^^^^ Anostle that God hath chosen "s to salvation, ttsanctification of the spirit, and behef oj^ t^^^ truth! and to bring home the title ^.^.J^f^^^^^^^^^^^ selves, otherwise than upon these evidences, we dare "1 Se S is nothing in all this, but what is both ag e a&e to the Scripture, and tends to pronjo^ holiness. Here, then, I mignt put an end to tins subiect ; but there is something further to be done Shumbling the pride of Jese gent^emen^^^^^ a.e so full of themselves upon Mr Rhmd s scheme. Sect. IL Wherein is proved, that the Presb/terian ^[^f'^fj^^f^ p^gTed 4 Mr Rhind, are the same with those of the whole Christian Church. T?nR makinff this ffood I assert,— I. That these doc- that 20 by the name of reformed, mA that in the ufg^ent'of the highest and "-^^ lea^f^ J^^^^^^ lians neither in these, nor, indeed, in anything else relatinA^^ do they maintain any thing that L fundamentally false. IL That these doctrines are tlie doctrines of those of the Episcopal commu- n on in Scotland. III. That they are the doctrines nf the Church of England. IV. lo complete all. 1 1 c2,& Chur5, <.'C1.™> hath deAred *-= doctrines to be the orthodox ^^^^'^^f "^'^^{/J^u^^n oDDOse them are worthy of an anathema. If I shall ZvTall these things/ and that from uncon ested documents, which 1 am tolerably sure of doing, I SreT wi 1 follow, that these doctrines can be no SyouTd of separation from the Presbyterians ; and Csuch as do 'separate on the accoun o^ cannot claim communion with any Church m the world. Let us try it then. , j ^ • /• II say that these doctrines are the doctrines of the whole foreign churches, which go by the name 1^ iM 1 1 i ^ S53 DEFENCE OF THE of Mtformed For proving this, I need not appeal tn this or the other particular divine. No : I refer the reader to the Syntagma CoTifessionum, where he may have the confessions of all the reformed churches under his view at once ; and that they all assert these doctrines, is so evident, that no man ever to this day denied it, so that I need not insist. But then, to make this argument complete, I add, that, in the judgment of the highest and most learned Episcopalians, neither in these, nor indeed in any tWng else relating to doctrine, do they maintain any thing that is fundamentally false. For this, the tes- timony of Mr Dodwell will be sufficient. He, in his book, which I have so often before cited, I mean the Parcmesis ad Ea:teros, in order to recommend Episco- pacy to the foreign churches, by shewing how much ft w^ould conduce to the go^d of the Reformation, if Bishops were restored, writes thus : — * Were this * done,' saith he, * * I do not indeed see why com- * munion might not be held with at least all the re- * formed churches. For, as for Socinians, and So- * cinianizing Arminians, I do not think them wor- * thy the name of Reformed. But as to the rest, I * see no fundamental doctrines in which they differ, * I mean, which are clearly delivered in the Scrip- * ture. And that such only can be called rundamen- ? tal doctrines, the Reformed at least are agreed ; * nor ought any doctrines, which are not fundamen- * tal, obstruct communion with other churches.' Thus far Mr Dodwell. It is, then, a plain case, by his judgment, that these doctrines which Mr Rhind has quarrelled, are not fundamentally false, and that none ought to separate from any communion on the * Nee iaoe video cur, id si fieret, cum omnibus, saltern Re- formatis Ecclesiis, commercium illud haberi non possit. Nee enim dignos eo nomine puto Socinianos, nee qui Socinianis favent ArminianoB. In reliquis fundamentalia dogmata nulla video in quibus discrepent, quae quidem perspicue tradantur in scriptnris! Hsc enim sola fundamentalia appellari posse, conveninnt saltern ReformatL Nee debent alia dogmata obstare quo minus cum Ecclesiis aliis communio servetur, preterquam fundamentalia — Pmmks. Sect. St- p. 2tl. PMSBTTEKIAN FAITH. 25S account of them, and as little from the Presbyte- rians in Scotland as any. For, I suppose, every man will own, that there is no society under the cope ot Heaven more free of Socinianism, or that favours Socinianizing xlrminians less than they. I hope, then, the first point is fliirly gained. , . , , II. These doctrines, which Mr Rhmd has quar- relied, are the doctrines of those of the Episcopal communion in Scotland. In all the revolutions since the Reformation, wherein ever Episcopacy got the ascendant, we hear but of one Confession ot iaith formed by them, and that was in the Assembly at Aberdeen, anno\&l6, in which Archbishop Spottis- wood presided. Now, hear some articles of it. ♦ This glorious God, from all eternity, out ot his wisdom and infinite knowledge, decreed all things that were after to be done. ' This God, before the foundation of the world was laid, accordins: to the good pleasure of his will, for the praise of Uie glory of his grace, did predesti- nate and elect, in Christ, some men and angels un- to eternal felicity, and others he did appoint for eter- nal condemnation, according to the counsel of his most free, most just, and most holy will, and that to the praise and glory of his justice. « By the fall of Adam, all his posterity are so cor- rupted, from their conception and nativity, that none of them can do or will any thing truly acceptable un- to God, till they be renewed by the will and spirit of God, and by faith ingrafted in Christ Jesus. ' Albeit all mankind be fallen in Adam, yet only these who are elected before all time, are in time redeemed, restored, raised, and quickened again ; not of themselves, or of their works ; lest any man should glory, but only of the mercy of God. ' We beUeve, that albeit the elect of God, through infirmity, and through the enticements thereof, sin grievously to the offence of God, yet they cannot altogether fall from grace, but are raised again through the mercy of God, and keeped to i i'.: 254 DIFEKCE OF THE •alvation.' Thus the Scotch Episcopal Confession of All this they subscribed with their hands, confes- sed with their mouths, and professed to believe with their heart ; and, at the same time, declared the Church of Scotland to be * one of the most pure * kirks under heaven.' What an unaccountable thing, then, is it in our Episcopalians, to object against the doctrines of their own Confession pf Faith, as fun- damentally false and pernicious ? Have they quite forsworn all modesty ? Will they say, that they have altered their faith ? If so, let us know when they did it. Let us know where we may find their new confession of it. If these doctrines are fundamen- tally false and pernicious, I can never come over to the Episcopal side, nor indeed any man that regards his soul. For how well pleased soever I may be with their government, yet their doctrines are damnable. So much for the second point, which I hope is fairly enough cleared. III. These doctrines are the express doctrines of the Church of England in her Thirty-Nine Articles. I before produced the Thirteenth Article, declaring works done before the grace of Christ to have the nature of sin. Two Articles more will be suffi- cient for my purpose. * ARTICLE X. •Of Free* Will. *The condition of man, after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn, and prepare himself by his own natural strength, and good works, to faith, and calling upon God. Wherefore, we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good*will»' ;. If r aiiiiilff'-* PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. %55 'ARTICLE XVn. f Op Predestination and Election. « Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid), he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and dam- nation, those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ unto everlast- ing salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose, by his Spirit working in due season. They, through grace, obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption ; they be made like the imuge of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ : They walk religiously ni good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.' These Articles were agreed to in the year 1562, and are the only authorised standard to this day- There are but two things can be oflered, to take off the weight of this heavy objection, viz. 1st, That the clergy do not receive them as articles of faith, but as vincula paucis ; or, to use Mr Rhind's words, p. 119, where he seems to have designed to antici- pate this objection, that it is only an acquiescence, not an inward assent, that is required. I crave leave to consider this defence ; and if any man can take off what I am to offer against it, 1 shall yield that he has answered my whole book. In ihejirst place, admitting the articles were de- signed not for articles of faith, but to be vincula paucis, and that it were only an acquiescense in, not an inward assent that were required to them ; yet how is it consistent with common honesty in any clergyman of that communion to preach, print, dis- pute against, and ridicule the doctrine contained in f hem ? Is that to acqu iesce in them ? 2%, If the ,4 356 DEFENCE OF THE doctrines contained in these articles are fundament- ally false and pernicious, how can any clergyman with a good conscience promise to acquiesce in them ? If they are of such a damning nature, is he not ob- liged, under pain of damnation to himself, to warn people against them ? These two things I have sug- gested upon supposition that no more but an ac- quiescence in them were required. But then I add, 3dly, That that allegeance is even impudently false. For,/r5/, The very title of the Articles bears, that they were agreed upon, not only for the avoiding of the diversities of opinions, but for the establishing of consent touching true religion. Secondly y By the xxxvith Canon, 1603, all Bishops are discharged te ordain, admit or licence any so much as to preach, till such person acknowledge all and every the Thirty- nine Articles to be agreeable to the word of God, and subscribe the same willingly and ex animo. Is it possible that articles can be agreeable to the v/ord of God, and yet at the same time fundamentally false and pernicious : Is it possible one can subscribe them as agreeable to the word of God e^ animo with- out inward assent? Thirdly, By the statute 13th Eliz. 12. it is ordained that every person, to be admitted to a benefice with cure, shall, within two months after his induction, publicly read the said ar- ticles in the church whereof he hath the cure, in common prayer time, with declaration of his assent thereunto ; and if afterward he shall maintain any doctrine repugnant to the said Articles, and shall persist therein, it shall be lawful for the Bishop to deprive him. So much for the first defence. The second is, * that these Articles being con- < ceived in such general words, that they may admit • of different literal and grammatical senses, even ♦ when the senses given are plainly contrary to one * another j the Arminians may subscribe them with a « good conscience, and without any^equi vocation.' • But this defence is yet worse than the former, if worse could be. For, frsi. Can there be a greater • Sec Burnet*« Expos, p. 8. PUESBrXERIAN FAITH. 257 vandal upon a ^^^^^^^^^^ t SS of religion as a "os^-".™' '"ry side ? Is »t pos- either to this or the quite contrary ^^^ siblB to elicrt ««""'^ and orthodox .^^^^ ^^^ doctrine fundamental^ f^^^^^ ^"f/^, ^^^^,^ send the same words ? 1^";" , " j. 2dly, Dr Sache- • forth sweet waters and bitter . „ , -^j^ ^^j^en who verell most justly i;eckons them false bre.^ ^ expound any of these ai^des or ^^^^ ^^ loose and vagrant ^^ay as may ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ly. The a Mahometan's as a Christwn ^^^ ^^^ Calvinistic sense (as It IS commonly. ^j^^._ ;^^^, only sense designed i" f ^j^^^ themselves ; t and framers of them ^'^^ Calvmists ^^^^^ therefore it is never to ^e thou y „,eaning. them so as to be ,<^X j^/, ^7^ effect of an ac- For, pray what could 1^« the use o ^^^^^^ knowledgmentof oi fu^f^rch of England ha. supposition ^tMy, f ^e C mrc °^„s these loudly proclaimed to tl>? J oj^'Vj^ . ^nd till Laud, articles only in the Calvinistic^^"^^ ' ^^^.^^^ ^„ the British Herostratus began o^ fire, the Church of England stu p ^^^^^ tia't impugned th^f sense o^ them a ^^^^^ Lord Falkland, m us torecited spe ^ ^^^^,^_ the contrary doctrines had not been ^^^ ^V ed than recanted. Pl'^»'^y'.*J governors of the ties, the supreme f '^ f ,^'=^.fi' ^efe-ates to foreign Church, the court, and the J^'^^calvinistic doc ^^•"'^^\'raf ittrS io beS "octrines of the trines, and asseitt^u ti Church of England. Universities have done First. 1 saythe Enghsh U .^^ ^f Caius Col- so. In the yf^''^'\ZlZ-r in the University lege in Cambndjg p.eac^.no .^^ ^„ i^^ec- Church called bt Mai) n a" destination and tive against the^^octrine^ o ^1- iS^'^Sd which! trSore, could not much aftect . Sermon on False Brethren p^(a^il") ". »2- + Burnet, ubi supra, p. lo\, \bi. ;• >' BEFEXCE OF THE the vulgar, yet instantly gave the alarm to the Uni- versity. The heads of the several houses, viz. Ur Somef Dr Duport. Dr Goad, Dr Tindall, Dr Wlut- takers. Dr Barwell, Dr Jegom, Dr Preston, Mr Chadderton, and Mr Clayton, presently met upon it, and upon mature deliberation and advice, by their unanimous vote adjudged Mr Barret to recant his assertions as false, erroneous and manifestly repug- nant to the religion received and established in the Church of England by public and lawful authority. This was a very bitter pill to Mr Barret ; yet either his stomach or his conscience prevailed with him to give it throat. Accordingly, upon the 10th ot May in the said year, he appeared in the University Church where he had ofiended, and made a fair re- cantation. The sermon is still extant in print, and I shall beg leave to give one note of it. ' 1 hese « words,' saith he, escaped me, viz. ' As tor those • that are not saved, 1 do most strongly believe, • and do freely protest that I am so persuaded against • Calvin, Peter Martyr, and the rest, that sin is the • true, jiroper, and first cause of reprobation. But « now, being better instructed, I say, that th>J re- • probation of the wicked is from everlasting, and « that that saying of Augustine to Simphcian is most « true, viz. If sin were the cause ot reprobation, « then no man should be elected, because God doth • foreknow all men to be defiled with it. And (that « I may speak freely) 1 am of the same mind ; and « do believe concerning the doctrine of election and • reprobation, as the Church of England believeth • andteacheth in the book of the articles ot laith, « in the article of predestination. And I acknow- • ledge, that by the virtue of the prayer ot Christ, • every true believer is so stayed up, that his taith • cannot fail.'-So that he which once hath this faith shall ever hath it. Thus Mr Barret. The whole sermon is worthy Mr Rhind's perusal ; tor 1 have the charily to wish that he may one day have use for it. . . • i ^^ „r Hccondly, The supreme ecclesiastical governors ot \ rnESBYTERIAN FAITH. 259 the church have declared yet more positively for Sese doctrines. Upon the 20th of November in tie said year 15^.5, they met at Lambeth and framed the famous nine Lambeth articles, which are as fol- lows :— The Nine Assertions or Articles of Lambeth, composed and agreed upon at Lambeth House on the 20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1595, bjf John Arcbbishop of Canterbury, R^ch.^o Bishop of London, R.chaud elect Bishop of Bangor; aZ sundry other reverend and learned Dtunes there present. 1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unt.. life j certain men he hath reprobated unto death. _ . . .. ^ 2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is°not the foresight of faith, or of per- severance, or of good works, or of any thmg t hat is in the persons predestinated } but only in the will of the well pleased God. a There is a definite and certain number of the ' predestinate which can neither be augmented nor diminished. . . i . i„„t;«n 4. Those who are not predestmated to salvation ' shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true, living and justifying faith, and the sp.r. of God justifying, is not extmguished, it faietU not away, it vanisheth not away in the elect eithei finally or totally. , , 6. A man truly faithful, that is, such a one who is endued with a justifying faith, is ^^'it^'^vTl l If full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his everlasting salvation by Christ. _ 7 Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will. -. i, n Uo 8. No man can come unto Christ, unless it shall be civen unto him, and unless the father shall draw *' 11 3 \ I i DEFENCE OF THE him : And all men are not drawn by the father, that they may come to the son. 9, It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved. Thus far the Lambeth Articles. And this was as plain going to work as one could wish. Thirdly, The court was not behind with the church. When afterwards Arminianism prevailed in the United Provinces, and had caused terrible convulsions, King James VI. was aware of the danger the British dominions were in. He was a Prince very well seen in the Roman classics, and no doubt had read the PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 261 Ucalegon. •Jam proximus ardet \ And therefore thought it reasonable to bestir him- self to prevent the spreading of the flame. For this purpose he sent over his ambassador Sir Dudley Carlton to persuade the States to provide some re- medy, and to smother the sparks which might set him on fire. Sir Dudley, upon the 6th of October 1617, attended their High Mightinesses assembled at the Hague, and delivered himself in a most ela- borate speech, wherein he declares the doctrine im- pugned by Arminius to be the true -and ancient doctrine, and to have been received and authorised by the common consent of all the reformed churches ; and that the schism which prevailed withm the church, and the faction in the state, were both ov^ing to Arminius. I hope none will deny that Sir ■Dudley had his great master's allowance for saying all this. And upon the whole, he solicits them to call a synod for determining the controverted points. Fourthly, The English delegates to foreign sy- nods have declared the same way. Upon the tore- said solicitation, the synod of Dort met, and was assisted by divines from the Church of England : and in the said synod such conclusions were made upon the five articles, as, I need not tell any body, are the • See the speech itself, set forth by authority. I^ondon, print- ed by William Jones, I6l8. verv same with the doctrines contained in the West- mmster Confession, maintained by the Scots 1 res- bvterians, and now impugned by Mr llhmd and the nien of his kidney.* Somewhile after the return ot these delegates from the synod, they were attacked by a certain scribbler on their conduct, and the doc- trinal conclusions they had gone into. They thought it necessary to defend themselves, and accordingly wrote.4;oinf^;te«te^ion,+ whereof take the last words. Whatsoever there was assented unto and subscrib- ed by us concerning the Five Articles, either in the ioint synodical judgment, or in our particuLar co - leeiate sufterage (styled in the acts of the synod, Theolosorum Magnce Britanniw Sententia and at large extant theve), is not only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also conformable to the receiv- ed doctrine of our said venerable mother ;— which we are ready to maintain, and justify against a U crainsayers, whensoever we shall be thereunto call- ed by lawful authority. Ita atlestamur, ' Georgius Cicestriensis Episcopus. « Johannes Sarisburiensis Episcopus. » Gualterus Balcanquall Decan. Roff. « Samuel Ward Pub. Profess. Theol. tn Acad. Cant, et Coll. Sid. Prafect. « Thomas Goad Sacra; Theol. Doctor.' I hope all this is more than sufficient to prove that the doctrines impugned by Mr Rhind, as fun- damentally false and pernicious, are the doctrines of the Church of England, and that they are not only articles of peace, but articles of faith too. Ihink then what a wise part he has acted, m separating from the Presbyterians, upon the account of these articles, and joining the Church of England which has expressly declared such, as affirm them to be m any part erroneous, to be excommunicated tpsoJaC fo.t So much for the Church of England. • Vide Acta Synod. Dordrac. f London, printed by M. Flesher. I Canon v. l60S. 262 DtWENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. «6S IV. These doctrines are the doctrines of the Ca- tholic Church of Christ, which has also declared, that such as oppose them are worthy of an anathe- ma. What method shall 1 take to prove this ? Shall I go through the several authors in the several ages ? That were too tedious. But, which will be equally sufficient, I shall prove it from the account of one who was Episcopalian himself, a Scotsman too, and who was inferior to none in theological abilities, and is held in the greatest veneration by all of the Epis* copal communion. The person I mean, is Dr John Forbes, a Corse Divinity Professor at Aberdeen. I shall prove it from his Instructiones Historico T/ieo^ hgiar, a work, which, to give Bishop Burnet's ciia* racter of it, • * If he had been suffered to enjoy the * privacies of his retirement and study, to give us the ♦ second volume, had been the greatest treasure of • theological learning that perhaps the world has yet • seen.* The whole eighth book of the foresaid work is written on purpose to shew, that these doctrines, which Mr Khind has impugned, were the doctrines of the Catholic Church of Christ, and to answer the objections of the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians against them ; which objections are the very same with those Mr Rhind has advanced. He has com- prehended the sum of the controversy in the 12th chapter of his said 8th book, in seven questions, in which he runs the difference betwixt the faith of the Catholic Church and the opinions of the fore- said heretics. These questions will set the whole matter in a true light, and they are as follows : 1. QuesL Whether are the foreseen good things of those who are elected, their will and i'aith and good works, and perseverance in them, or any of these things, the cause for which they are elected, or a condition prerequisite in those that were to be elect- ed ? Or whether all those things in the elect are the effects of election and predestination? The Semi- l^elagians affirmed the lirst and denied the lattei*. • Preface to hit! Life of Dr Becldell. But the Catholics denied the first aad affirmed the ''Z'Ques, Whether is not tje number of the elec^ and of men predestinated by Gol to g ace and g ^ y^ from eternity, definite and Jet^j™"^^^^ ^^^^ ^hall them none shall pensh, and besides uiem u bes^ved? The Semi-Pelagians denied it. Ihe Co- " otr wiether hath God. from eternity, pre- sauuesi. >»"c ,™ Semi- Pelagians ut- terly ''f J *" '"fJ^Yhe CalMics distinguished, »n or to <^=«ruction. "« jdestinated to sin, Kf afclirt r,ro ptelestina-.d to punish- ■"'.';; «.„. Whether of the reprobate, dM GodM Sii„Pe^a»Srrfere^tet3f 'S=r SS*S«r:u' Thf«* affl^ed "^Aif Sa( Whether, of this difaence or discri- eternal, theie .^e a > , , ^j^^ Scripture, besides the most ree^^l . hath mercy upon ^'^°"^^.^7^;tf it be lawful * hardeneth whom he ^J\, and ir r,"^-^%TffirLd It 'tcSS denied it thoUcs attribute either '"J^^'^^^^^^ ^^"2 study of -r-^eleTs^^^ '^4 O'i^ %£ Tp'poli'ng this doctnne of ,, • i££ true is/ -i^die. to prea..t «^^^ ^^r d^nieTif r 'urcafcc. affirmed that it \ III sso * DEFENCE OP THE PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 265 I / was to be preached openly and in earnest, yet pru- dently and seasonably, as all divine mysteries ought to be, and with a right dividing of the word of truth. Thus far that great man. And, in confirming: these Catholic doctrines, he employs the rest of the said book : And does it mainly from the Testi-. monies of the Fathers, in which no man was better seen. And to crown all, in the 4th Chapter of the said Eighth Book, he declares, that the contrary doctrines were, by Maxentius, Petnis Diaconus, and the whole Eastern Churches with liim ; by Fulgen^ tins and the African Bishops ; and by the European Western Churches, judged heretical, destructively alien from the Catholic sense, and worthy of an ana^ ihema in case of obstinacy in them. And now what melancholy reflections must Mr Rhind make, w^hen he considers, that, as by the for- mer part of his Book, he made himself a schisma- tic ; so, by this part of it, he has made himself a most gross heretic ? When he considers, that Mr Dodwell himself has given him the lie, and that the whole Foreign Reformed Churches, our Scotch Epis- copalians, the Church of England, and the Catholic Church of Christ, have all of them declared for these doctrines, which he has rejected as fundamen- tally false and pernicious j and when he finds him- selii by the judgment of the Catholic Church through the world, enrolled amongst the worst of heretics, pronounced worthy of an atiathema^ and standing de facto excommunicated by the Church of Eng- land I That I may conclude :^ — I have heard, indeed, (though I think it but a fable), of a Protestant Church, some where on this side Nova Zembla, though I cannot now name the precipe bearing of the place, where nothing is required in law to qualify a clergy- man, but that he do not openly deny or impugn the doctrine of the Trinity. Though he does not be- lieve that, and though he publicly impugn all the other articles of Christianity, it is nothing. I grant Mr Rhind midit serve for a priest under such a constitution. But how he can be cap^^^^^^^^^^^^ as such in Britain, is more than I »«derstand - But let those who put him into orders look to that. I proceed. CHAPTER IV. WHEREIN MR RHIND'S THIRD REASON FOR SEPARAT- ING FROM THE PRESBYTERIANS, TIZ. THAT THEIR WORSHIP IS CHARGEABLE WITH FUNDAMENTAL COR- UUPTIONS AND DEFECTS AS TO THE MATTER, AND THAT IT IS VERY IMPERFECT AS TO THE MANNER, IS EXAMINED. FROM P. 148 TO P. 185. This Mr Rhind asserts, p. 149. And if it ap- pear he has proved it, I shall own his separation was lUSt Imperfections we acknowledge, as I think in mankind ought to do, even in our best per- formances. But fundamental corruptions and de- fects we refuse, and want to find them proved a^.nst us In the mean time, to separate from the boots worship, because of its corruption ; and to go oyer to the English worship as purer, looks so very like a jest, that for my heart I cannot but smile at it, as I am sure five hundred others have done before me. and twice as many, it is likely, will do after ™ Mr Rhind essays the proof of his charge in two particulars, viz. Prayers and Sacraments. 1 shall distinctly consider what he has advanced on each. DEFENCE OF TH« 'I Sect. I. Wherein Mr Rhind's Exceptions against the Preshyteriani Prayers are Examined, From p, 149 to p. 111. AoAiNST these, he excepts two things : — I. That the matter of them is corrupt and defective. II. That the manner of them is so far from being the best, that it is very imperfect. His proof of these ex- ceptions I shall consider in so many Articles. ARTICLE I. Wherein Mr Rhind's Proofs, That the Matter of the Presbyterians* Prayers is Corrupt and JJefec- five, are Considered. From p. 141i to p. 156. Foil making good this charge, first, He argues, that it must be so. Secondly, He makes an induc- ton of the particulars wherein it is so. First, He argues that it must be so. * If,' saith he, p. 14y, * their doctrine be corrupt, so must * their worship be too ; because the doctrines * which are the common subjects of their sermons, * do likewise constitute the substance of their * prayers.' The answer is easy. I have proved, in the preceding chapter, that these doctrines, which he charges as corrupt, are the doctrines of the Ca- tholic Church of Christ, believed by every Chris- tian, long before the upstart sect of the Highflyers was heard of in the world. Therefore the prayers ivhich are formed agreeably to these doctrines can- not be corrupt. Suppose now I had been preach- ing the doctrine of absolute election : After sermon 1 break out into a prayer to this purpose : *0 God we thank thee that thou hast predestinat- ed us unto the adoption of childien by Jesus Christ to thyself, according to the good pleasure of thy PRESBYTERIAN WORSHir. 267 will, to the praise and glory of thy grace, whereby thou hast made us accepted in the beloved ; and hast from the beginning chosen us to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief ot the truth. Thou mightest have designed us for vessels of wrath, as thou didst the fallen angels, and then we had been eternally undone without all ipossible remedy. There was nothing in us to move thee when we lay all together in the general heap ot mankind. It was thy own free grace and bounty that made thee to take delight in us, to chuse us from the rest, and to sever us from those many thousands in the world who shall perish everlastingly- Give us grace, we beseech thee, that we may give all diliL-ence to make our calling and election sure. This prayer is exactly formed upon the scheme ot the irrespective decrees. But is there any thing m it which any Christian may not join with ? Mr Rhind must needs say there is. In the "^ean time I must tell him, I was taught it by Wilkins, bishop of Chester, * who should have known what was sound, what corrupt doctrine, at least as well as Mr llhmd. Secondly, He makes an induction of the particu- lars wherein the Presbyterians' prayers aie corrupt or defective. Which take as follows m ten parii- f*ulars 1 '* They pray,' saith he, p. 150, «for the con- « tinuance of Presbyterian government, and bless • God for the extirpation of, and beseech iiim to . preserve this nation from, Prelacy.' But I have aheady proved that Presbytery is of divnie nistitu- tion, and thirt Prelacy is withont uU Scripture war- rant Therefore such prayers arc so lar troni being a corruption, that tiiey are a duty, even as much a duty as it is to pray, that every plant which our Heavenly Father hath not planted may be rooted up. 2 ' They thank God,' saith he fifoVJ ' for con- tinuin"- the Presbyterian doctrine. But this I have proved to be the doctrine of the gospel, and be- • Gift of Piajer, Chap, xxvlii. Eiglitli edidon. ■^■_=^ 276 DEFENCE OF THE They know there are vulgar wits under long wigs oft-times, as well as under the natural hair ; and with- in silk scarfs as well as coarse plaids. And there- fore, both in their prayers and preachings, they adapt their discourse to men of low degree ; being con- vinced of Mr Dryden's good sense, when he said. That the itraU gate isouldhe made straiteryet Were none admitted there but men of vdt. AH this, I confess, the Presbyterians are guilty of; and let Mr Rhind improve on it as far as he ever can. The rest of the charge we shall acknowledge, after hearing probation, which equal judges 1 hope will sustain as a relevant dilator. lO. In the tof place Mr Rhind objects the omis- sion of theLord'sPrayer. He does indeed bnng in this obiection in his arguings against the manner ot out prayers ; and there we shall consider it as an argu- mentfor forms. But he insists upon it likewise as a fundamental defect j and therefore I shall consider it here while treating of the matter of our prayers. Now take the objection in his own words, p. 164. ' If,' saith he, ' the Lord's Prayer be a form, which • when we pray we are commanded to use ; and it • the Presbyterians totally neglect to use it as such, « I appeal to the reader, whether they are not • « chargeable with an impious and fundamental omis- • siont and in consequence, whether all who would « not be involved in the guilt, or run the hazard ot « offering up an unacceptable, because an imperfect • worship, should not separate from them. Ihus he. For answer, .u j r The iudgment of a Church is to be gathered from her public formulas. Now in all these, the Presby- terians own it lawful to use it as a prayer. The lesser Catechism calls it a form. The larger Catechism says, • it may be used as a prayer. The Directory recommends it to be used as such. The General Assembly, 1705, recommends the observation of the Directory. Accordingly, many Ministers do use the Lord's Prayer. I myself use it sometimes ; my next -■LT- ^T I - ^^^ • PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 277 neighbour Minister does the same. His next neigh- hour (both of them genuine Presbyterians) uses it every Lord's day. The like do others in several parts of the nation. It is therefore false what Mr Rhind affirms, that the Presbyterians totally neglect to use it even in the very words thereof. But then, to make the omission of it an impious and fundamental defect, and a necessary cause of separation, is an un- cottimon stretch, which hardly any man would have ventured on, who has modesty enough to stick at any thing. And therefore I must crave leave to rea- son this matter somewhat particularly with Mr Hhind. And, In the Jlrst place I ask. Is Mr Rhind, or any of his party, sure that the Lord's prayer was not mainly intended as a pattern rather than a form ? Their confidence will indeed bear them out to assert any thing : Yet Grotius, one of the most judicious cri- tics the world has yet known, has expressly said upon the place, * that Christ did not command the * words to be recited. But that we should take the * materials of our prayers thence :* And he gives this solid reason for it, * that though it may be used * with great profit as a form, or in the very words, * yet we do not read that ever the Apostles used it « so.* Now let us hear what Mr Rhind has advan- ced to prove it a form. Firsts ' That it is a form of * prayer,' saith he, * is hence evident, because it is * conceived in the same manner as other prayers, * that is, with invocation, petitions, doxology and * concluding amen.' I answer it has all these parts in Matthew ; but it was twice prescribed upon dif- ferent occasions, and so saith Joseph Mede himself upon the subject. And when it was prescribed in Matthew, it is plain it was designed only for a pat- tern : For the precept runs thus, * after this manner * therefore pray ye.* Therefore the argument, that it is conceived there in the same manner as other prayers, is nought ; seeing it was not there design- ed as a prayer, but as a pattern. Secondly^ * We are,' saith Mr Rhind, * expressly commanded to say our imim MHa 378* BEFKXCtt OF THE « father/ &c. But it is nonsense to command us to • say a pattern, therefore we are to use it as a form.^ Thus he : I answer, Mr Rhind's former argument destroys this : For it is in Luke's gospel that w eare commanded to say * our Father,' &c. But in Luke's gospel there is neither the doxology nor the amen. Therefore it is not conceived in the same manner as other prayers, in that place where we are bid my it. Nay, Grotius is of the mind that these clauses • Which art in Heaven,' and ' Thy will be done, as • in Heaven so in earth,' and * deliver us from evil,' were not originally in Luke's gospel, but crept in- to it out of Matthew's. And he gives this reason for it, that the first clause, * which art in Heaven,' is not extant in the old Latin copies. And the second clause, * thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth, is neither extant in the old Latin copies, nor in some of the Greek copies. And it is very false what Mr Rhind alleges, that ' it is nonsense to bid us say a • pattern ;' for in every language, that I know any thing of, there are greater elipses usual than this, • after this manner,' or, * to this purpose.' And so Luke's way of speaking is very plain, * When ye « pray, say,' viz. after this manner, or, to this pur- pose. Upon the whole, seeing the Lord's Pi^yer was at least mainly intended for a pattern, which, I hope, is now tolerably evident, it is pretty hard to conceive how the omission of it as a form can be a fundamental defect. In the second place, I ask Mr Rhind and his party, if they have not observed, that the words of thd Lord's Prayer in the original are not the same in both gospels. In Matthew's we read ^•^ "V^*" ^¥^. Irt Luke's JiJ» if*" T» ««^* «^^«f. In Matthew's s^H■ ,* r^ •■ "' J -■ ■■mwvaHtlpaiiP ^»' PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP- 281 frequently praying without the Lord's Prayer, either at the beginning or ending of their prayers. Thus, as Sir Peter King has already noted,* in the heavenly prayer of Polycarpus at the stake, the Lord's Prayer is neither at beginning nor ending. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus concludes his last Book of Paedagogy, with a prayer, which neither ends nor begins with the Lord's Prayer ; and Origen, t prescribing a method of prayer, speaks not a word of the Lord's Prayer ; but advises both to begin and end with doxology, or a giving praise to God. This they would never have done, had they believed that it was fundamentally necessary to join the Lord's Prayer with their own. With what reason, then, can our Scots Episcopalians make that the sense of the precept ? But then, 2dly, The principle upon which they found this sense, is a most horrid one : For they assert, that the joining it with our own imperfect prayers, renders them acceptable before God ; as, on the other hand, the want of it makes them unacceptable. This is plain from Mr Rhind's words before cited. Now, what else is this but to turn that excellent prayer into an idolatrous charm, and to make the repetition of it supply the place of the merit and intercession of our Saviour ? I ask, now, whether the Presbyterians' omission of it, or the Episcopalians' usage of it, upon such a princi- pie, be the more accountable ? To conclude this matter :— It is true the Lord's Prayer was early used in the public assemblies of Christians. But it was not used more than once at one assembly ; not in prayers before or after ser- mon ; not at all in the Catechumen's office, but in the Eucharistical office ; and even there they did not apprehend that Christ enjoined them to use the words. And thus many other , X both of the Pro- * Enquiry into the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, Par. ii. p. 28. f De Oratione, Sect. 22. p. 134, 135. ^ i Maldonat. in Matth. vi. 9. Non his necessario verbis, sed hac aut simiU sententia— nam non Apostolos orando hw ipsis ver- I'll?* BSFIXCK OF THK tcstant and Roman communion, have understood it. So much for the exceptions against the matter of the prayers of the Presbyterians, Part of which excep- tions are manifestly false in fact, and all the rest of the things excepted against, justifiable, at least as lawful, and for the must part as duty/ PRESBYTEniAN WOKSHIP. 2SS ARTICLE IL Wherein Mr Riiixd*s Exception against the Manner of the Presbt/terians* Frai/ers is considered. From jp. 156 to p. in. Mr Rhind frequently affirms them to be highly imperfect in this respect. The only reason he gives is, that they are performed in the extemporary way, as he expresses it. For making this a higli imper- fection, he, I. Insists upon the huge disadvantages of it. IL Essays by arguments to prove the excel- lency, if not the necessity, of the liturgic way. 1. He insists upon the disadvantages of the ex- temporary way among the Presbyterians, which he lays out in three particulars. The first disadvantage is, « That a man is dls- « charged the use of all helps, and is desired to de- « pend only upon the motion of the spirit, p. 157. • The resuh of which is, that when one is not bless- • ed with the gift of prayer, he is tempted to neglect • it altogether; or if he essay it once, and finds that bis mm fuisse legimus. aliis legimus. Neqiie voluit Cbristus, ut quotiescunque oranius, ista omnia, quae hac oratione continentur, petercmus, sed ut omnia, aut aliqua, aut nihil certe his contra- lium peterem. Casaubon. Exercit. 235. Christus vero non de pfedicatione Dei laudum agit, sed ut recte monet Augustinus, de modo concipiendi preces privatas. Jansen.inLuc.il. Itaque lit difceremus in oratione, non tam de verbis, quani de rebus esse mxii, »c de spiritu orationis, diver«is verbis orationem tradidit. Vide Clorlmin OD Liturgies. • he cannot perform it to any tolerable purpose, he « . discouraged from any further f «."'P;.». ^"'^.f^ . must continue in ignorance and "•■•« !8'«" 5 t'^« • obtaining of which among the generality ot peo- « pie/ saUh he, ' is in a great measure owing to . the want of forms. Or if a person grossly ignor- « ant yet adventure to pray, his pe'tormance must ' be crowded with flat impertuiencies, substantial • nonsense and horrid blasphemies, all which is un* « avoidable in the extemporary way. lo Uus pur- pose he. p. 156, 157. Is it possible Mr Rhine cmild Ee 22 years among the Presbyterians, and not know that what he has laid down for the ^"ndation of al this, is even a transparent falsehood. W as he not sensible that every one. that could open his eyes and read EngUsh.'was in a capacity to convince hun of the grossest calumny and slander ? Do the ms- byteriaSs discharge the use ofj^l^l-'P%'VaZot either to ministers or private Christians? Was not the Directory for the public worship of God com- piled on purpose to give them both help and furni- ture ?• Is not every Minister therein exiiorted to be careful to furnish both his heart and tongue wuh farther and other materials, as shall be need ul upon S occasions ? Hath not the Geneml Assembly giv^en directions.t and suggested materials for priyae pray- e ? Nav do they not expressly recommend forms of prkyer Vth Sde and^weal/er ? X What meant he then to say, that they are discharged the use of afl helps ;^;nd desired to depend only upon he motion of the Spirit? Dul he I'lf/y-^' -^,^'^, party were given up to be .eve a h^^^^ V^^^^^^^^^^^ conhdence could he impute tne siupiu „ » and hei-ht of impiety, to the want ot forms? Does he not know, that in England, where there is no lant of them, a brutal ignorance F^-ils among the vulgar, and impieties reign ; yet, i hope, un- • See Preface to tlie Directory. r.iJnSnrffh + See them annexed to the Confess, of Fa.tl'- Edmburgh, printed by Jame. Watson, 1708. t Ibid. Sect. ». ■•H*l"' ■ '* i.umJl'' Ci^p 284 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 285 known on this side Tweed. Mr Ilhind has taken a great deal of pains to represent the gift of prayer as an unattainable thing. But hear Bishop Wilkins upon it * As for the pretended difficulty,' saith he, • * I shall, in this Discourse, make it evident, * that if it be seriously attempted, (as all religious « businesses ought to be,) it is easy to be attained « by any one that has but common capacity.' And I suppose every body who has read his Discourse, is convinced he has made his word good. The second disadvantage of extemporary prayer, is the danger, or at least the uncertainty, of the un- lawfulness of joining in it. • For suppose,' saith he, p. 157, * a man who is master of a tolerable extern- * porary faculty, is the orator ; yet, even in that case, * before he begin, ye are under an uncertainty, whe- * ther, what he shall say, be right or wrong : This < keeps the spirit in suspence. Perhaps the third or « fourth petition is dubious or unsound, which ye * cannot offer up to God. Perhaps the next ye hear, * is flat or impertinent, and therefore grating to a * man of sense.' To this purpose he. Is not this a pretty way of arguing by — Perhapses ? I need not spend time upon such chimerical stuff. Take the answer from Bishop Wilkins in the place last cited. * Whereas,' saith he, * it is commonly objected by « some, that they cannot so well join in an unknown * form, with which they are not before-hand ac- « quainted. I answer, that is an inconsiderable ob- * jection, and does oppose all kind of forms that are * not publicly prescribed. As a man may, in his « judgment, assent unto any divine truth delivered * in a sermon, which he never heard before ; so may « he join in his affections unto any holy desire, « which he never heard before. If he who is the * mouth of the rest, shall, through imprudence, de- * liver that which we cannot approve of, God does * not look upon it as our prayer, if our desires do • Gift of Prayer, Chap. 11. p. 10, 11. « not say Amen to it.' Thus he. And nothing could have been said more patly to the present ob- jection. The third disadvantage attending extemporary prayer, is, * That even where there is nothing amiss « in the matter of the prayer, yet the hearer can- * not at once exercise that seriousness and intention * with respect to God, and that attention which is * necessary to catch what drops from him who prays.' Thus Mr Rhind, p. 158. But this is an objection of the same nature with the former ; an objection to which his own whimsical imagination is both fa- ther and mother. Though Mr Rhind pretends he cannot do both at once, yet I believe every man else in the world finds it not only possible, but easy to do. When there is nothing amiss in the matter of the prayer, which is his supposition, a man must be very glib of the tongue, if my thoughts cannot hold pace with him ; and the intenseness of my af- fections will be so far from being a hindrance, that it will be a help to the attention of my thoughts. But now are not all these imaginary disadvantages as frequent and as obvious in the liturgic way. For what if a man have not a common prayer-book, or cannot read, or has not the form by heart, all which are cases that must frequently happen ? Must he not quite neglect prayer at home ? And is it not impossible for him to exercise both attention and inattention at once when he comes to church ? Is not the looking upon the book and reading, a greater diversion to the affections than any thing that can be mentioned in the. extemporary way? Besides, does not Mr Ilhind, who is so well acquainted with the animal economy, know, that when one is accus- tomed to a form, there is the greatest danger of fall- ing into lip-service and formality , and the greatest difficulty in exercising either attention or inatten- tion ? It is certainly so. Every man knows it who has tried it ; and Bishop Wilkins, who was a great '1t"*Wl| ftWl 286 DEf 1N€E OF THE '^^HP ^H"^ ^1^" liliiliwopher, as well as a great divine, has observed it.* • In this case/ saith he, « it should be specially • remembered, that in the use of such prescript • forms, to which a man hath been accustomed, he « ought to be narrowly watchful over his own heart, • for^'fear of the lip-service and formaUty, which in • such cases we are more especially exposed unto/ Thus fie. So much for the pretended disadvantages that attend extemporary prayer, which, I thinkj are pretty real in the liturgic way. II. Mr Rliind essays, by arguments, to prove the excellency of the liturgic way. And he argues it to be the best : 1. From the nature of the thing. 2. From universal practice. 3. From the approba- tion of Heaven, both in the Old and New Testa- ment. 4. From the usage of the primitive and an- cient church. And, lastlif. From the practice of the reformed churches. And then he concludes all with answering the objection, That forms stint the Spirit. n 1 T First, He argues for the excellency of the liturgic t^ay from the nature of the thing, p. 159, 160. « God,' saith he, * ought to be worshipped in the • best manner possible.' It is granted. A form of worship, subsumes he, which always presupposes fore-thought, is incomparably better than the extem- fiorary way, which requires little or none at all. Who told him that the extemporary way requires little or no fore-thought ? Did ever the Presbyte- rians teach so ? Have they not in their Directory enjoined each minister ' to stir up the gifts of Christ « in himself, and, by meditation as well as by ob- • serving the ways of divine providence, and other • methods, to furnish himself with materialsof prayer? Does not every Presbyterian who treats of that subject enjoin the same ? Have they ever taught otherwise than Bishop Wilkins himself has taught in this case,t viz. « That, generally, it is both la\y- • All and necessary to prepare ourselves, as for this • Ubi iupra, p. 9. t ^*»* •"?"» P' *^' mESBYTERIAN WdRSHII^ « this gift in general, so, for every particular act < of it, by premeditating, if we have leisure for « it, both matter and order and words : And that, « though it be a gift of the spirit, yet it is not to * be expected, that it should suddenly be infused « into us without any precedent endeavours of our < own.' Again, how shall he convince us, that the liturgic way always pre^supposes fore-thought ? It is true it did so in the compilers; but it is well e^ nough known, that it did not so in the users. How often is it seen, that while they are crying. Be mer- ciful to us miserable sinners, they are, as a late exceU lent author has told us, ogling their sweet-hearts in the next i)ew^ ? And does not every body feel it| that when they know before-hand what is to be said, they are very rarely attentive to it. But let us hear him proceed. • If it be best,' saith he, * to * have the prayer formed before I pronounce it, * what is the harm though I transcribe it from my * memory ?' None at all that I know of. * Nay,' saith he, ' will I not be so much the more sure of it, if * I do this?' Certainly. ¥o\\ htera scripta matietf and the pocket is oft-times a surer repository than the memory. ' And if I may safely write it,' adds he, * why not read it too ? 1 know no reason why he may not, a hundred times over if he pleases. And yet it is very possible he may, all this while, not pray it once over : For, I cannot see why reading a prayer, where there is no more, should be called praying, any more than why reading a prophecy should be called prophesying. But now to dis- course this business of reading prayers. 1 ask Mr Rhind, where does he find, in the first place, that prayers were read in the primitive Church ? Is there the least vestige of it for several hundreds of years after Christ ? Do not TertuUian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactan- tius, Dionysius Alexandrinus, all tell us, that the antient Christians in prayer lifted up their eyes to Heaven. ♦ Does not Chrysostom observe from • Sec Sir Peter King, ubi supra. Part IL Chap, ii . S«ct. Si aad ClarksoQ on Liturgies^ p. 9. &c. x8o D£V'£NCS OF THE PRESEYTEUIAN WORSHIP. 289 Christ's posture in prayer, expressed John xvii. 1. * That thereby we are taught when we pray, to « lift up both the eyes of body and mind ?' Is not the Emperor Constantine represented on his coins and medals in a praying posture, yet not reading on a book, but with eyes lift up to heaven ? • Does not Augustine intimate as much, when he tells us, upon John xvii. 1. that Christ so prayed, as mind- ing to teach us how we should pray ? Where is now the warrant from antiquity for reading prayers? 2dhf^ Is there any more warrant for it from Scrip- lure? Did the humble publican, though in the Temple, read his prayers ? Or did the Pharisee pray by a form ? Did the disciples, when catched in the storm, pull out their common-prayer book, and read the forms to be used at sea ? Did Jonah or the ma- riners do it ? Is there so much as a whisper of this in the Bible ? No indeed. A sense of present dan- ger is worth twenty common-prayer books ; accord- ing to that known saying, qui nescit orare discat navi- gare^ Who would learn to pray, let him go to sea. And it is a plain case, no man wants a prayer book, who is in a frame for praying : And he that is not in such a frame, may indeed read prayers, but I do not think he can be said to pray. But let us go on with Mr Rhind's argument. « If * that prayer,' saith he, * which I form before hand, * be better than that which I utter off hand, then * certainly the form prepared by the joint endea- * vours of many, (allowing each of them to be nei- * ther better nor wiser than myself,) is by great odds * preferable to my single endeavour.* Here Mr Rliind and I differ. For I have seldom yet obser- ved a composure by several hands so well done, as that wherein only one was concerned. And the rea- son is evident, that that which is done by one, is usu- ally all of a piece ; whereas, that which has many. hands at the doing of it, generally makes but a lin- gey-woolsey kind of stuff. Besides, though a prayer * Eiiseli, de Vita CanstAQtinii Lib. IV, Cliap. 15. formed before hand, either by tnyself or others, may be more pointed as to its wording, and have more of a logical method in it; yet, it is very possible, that a- brupt and independent sentences, breaking from a contrite heart, and a soul flaming with the love of Je- sus, may be more acceptable to God, and more pro- fitable to myself. From all this reasoning, Mr Rhind concludes, that thatform which the Churchhasprovided,(he means the English Liturgy,) has unspeakable advantages above any one man's performance. But herein Mr Rhind's taste and mine differ, as much about the preference of forms, as our judgments do about the use of them. For I am perfectly convinced, that the devotions of the author of the whole Duty of Man, or Symon Pa- trick's Devotions, or Jeremy Taylor's Devotions, or even Dorington's Devotions, are incomparably bet- ter than those of the liturgy ; and I wonder how any man that has read both, can make the least doubt of it : Pray what should make the English li- turgy so preferable ? He answers, * because it is the * result of the wisest council and most mature deli- * beration, — the effect of the united endeavours of * men holy and wise, who no doubt implored and * obtained the assistance and direction of the bless- * ed spirit, in compiling a form, which they were * persuaded was the best and most acceptable man- « nerof worshippingGod.' Butl5/,HasMrRhindcon- sidered how small the part of the compilers was? They did indeed tack the several parts together; but the ma- terials were formed to their hand. The lessons out of the Old and New Testament and Apocrypha, — the Psalms to be read monthly, — the Epistles and Gospels, —the passages of Scripture at the beginning of morn- ing and evening prayer, — the Lord's prayer so of- ten repeated, the Venite Ejcultemus^ — the Benedictus, —the Benedicite, — the Jubilate Deo^ — the Cantate DominOy — the Magnificat^ — the Nunct DemittiSy — the Deus Misereatw\ — the Litany^ — the Ten Com' mandmentSy — the Three Creeds^ — the Te Deum^ were all of them formed long before the compilers of the I !l 290 defe:<;ce of the PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 291 liturgy were born. The collects are generally otrf of the breviary ; the prayers in the standing offices out of the Missal and RituaU Abstract these parts from the liturgy, and I suppose the compiler's work will appear to be very easy. 2%, Why did Mr Ehind say, that the authors of the liturgy compiled a form, which, they were persuaded, was the best and most acceptable manner of worshipping God ? Does he not know that all history contradicts this ? They did not so much as aim at that which was in itself best, but at what the times could best bear, with any colour of reformation ; and therefore, com- ?osed the liturgy so as was most likely to gain the ^apists, and to draw them into their Church Com>- munion, by varying as little as well as they could from the Romish forms before in use. This, King Edward ingenuously told the Devonshire rebels. • Though,* saith he, * it seemeth to you a new ser- • vice, yet indeed, it is no other but the old, the • self-same words in English that were in Latin : • For nothing is altered but to speak with know- • ledge, that which was spoken with ignorance, only • a few things taken out, so fond, that it had ' been a shame to have heard them in English.' Thus he. • And indeed the reformers acted pru- dently, according to the then circumstances, in striving what they could to gain the Papists : But to go on in the same method, now after a hundred and fifty years experience of its unsuccessfulness ; and when, it is plain, that the altering it would gain the dissenters ; this conduct, I must needs say, ar- gues abetter memory than a judgment : and shews a much greater regard to the Popish than the Re- formed interest. Srffy, AVhat assistance of the spirit was it which the compilers implored and obtained ? It was not assistance as to the matter. It was not assistance as to the form : For Mr Rhind has express- ly ssad, p. 175, ' that our prayers are not dictated by the Spirit either as to matter or form.' It is then * Holinsheci*t History, Vol. III. p. 1005. i beyond my comprehension to understand wherein they were assisted ; for, to say that they were assist- ed in tacking the several parts together, were to as- sign too low an office to the Holy Ghost. It will not be unpleasant, before I leave this ar- gument, to consider the motives which, Mr Rhind alleges, prevailed with the first compilers and im- posers of the liturgy, to restrict ministers and peo- ple to the use thereof. ' They were sensible,' saith he, p. 161, « of the dis- « advantages of the extemporary way, even in their * own experience. They observed, moreover, that < the ignorant, that is, the gross of mankind, could * not, and, therefore, did not pray at all j — that the * gifted brethren and their hearers too often mis- * took the warmth and quickness of their fancy, * and the readiness of expression, for the dictates of * the Spirit, which swelled the former with a high « conceit of themselves, (a frame of mind of all o- < thers the most unsuitable in devotion,) and made < the latter lie against the Holy Ghost : Besides, they * found that this liberty which men were allowed, « sometimes tempted them to vent their new and * dangerous notions as the inspirations of the Holy * Ghost ; and therefore, the Church, to assist the * weakness of the one, and to check the vanity i,nd * presumption of the other, restricted both to the * use of forms.' Thus he. A very pointed speech this ! But is there the least footstep in history to support it? Is there the least hint given that the compilers and imposers of the liturgy proceeded upon these motives ? Nay, is it not certain that they had not these motives to proceed on ? Were the extemporizers so early, as that the ill effects of their extemporizing appeared even before the compiling of the Liturgy ? Is it not certain, that till the compiling of the Liturgy, and the Primer that went before it, the people still worshipped according to the old Popish forms ? Yes. Every person that knows any thing of the history of the lituri^v, knows all this to be true. Is it not T 2 •. BEFENCK OF THE Strange, then, that Mr Rhind should abuse his rea- der with a whole string of fictions ? I cannot but heartily wish, that our Scotch prelatic writers would consult one another before they publish their pro- ductions. For, if Mr Rhind is right, he has quite defeated Dr South, Mr Calder, the late vindicator of the fundamental charter, and I know not how many more of them, who make Faithful Gumming and Thomas Heath, a Jesuit, the first authors of ex- temporary prayer in Queen Elizabeth's reign, about twenty years after the compiling of the liturgy. Plainly, the other writers of the party make extem- porary prayer an invention to put the liturgy out of request after it was formed. But Mr Rhind makes extemporary prayer to have been first, and the li- turgy to have been compiled and imposed, on pur- pose to remead the ill effects of it, and to prevent them for the future. Did ever any party before Wow thus cold and hot ? Was ever party so doom- ed, as they are, to contradict one another, or to blurt out what comes first, without regarding what they say or whereof they affirm. Some perhaps, may allege, in excuse of Mr Rhind, that he meant all this of the Scots Liturgy, sent down by King Charles L, anno 1637. No. Through all his book, he does not so much as once mention that Liturgy ; the English Liturgy he does, and sets it in opposition to the Westminster Direc- tory, p. 174. Besides, there was no need of the as- sistance of the Spirit in composing that : For, ex- cept in some things wherein it comes nearer to Po- pery, and some few other things utterly indifferent, it was copied verbatim from the English Liturgy. And as they did not need, so the event plainly shewed, that they had not the assistance of the Spi- rit either in composing or imposing of it. It was imposed without law by the arbitrary will of the Prince ; and I am sure the Spirit of God never as- sists men in illegal practices. And for the com- poser of it, it is known Archbishop Laud was the fa- ther of it, with the consent of some others no whit PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 29S . f # better than himself; and that common prayer proved indeed the common fire of both nations. « We shall find them,' (the Bishops) saith the ex. cellent Lord Falkland in his forecited speech, * to * have kindled and blown the common fire of both * nations ; to have both sent and maintained that * book ; of which the author, no doubt, hath long * since wished, with Nero, Utinam nescissem literas ! * And of which, more than one kingdom hath cause * to wish, that when he wrote that, he had rather burned a library, though of the value of Ptole- my's/ Plainly, the great intendment of that book was a conformity with England, by which we were never much gainers in former times; though no doubt we shall be so, now that we are upon the footing of an union, so legally founded, and whose articles have hitherto been so sacredly maintained. But enough of this argument. Secondly^ Mr Rhind argues for the excellency of the Liturgic way from universal practice. ' It has « been,' saith he, p. 161, * undeniably the practice * of all men, in all nations and ages, (if we shall * only except these who truly were, or falsely pre* * tended to be inspired,) to address the true God, ^ or their supposed deities, by certain forms.' Mr Khind is too positive. For as he cannot but know that this has been denied, so, without the spirit of prophecy, I can foretel, it will be denied to the end of the world. * The practice of all men,' saith he, in all nations and ages ?* Why, first, did our first parents, in the estate of innocence, worship by forms ? No man ever dreamed it ; and I think Mil- ton would charm any body from the belief of it, by his incomparably beautiful lines, wherein he des- cribes their morning devotions, which they paid to their Maker at the door of their bower. • Lowly they bow'd adoring, and began Their orisons, each morning duly paid la various stile, for neitlier various stile i * Paradise Lost, Book V. 1. 144* ■ I l l < ■ 294 DEFENCE OF THE Nor holy rapture wanted they to praise Their Maker, in fit strains pronounced or sung Unmeditated, such prompt eloqiffence Flow'd from their lips in prose or numerous verse . More tuneable than needed lute or harp To add more sweetness. ■ This was the original practice, and it is to that we ought to aspire. 2%, Did any of the other ante- diluvian patriarchs worship by forms ? Not a word of this in the Scripture, and that is the only book which gives us the history of that time. It is, in- deed said. Gen. iv. 26. * Then began men to call • upon the name of the Lord/ But, waving other senses of that text. Bishop Patrick tells us, that a great number of the Jewish writers, with whom Mr Selden joins in his De Diis Syrts, and the Arabic interpreter, expound it thus : « Then was there pro- « fanation, by invoking the name of the Lord,' viz. by giving it impiously to creatures. Whether that be the exact right sense and translation or not, is not to our present purpose ; yet thence we may gather, that it is impossible ever to hammer a liturgy out of it Sdly, Did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any other, down to Moses, use a liturgy, or worship by forms ? No. There is not the least intimation thereof in the Scripture. Here, then, we find 2000 years ; that is, the third part of the world's age fully spent, with- out so much as a hint of forms. How, then, could it be the practice, in all ages, to worship by them ? Yet, further, 4/%, Is there any hint of forms for the space of five hundred years after, viz. from Mo- ses to David ? It is true, we read of a form of words used upon some solemn occasions, such as the Priest's blessing the people, Numb. vi. and the thanksgiving at the offering of the first fruits, Deut. xxvi. ; and when the ark went forward or rested, Numb. x. — But, that there was a stated form for their daily ser- vice, there is a deep silence in the Scripture ; which is a certain argument, that there was none, seeing the Scripture is so minute in observing particulars of much less moment. It is hardly to be thought, that rRESBYTERIAN WOIHSHIP. 295 Jthe Scripture, which noticed almost every pin in the tabernacle, and every. fringe and plait in the priest's vestments, would have omitted the form of words to be used in tlie daily service, if any such had been prescribed. _ As there is no mention of any liturgy among Cxod s peculiar for so long a time ; so, I believe, it is as plain that there was none used elsewhere. Homer, in his IJiad, is the most ancient, authentic, and ju- dicious witness extant, of the devotions of the Pa- gans, both Greeks and Barbarians. He hardly ever brings forth his heroes to fight, or leads the armies into the field, but he sets them a-praying ; and in- deed he makes them pray very well, according to the then theology. Yet he never makes tlie parti- cular prayers of the heroes, nor eveo the public prayers of the army, such as any fbrjn directed, but such as their preseiit circumstances suggested : And Homer knew the rules of decorum better than to have made them pray extempore^ if it had been the then custom to pray by forni. Thirdbfy He argues for the preference of the liturgic way from heaven's approbation of it, both under the Old and New Testament, p. 162. Well, where is this approbation to be found. * Why,' saith he, * what else are the greatest part of * the Psalms but forms of prayer and praises, * which were composed for, and used in the service ' of the Temple V Right. And the Presbyterians make use of them to tliis day in their public wor- ship, as much, perhaps more, than ever th« Jews did. So tiiat, thus far we are for forms as much as they. And it is a most horrid and gross calumny, that the Presbyterians assert the unlawfulness of set forms. I desire the reader to advert to thi% because, not only Mr Rhind, but his whole fellow writers charge them with it, without so much as offering at proof of it. The restricting either ministers or people to forms, to pray so and no jotherwise, they avow to be impious tyranny : But, that forms are in themselves unlawful, they never \\ 296 D£P£NCB OP THE T assert — Besides, it is ridiculous to argue from in^ spired forms to Iiuman composures. * But,* adds Mr Rhind, ' the Jews used forms of their own * composure in the synagogue, where our Lord was * so often present, and yet he never declared a- * gainst them.' But, Ut, Why did not Mr Rhind point us to where these forms might be found ? There is not the least mention of them in the four Gospels, * The curious/ saith he, * may consult them in the * original Hebrew, or as they are translated into * the more known languages.' But why did he mot name the book ? Every body knows that many of their pretended ancient forms of devotion are mere forgeries ; — and their modern forms are ridiculous in the last degree. 2%, Why has he not prov- ed that these synagogue forms were imposed, and that such as officiated were restricted to them? Without this his argument signifies nothing. 3%, Was every thing lawful which our Lord did not declare against ? By the law of God, the High Priest- hood was fixed in the eldest of Aaron's family. In Christ's time, it was set to sale in the most mer- cenary manner* Caiaphas was both sacrilegious and an usurper. But where did Christ declare against either the person or the practice ? * But,' urges he, * Christ himself prescribed a form, which is a * precedent, whereas, for the extemporary way, * fhere is neither precept nor warrantable example < in Scripture.' Is not this strange confidence ? Me there no examples of prayer in the New Tes- lament but the Lord's Prayer ? Is there the least Jiint that any one of them was made by a form? Is there the least hint that the Lord's Prayer itself was used as a form ? Does he think none of the prayers in the New Testament were warrantable ? Let him find, if he can, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revela- tion, so much as any one prayer made by a form, and I will quit him the cause. Even the Lord's Prayer itself, when it was prescribed by Christ, yet fM not put up to God by him -, nay, indeed he ■%«««\,^ PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 2j97 could not put it up to God-^he could not say, Foir- give us our sins, because he had no sins to be ft>r- given. And as for his prayer in the garden, will any man say that Christ followed a form in it? Nay, indeed, is not an agony incompatible with a form ? A form is too cold a kind of service for such a violent exercise of the soul. Besides, it is certain that Christ did not thrice repeat the same prayer in the same very words. Nor does the Scrip- ture assert any such thing as has been lately made out * beyond possibility of reply. And to make an argument for stated and prescribed forms, as Mr Rhind does, p. 173, and his brethren common- ly do, from the Apostles using frequently the satne form of blessing, is below even meanness itself^ The Apostle Paul, himself, does not always use the very same words, and the Apostles Peter and John differ in their words both from him and from one another. Suppose they had all three used the same words always, it could not have so much as the semblance of an argument for a liturgy. Fourthly^ He argues for the Liturgic way, from the usage of it in the primitive and ancient Churchy * Certain stated forms,' saith he, p. 166, * being then * universally used in the most solemn administra- ^ tions.' It were some comfort to have to do with an adversary, who at least pretended to proof; but, to be obliged still to dispute against mere asser- tion, is the most irksome thing in the world. Our Episcopal Liturgists, a considerable while ago, gave advertisement to the nation, t that they were to rcr print a body of liturgies, to shew, (I keep their own words), * that in all churches and ages of Christi- * anity, liturgies have been used.' They were in- stantly taken up on this, t and desired to begin at the right end, and to publish the liturgies of the three first centuries, which would be a more pre- • See Calder'g Ans. to the I. Dialogue Examined, p. 36, 37. \ Scots Courant, Number 1087- % See Letter to a Friend conccniiiig Mr Caldcr's Kcturn, p< IS. m ) i 298 DEFENCE OF THE mailing argument with the Presbyterians, than the liturgies of ten centuries immediately back from ourselves can be. But nothing of this have they done; and I am very well assured it cannot be done. They are so far from being able to give us the liturgies of all Churches, that I here defy them to give us the liturgy of any one Church, through the broad earth, during that period. But this is the ordinary politic of the writers of that side, to gull their lay friends with promises, of what every man in the world, who knows any thing of these matters, knows to be impossible to be performed. Certainly the Lord's Supper is the most solemn of all the Christian administrations ; and if prescribed forms had been used any where, they would be most like- ly to be found there. The Liturgical party, then, is desired, as they value the reputation of their judge- ment or learning, and as they would not be held for meer quacks and mountebanks, to publish the pre- scribed forms that were used in the administration of the Lord's Supper for the first three centuries : Nay, to make their task easier, to prove that there were prescribed forms used in the administration of it. In the mean time let the reader say, what un- paralleled confidence it was in Mr Rhind, to boast of universal usage, and yet not to adduce so much as one small instance for the proof of it. But there is a people in the world that make lies their refuge, and therefore we are not to wonder at it. Lastly^ he argues from the practice of the reform- ed churches p. 1 67. It is very true the reformed churches have their Liturgies. But I have already • proved, that the Scots were not restricted to Knox's liturgy, but allowed to use their own freedom. The like is plainly observable in the Belgic, French, Geneva and German liturgies. Nay, some of the foreign liturgies are not so much liturgies as direc- tories. Such is the Liturgia Tigurina^ published by Lavater. The Reformers found it necessary, in the beginning of the Reformation, both upon the ac- • Sec before, p. 9, ^mm^mim^ PllESBYTEllIAN WORSHIP. 299 count of people's ignorance, being newly come out of the Popish darkness, and upon account of their having been accustomed to forms, to continue on in the same method of worship ; and things not being yet come to a settlement in England, and the clergy being exceeding weak, Calvin, in his letter to the Protector, advised a stated form of prayers. But that, when things are brought into a regular channel, and the church furnished with able mi- nisters, they should yet be bound up from praying to God as his Spirit should direct them, and as the emergent necessities of their people might require, the reformers never intended, Calvin never advised. On the contrary, immediately after he has advised the Protector to settle a stated form of prayers, he excites him, by all means to seek out for able mi- nisters, that so the native vigour of the gospel might not languish through occasion of that political set- tlement.* So much for Mr Rhind's arguments for the Liturgic way, which this nation, I am sure, has no reason to be fond of, when it is remembered that we never knew in earnest, from the first dawning of the Reformation, what war, confusion, and bloodshed meant, till a certain headstrong party would needs impose it upon us in an arbitrary man- ner, and restrict the nation to it, not only without reason or argument, but even without shadow of law. _ , He proceeds next, p. 169, &c. to answer the ob- jection against restricting people to forms, viz. that they stint the Spirit. And in answer to this, he ab- solutely denies that the Spirit of God dictates the substance and manner of prayer. A doctrine hi- therto, I believe, unheard-of among Christians. For, ♦ Sic igitur statum esse catechismum oportet, statam sa- cramentorum administrationem, publicam item precum for- mulara, Sed non hoc eo pertinet ut istius politici ordinis m Ecclesia occasione, vigor ille nativus praedicationis Evangelii ullo modo consenescat. In illud potius incumbendum est ubi, ut idonei et sonori Buccinatoreg conquirantur. — Calv. Ep. ad Protect. Angliae. ,'i' soo DEFENCE OF THE it h one of the peculiar titles of the Holy Ghost to be styled the Spirit of supplication, because of that special influence which he hath in the bestowcriptui e expressly requires the positive qualifications ot taitU ana repentance. Yea, the Scots Episcopal Liturgy supposes these qualifications even in infants. 1 hus, in the Catechism : , i ,• j > ' Q. What is required of persons to he baptized I • Ans. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin : and faith, whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in the sacrament. ' Q. Why then are infants baptized, when, by rea- son of their tender age, they cannot perform them ? « Ans. Yes : They do perform them by their sure- ties, who promise and vow them both, in their names : which, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.' . ^ . . . r Thus also it was in the English Liturgy : but af- ter the Restoration, they altered it, and dashed out the word perform in the beginning ot the answer to the last question. And they had good reason to do • Omne nefas, omnemgue mali purgamine caiuam Credebant nostri toUere posse Se/ies. GrtBcia principium maris fuit : ilia nocenfes Impia lustratos ponere facta putat. Ah nimiumfaciles, qui tristia crimtiia cadu .,.. „ Fluminea toUi posse putatit aqua— Ovid, Fast Lib. Jl. f Instruct. Hist. Theol. Lib. x. Cap. yI.— xi. t Can. vi. De Sacramentis in Gener«. |lWlli ■ ii gi. ■«»■■. The first is of Hopkins, late Bishop of Londonderry, in his sermon upon it. Having narrated that com- ment upon it which Mr Rhind has given us, he adds, ♦ but this opinion is unwarrantable, and contrary to ♦ the received judgment of the church in the pri- * mitive times, who, if they had thought the bap- ♦ tismal regeneration was indispensibly necessary to * salvation, would not certainly have stinted and * confined the administration of it only to two times ♦ of the year, Easter and Pentecost, thereby to bring • upon themselves the blood of their souls that * should in that interim liave died without baptism.' Thus he. The other is Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exe- ter, in hisjetter to the Lady Honoria Hay, just before cited on the margin. Throughout all that epistle, which I recommend to the reader's perusal, he dis- putes with the greatest force of reason against that opinion, of the damnation of infants dying without baptism, and in terms called it, • The hard sentence * of a bloody religion.' All this doctrine of the damnation of infants dy- ing without baptism, is founded upon another false doctrine licked up by Mr Rhind, viz. That the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that the very act of baptism carries always with it an inward rege^ neration, and that none can have the spirit without or before baptism. This is plainly contrary to the whole tenor of the Scripture, and though it was too early entertained by some of the Fathers, yet it is certain it was not the received doctrine of the pri- mitive church ; as, besides many particular testimo- nies that might be adduced, will appear from these three general considerations. Ist, It was a very prevailing custom among them to delay their baptism till they were in ea^tre- mis. In some indeed this proceeded from a tinc- ture of the Novatian heresy : But others, for in- stance, Constantine the Great, who was no Nova- tian, delayed it upon other considerations. But now, if Christians had believed that they could not have the spirit, nor be internally regenerated, nor be members of Christ or the children of God, till ««!ailiBii BEFKNXE OF THK 1 * ■ Aejr were made such in baptism, and that ther •hoiild certainly become such in baptism ; woulj all the world have been able to persuade them to delay it ? It is very hard to tliink so. 2<%, The same appears from the history of the Catecl umens. During that state they were pobat,one-s, not only as to their knowledge, but Jikewise then- piety and manners; and were obli-red. before tiiey cou.d be admitted to baptism, to live moral evidence of the grace of God in their hearts • in a word, to have every thing in Christianity, but the solemn investiture, which both confirmed what they had, and entitled them to further degrees. 3rf/y Though infant baptism was still allowed as lawful m the Catholic church, yet it did not uni- versally obtain for several centuries; so that, (if I am not much mistaken,) the necessity thereof was not asserted before the council of Carthage, in the year 418. Certainly, had Christians believed, that the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that we cannot be spiiituallyregenerated without it, or before It, and that, m the very act of it, we are spiritually regenerated, they would never have omitted it. I do m)t adduce this to justify them in that omis- sion, but only thereby to shew that Mr Rhind'e doctrine was not the belief of tlie primitive church as he without proof alleges. * In a word, Ikith and repentance are pre-required to baptism 111 adult persons at least. If they can have iaith and repentance, without the spirit and spiritual regeneration, which is riot obtained (a& they say) but in and by baptism, I do not see why they may not go to heaven, without the spirit or spiritual regeneration. For, I am sure, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jtsus Christ, IS the sum of the gospel. But enough of this tor this time. 27«>rf|^ Mr Rhind objects, « That the Confession • of l^aith, whereof some doctrines are dubious, * seme impious and false, is the creed into which •the Presbyterians baptize.' I answer, 1st, That however dubious, false and impious these doctrine* >x \ PRESBYTEIUAN WORSHIP. S17 are, yet I have already proved them to be the doc- trines of the Cathoh'c Church of Christ. 2dlj/, It is false that the Confession of Faith is the creed in- to which they baptize. They baptize into the belief of the Scriptures of the Old and NevvTestament, and on- ly declaratively assert their Confession of Faith to be agreeable thereto. Sdli/^ Suppose they did baptize into their Confession of Faith ; why is that not as lawful as baptizing into the Apostle's creed ? Are they not both human composures? Or does he dream that the Apostles themselves were the au- thors of it ? But this only ad hominem. For my own part I assert, that it is unlawful to baptize into the belief of any human composure otherwise than as I have explained above. Lastly^ He objects, * That the genuine Presby- * terians press the obligation of the solemn league * and covenant as a necessary condition of the * child's admission to baptism.' It is denied, and Mr Rhind is challenged to prove it. I affirm, far- ther, that there is no Presbyterian Minister in the nation who will refuse to baptize in the terms of the Directory, among which terms, there is not so much as mention of the solemn league and covenant. Mr Khind is challenged to disprove this if he can. So much for baptism. I proceed next to consider his objections, relat- ing to the other sacrament, viz. THE lord's supper. As to this he objects upon, I. The infrequency of it among the Presbyterians. II. The indecency wherewith they celebrate it. III. The hard terms upon which they admit to it. IV. That it is in- deed no sacrament at all as dispensed by them. Of these in order. I. He objects upon the infrequency of the Lord's supper among the Pjesbyterians. In the Presbyte- rian communion, saith he, p. 182, « my lot might fall • in a place where the Holy Eucharist would not be * administered once in a dozen of yean.' For an- OlO DEFEKCE OP THE swer, 1st, Has he given instance of any sucl. place ? No, not so much as one. 2dljf, Suppose lie had gi'- ven one, txvo, three, nay even a score of instances were the constitution to be charged with that? Ihere are, no doubt, careless ministers among the nnntrr""'"'^'^'.'"-''" '''^'' communionsT but none but a mean mahcious soul will load the whole body With the defects of a few. 3%. Was the Episco W •[F'/"''?^*i^"' '"^'S" ^^^^'■e the Revolution. Jess guilty than the Presbyterians are ? I am content !!;« .r' ^'^ trial through the nation. And, to bc- gm the work ; vvuhm the Presbytery of Dumbarton, wnerel serve, there are seventeen parishes. I af- firm that in these seventeen parishes taken com- plexly, the better to mend the worse, the commu. nion has been celebrated three times oftener within thfl f ^? ^^"""^ ■^^ ^yP^^ t''^» ^t was during the whole twenty-eight years under the Episcopal reign before the Revolution. 4/%, Is the Church S"?n ?h' '° "^'"^ ^.' W'"^ " Sone over, inno- Bkloi Jl^'/"''''"'^';- ."T 1^^ Wetenhall, late iiishop of Kihnore, m his book, entitled, « Due fre- quency of the Lord's Supper,' dedicated to her Majesty, and printed at Edinburgh, 1706. ' Amongst * the laws of our church (saith he in his Dedica- . S nh -r^ 'M!°"^ ^^'■''^P' """"^ excellent and . S^!L 'r'- *,'''". '^""'^ *°"^'''"S the Lord's than the rubricks which enjoin due frequency of It ; and the neglect is not only in cormtru parishes, but even m some greater churches.' Thus the Bishop. Why then would Mr Rhind leap out of the frymg-pan into the lire ? Why would he charge the Presbyterians with that whereof his brethren, both in Scotland and England, have been so notori- Ty ^".i ^ . ^"' ^" .™P"^ent way of writing is authors *'^"**^t^"«'''= °f tfie modern Episcopal T „li'. ^i "''J^''-' "P?"! *''^ '"decency wherewith the i^rd s Supper is celebrated amoijg the Presbyte- nans. Wherein lies this indecencv ? « Why ' saith rBESBYTERIAN WOnSIIIF. 319 i' "> Hw he, p. 182, « the convocation has more of the con- * fusion of a fair, than of the order and decency of * a religious assembly. And how can it otherwise * be, when they not only allow, but encourage, on * these occasions, such rendezvouses of the promis- * cuous rabble, who desert their own churches, to * the great hindrance of their devotion, who com- * municate, and scandal too, when they see so many ' professed Christians neglect their Lord's express * command of keeping up the memorial of his death * and passion for them.' For answer, l5/, It is true, communicants have been very numerous among the Presbyterians ever since the revolution. Not only the inhabitants of the parish in which the communion is celebrated, but many from the neighbouring parish- es, attested by their respective ministers, have usual- ly joined in it; but is the numerousness of communi- cants either a fault or an indecency ? So far from it, that could the whole Christian church communicate at once, it would be so much the more of the nature of a communion, and tend so much the more to the honour of our blessed Saviour. But this objection of Mr Rhind's proceeds from silliness, or, which is the same thing, from envry ; because, during the Episco- pal Government, in many places, the minister and his family, with the sexton and his, and perhaps two or three more, made up the whole communicants. 2rf^, It is true, likewise, that there are many others presentoft-times besides those thatcommunicate. But where is the harm of this? Does it hinder the devo- tion of the communicants, that others are looking on them ? Is it not rather an encouragement upon them to carry themselves with the more solemn gravity ? Or how can the presence of such as do not communicate be a scandal to those that do ? For though they do not communicate at that time, it cannot infer a neglect of our Lord^s command, see- ing people are not at all times in a frame for com- municating. And when a minister comes to assist his neighbour minister in dispensing the communion, is it either fault or scandal tor his people to follow 2 8$^0 BFr£XCI or THE h.m where they are furnished with sermon ? Is not this better than that they should loiter idly at home all the Lord s day, wluch would be both a sin in f^n^^ru ^''^^ '^^i^*' ^^ ^^'^"'-^ • ^"t this objec. iotLd. ''''' '^ ^""^ """"" '^ '^^^^ t^^^" X would only ask Mr Rhind, if there are not in- comparably greater indecencies in the way of the Uiuicb ot Lngland, to which he has separated ? Is It possible there can be a greater scandal, than t^' see a known rake, notour for all manner of vice and lewdness, partaking of those holy mysteries, before he has given the least proof or evidence of his re- ITrTVr ^}^ P"'' '' ^'^''y '^^y '^^^^ '^^ the church of England, and the priests cannot, dare not I am not to allege this without proof: that were tile Episcopal way of writing, which I do not envy. A Shall give good and sufficient documents of it. Mr iiisset, a presbyter of the Church of England, has ^ately told us * « of a minister who was worried out ^ of his living, and life too, for denying the commu- ^ niontoarake, before the chancellor had excom- ^ municated him.' Again, ' though the rubric re- * quire, that so many as intend to be partakers of * the holy communion shall signify their names unta * the curate, at least sometime the day before ;' yet (says the same author, p. 51.) • this is more than I * ever knew done. I am sure it is omitted in all or * most of the London churches.' Yet further he tells us, p. 54. « that Dr F r was suspended for * denying the sacrament to such as only came to it * as a qualification to sell ale and brandy.' Lastly^ He tells us, f ibid. J of a solution that was given to one (who doubted af coming to the communion), in these words, « what damage is it to pledge the parson in a •cup of wine, supposing only the wine be good.' To Mr Bisset, let us add the author of the Case of the Regale and Pontificate, who is known to be most violeiiUy high church. He roundly asserts, p. 179, T Moiiern Faaauc, p. if. ' ^ - PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 321 * that an action lies against the minister who shall « refuse the sacrament, to them who, he knows, sees * and hears, in their conversation and principles, to * be never so much unqualified.' Tiiese are not Presbyterian allegeances, but true Episcopal history. III. He objects, p. 183, upon the hard terms on which the Presbyterians admit to the communion in two particulars. The first, relating to the persons, the second to the posture. First, As to the persons. He alleges, ' they will admit none who in the least * favour the hierarchy and liturgy of the Church of * England, but excommunicate them with the vilest ^ blasphemers and adulterers/ I ask him, does he know any of the favourers of the hierarchy and li- turgy who were ever denied the sacrament on that account ? Has he given any instance of this ? Not one. The Presbyterians debar none from commu- nion with them in the sacrament, whose principles and life do not debar them from the Christian com- munion. They do not look upon that holy ordi- nance as the distinguishing badge of a party or of any particular communion of Christians ; but as the common privilege of all the faithful. And therefore they usually fence the Lord's table in the words of the Scripture, 1 Cor. vi. 9. ^ Know ye not that the ' unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? ^ Be not deceived : Neither fornicators, nor idola- * tors,' or some such like Scripture ; or by going through the ten commandments. If Mr Rhind can name any Presbyterian ministers who do otherwise, 1 suppose the church will not think herself obliged to defend them. But, to exclude the impenitent breakers of any of the ten commandments from the privilege of gospel mysteries ; to debar those from the Lord's table, whom the Lord has, by the ex- press sentence of his word, debarred out of the king- dom of Heaven ; is, what every one, who is not quite lost in impiety, must own to be not only law- ful but a duty. "• This is sufficient to vindicate the Presbyterians: lint who shall vindicate the Church of Endand con- 322 DEFENCE OP THE stitution ? Mr Rhind is the most unlucky man in the world. He has separated from the Presbyterians^ upon a chimerical imagination of the narrowness of their charity, that they admit none to the commu- nion, who in the least favour the hierarchy and li- turgy ; though, I suppose, there is no one living can bring an instance where ever they refused it, on that score, to any who desired it : And yet he has gone over to the Church of England, whose divmes, I mean the high church party of them, have declared in the strongest terms, that they will not admit to it dissenters or Presbyterians, whom they, in their equally wise and charitable style, call notorious sclns- matics, at the same time that they declare them to be without the church. This is plain from the repre- sentation made by the lower house of convocation to the archbishops and bishops in the month of De- cember 1 704, which the reader may consult. And Mr Barclay, a teacher of the party, just come from London, has told his mind very honestly in this case. « I shall not,' says he, ♦ * stick to say that I would * not admit a notorious schismatic to Catholic com- ♦ munion, till he recanted his error, upon any con- « sideration of laws or statutes.' I do not thnik but Mr Barclay may be easy on that head : For, 1 sup- pose, these notorious schismatics he speaks of will not give him much trouble that way. However, it is^ plain that high church has made the communion a badge of a party. Was not Mr lihind, then, very well advised in going over to her ? Secondly, As to the posture. Mr Rhind objects, • that the Presbyterians discharge that as idola- « trous, which others think most expressive of their ♦ inward devotion, and debar such from the com- « munion who would use it/ There is no doubt lie means the posture of kneeling, which is enjoined both by the Scotch Episcopal and the English Litur- gies. And as to that, I here engage, that no one Presbyterian minister in the nation shall, on that account, refuse the communion to any person who » Persuasive to the People of Scotland, p. I67i rilESBYTERIAN WOUSIIIP. 323 can prove, or find any other to prove for him, either, 1st, That that posture was commanded by Christ. Or, 27idlij^ That it was used by the Apostles when they communicated in Christ's presence. Or, Sdly, That there is any hint of its usage in the New Testament. Or, 4//?/y, That it was practised in the primitive church for the first five centuries at least after Christ. H none of these things can be prov- ed, as 1 am sure none of them can, and which every writer on the Episcopal side, of any charac- ter, owns ; why should a church break her order to gratify people in their fancies, when it is con- fessed on all hands, that that posture of kneeling in the sacrament has been used to the most idolatrous purposes. But Mr Rhind alleges, * that such as * are for that posture are ready to attest the * Searcher of hearts, that their adoration is only * directed to one true and living God, and his Son * Jesus Christ, who is exalted at his Father's right * hand.' I answer : So is the Church of Rome ready to attest with the same solemnity, that when she worships before the picture of an old man, she does not worship the image, but God the Father by it. Yet who will excuse her from idolatry on that account ? And, which renders this business of kneeling still so much the more suspicious, the late vindicator of the fundamental charter of Presbytery is angry at the rubric of the liturgy, which explains the reason of kneeling at the Lord's Supper, and expressly says, p. 79, ' That neither hath the Church * gained, nor can the liturgy be said to have been * made better by it.' But of this, and the dread- ful blunder in history he has committed to support this his opinion, the reader may perhaps hear more elsewhere. Yet farther, why may not Presbyte- rians confine people to the table posture in the Sa- crament, which the Episcopal divines themselves own was the posture used by the Disciples in Christ's presence ; when the Church of England confines people to the posture of kneelingj'foi which . '*l ' X2 BJBFINCE OF THE there is no warrant, and appoints • every minister to be suspended who wittingly gives the comrau^ nion to any that do not kneeL Some may perhaps think, that our Scotch Episcopalians are milder ia that matter, and indeed the above mentioned Vin- dicator of the Fundamental Charter would have us believe so. * It is true,* saith he, p. 34, * all com- * municate in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, kneel- * ing ; but I know none, that would deny the Sa- « crament to one, who could not without scruple * take it in that posture/ This is spoken with a- bundance of gravity, but with what integrity let the reader judge, when he considers, 15/, That the rubric in the Scotch Episcopal liturgy is as strict for kneeling as the English liturgy. And, 2dli/, the Scotch Episcopal canon, with respect to that pos- ture, is equally strict with the English, as may be seen, both in the canon itself, and in Clarendon's history. Does not this shew their spirit and prin- ciples, though they yield at present to gull unwary people ? Before I proceed to Mr Rhind's next objection^ there is one thing I cannot but take notice of. The Episcopal people have lately caused re-print the liturgy whicli was sent down for Scotland by King Charles I. and which began the troubles, anno 1637, and I am informed, that it is begun to be practised in some of their meeting-houses instead of the English liturgy. I think myself obliged in chari- ty to advertise people, t that that liturgy, in the office for the communion, is a great deal worse than the English, and is plainly calculated for beget- ting in people the belief of the corporeal presence. 1 shall at this time give three evidences of this. IJI, The English liturgy has a long rubric, declar- ing, that by the posture of kneeling no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received^ or unto any corporeal presence of Christ's natural • Canon XXVIL l603. t N. B. PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 325 flesh and blood. The Scotch liturgy neither hath thi« declaration, nor any thing equivalent to it. 2cf/^, The English liturgy has a rubric, enjoining the minister atthe saying these words in the consecration, '* when he had given thanks he brake it,* to break the bread. The Scotch liturgy has no such rubric, nor any appointment for breaking the bread, any more than the Roman ritual has. 3rf^, The Eng- lish liturgy enjoins the minister to deliver the bread to the people in order, into their hands, all meekly kneeling ; but the Scotch liturgy words it, all humbly kneeling, that we might know they intend adora- tion by that posture, though they have not told to what. I may possibly have occasion, sometime after this, to show, particularly, how much worse the Scotch liturgy is than the English. But I thought it needful to give these hints now, because the Episcopal clergy bear their people in hand, that it is upon the matter one and the same with the EngUsh. Particularly Mr Smart, one of their teachers at Edinburgh, in his short discourse after sermon, commending the service, told them, p. 8, * that there is no material difference between the * Scotch and English books of common-prayer; * and that they differ as little as the Scotch and * English tongues.* The first of which assertions is false, as I have just now made out ; and the latter nonsense. For, so far as it follows the English in matter, it is the very same in words and phrase; and no wonder, for every body knows it was of English birth, which perhaps made it take so ill with the Scotch air. But enough for Mr Smart, whose name and pamphlet are so very ill-suited, and whose character seems to be the very reverse of the Apostle's precept, * being in understanding a child, * howbeit in malice he is a man.* IV. Mr Rhind objects, p. 184, That it is no Sa- crament at all, as dispensed by the Presbyterians. Pray why ? * There is,* saith he * no due appli- * cation of the form to the matter.' Very strange ! They always read the words of institution, either niPiiipi'MMJi S2S DEFENCR OF THE PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 32Y out of the Gospels or out of 1 . Cor. xi. They have Btill, after our Lord's example, a prayer, thanksgiv- ing or blessing of the bread and wine. Is not this a due application of the form to the matter ? 'Mo, says Mr Rhind ; • the form in the Sacrament of the * Lord's Supper, are the same words by which our * Lord did at first constitute the Sacrament, viz. « Take, eat, this is my body, do this in remem- * brance of me, and drink ye of this cup, for this is ' my blood : Do this— as oft as ye drink it in re- ' membrance of me.' Very well. Do not the Pres- byterians use these words? Are they not in the institution? .' Nay, but,' saith he, • if they be * at all, they ought to be used in that prayer, by * which they intend to consecrate the elements ? Is there any precept for this in the Scripture ? No. Any example there ? None. Any evidence for the practice, for at least four or five centuries atter Christ, in the writings of the Fathers ? Not any. The first account we have of it, is m the books ot the Sacraments,* which pass under the name of Ambrose, and are inserted among his works. But I hope Mr Rhind knows, that these books were "ot /rote till some ages after Ambrose's death. And if Mr Rhind s doctrine be true, the Church of England herself, for a long time after abolishing the Mass, had not the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For, that which is called the Prayer of Consecration, and in which the words, • take, eat, this is my body,' &c. are, was not in King Edward's first Liturgy ; but instantly atter the prayer, ' We do not presume,' &c. they pro- ceeded to the distribution. Nay, which is worst of all, we are assured, from the infallible chair, that the Apostles used no other prayer of consecration but the Lord's Pr.-iyer.t And, I suppose every body knows that these words, ' take, eat, this is my body, are not in that prayer ; and I think it is plain they 'llipl' ♦ Xiib. iv- Cap. V. t-^ • • :a + Gregor. Lib. 7- Ep. 63. Oralionem autem Dominicam id- Circo mox post precem dicimus, quia iiios Apostolorum fuit, ut ill ipsam golummodo orationem oblatiows hoitiam wnsecrarcnt. ^ere never intended to stand, in that form, in any prayer. But now, to gratify Mr Rhind, let us suppose that these words should be in the prayer of con- secration, what follows ? * Why, there,* saith he, * they are never once mentioned by the Presby- ^ terians, and too often there is nothing equivalent * to supply the defect.' Did he ever consider what he said ? Did he ever regard whether it was true or fiilse ? Is not every minister directed,* upon ;that occasion, to pray, • That God may sanctify the c< elements, both of bread and wine, and so bless his * own ordinance, that we may receive, by faith, the « body and blood of Jesus Christ crucified for us, * and so to feed upon Him, that He may be one < with us, and we with him ; that He may live in us * and we in Him and to Him, who hath loved us ^ and given himself for us.' Is not here something equivalent to these words? And can Mr Rhind name that minister who does not pray either thus or to the same purpose ? But proving was none of his business, all he had to do was to assert. I doubt not but, after all this, the reader will think it strange that Mr Rhind should have men- tioned such an objection. But the case is plain, as he was avowedly popish on the other sacrament, so is he upon this ; and would insinuate upon people the very rational doctrine of transubstantiation, to be effected by the pronouncing of these particular words. And Bellarmine led the way to him,t so that lie has, indeed, a man of a very considerable name for his master. Thus, now, I have gone through the Episcopal objections against the Presbyterian worship, both as to prayers and sacraments. And I hope I have made it plain that there is not any one of the things objected against but what (so far as the objection is true) is so far from being a ground of separation, • See the Directory, f De Sacram. Eucharist. Cap. xii. xiii. 32o DEFENCE OF THE that It is highly justifiable. But, then, I must ask Mr Rhind, why, as he has given us the grounds of his separating irom the Presbyterian worship, he has not also answered the other half of the title of his book, and justified the known objections against the worship of that church whose communion he pre- tends to have embraced. I have hinted at several of them as I came along; and they may be found more at length in some small tracts lately published.* Was there nothing in the Liturgy that he startled at ? I observe the above-cited Mr Smart, p. 3, with much assurance, bids his audience * read it all over, * and among all the prayers that are in it, see if there • be anyprayer for the dead— any worshipping of ima- < ges — any praying to saints and angels.' I do not say that there are any prayers for the dead in it, but the famous author of ' The Case Stated,' express- ly says, p. 1 89, there are, and proves it from the order • for the burial of the dead,' and from the prayer for the church militant in the communion office. I do not say that there is any worshipping of images in it. But I say, that many of the Common Prayer-Books are filled with such pictures as are condemned by the Homilies of the Church of England, yea, and by the High Church divines themselves ; witness the last cited author, (supposed to be Dr Lesley), who, in his conversation with the Roman Catholic nobleman, tells him, p. 135, « We abstain from the pictures or • images of the saints in our churches, because they * have been abused to superstition, and to avoid * oflence.' Now, if they are unlawful in churches, how is it possible they can he lawful in books ap- pointed for the church service ? That same author, likewise, in the same place, approves of the zeal of Epiphanius, who finding a linen cloth hung up in a church door, (it is likely to keep out the wind), whereon was a picture of Christ or of some saint, tore it and ordered a dead corpse to be buried in it, • See the Dialogues between the Curate and the Country, man, &c« PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 329 and lamented the superstition he saw coming by these pictures and images, then beginning to creep into the church. Yet in England, not only the Common- Prayer books, but even the Bible itself, is filled with pictures of Christ and the saints ; witness the Bible, printed in London by Charles Bill, and the executrix of Thomas Newcomb, deceased, print- ers to the Queen's most excellent Majesty, 1708, many copies of which impression are stuffed with such pictures. Are they more innocent in the Bible than upon a linen cloth hanging in the church door ? Yea, which is most abominable, there are several obscene pictures among them, particularly that of Noah uncovered, Gen. ix; Lot and his two daughters. Gen. xix. ; David and Bathsheba, 2 Sam. xi. Finally, I do not say there is any praying to saints and an- gels in the Common-Prayer Book. But I do say, that the consecrating churches and days to them, and the appointing particular ofl[ices upon these days to their lionour,is the likeliest thing to worshipping them that I can conceive. Besides, did Mr Rhind's nice and scrupulous conscience never bogle at the cere- monies of human invention ? If the church have power to institute such, she has certainly power to make a new Bible ; for there is no such power given her in the old one ; or if there is, certainly Protes- tants have been much in the wrong to the Church of Rome. But I am not now to insist on these things. CHAP. V. WHEREIN MR RIIIND's FOURTH REASON FOR HIS SEPA- RATING FROM THE PRESBYTERIANS, VIZ. THAT THEIR SPIRIT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE TO THAT OF THE GOSPEL, IS EXAMINED. FROM P. 185 TO THE END. The meaning of this reason is, that Presbyterians are incarnate devils : And the intendment of it is, DEFENCE OF TUB That all persons who regard conscience or duty tiiould hang out a bloody flag against tliem, and rise up with one accord, and spoil their goods and def. stroy their persons ; or, to speak in Dr Sacheverel's much more elegant stile, * That the Bishops ought « to thunder out the ecclesiastical anathemas against * them, and let any power on earth dare reverse « them ; and that the people should treat them like • growing mischiefs or infectious plagues.'* This is indeed somewhat hard ; but such is the Episcopal charity, such are the merciful principles wherewith they season their new converts, and such is the usage we are to expect whenever the sins of the nation shall ripen to that height as to provoke a holy God to let in prelacy upon it But to make way for par* ticulars. The Presbyterians neither are nor desire to be of those who justify themselves. They know and con- fess that there are tares in tlieir field as well as wheat 5 and are sensible that they have the utmost reason to cry, with the publican, * God be merciful * to us sinners :' But they think it a very shameless thing in the Episcopalians, that they should be the irst who take up stones to cast at them : For, if the Presbyterians are great sinners, I am afraid (were that the enquiry) the Episcopalians would not be found to be very great saints. Our Saviour has given us an excellent rule where- by to judge of mens' spirits : ' By their fruits ye • shall know them.' I hope it needs not be deemed m reflection upon them, or an immoderate flattering of ourselves, to affirm, that tlie Presbyterians, gene- Filly speaking, are as devout towards God, as fre- quent at their prayers ; and, to outward ai)pearance (for God only knows the heart), as fervent in them m the prelatists. That they swear as seldom by the^ name of God, as seldom tear open the wounds of our blessed Saviour, and as seldom imprecate damna- Ijiiii upon themselves or others as the Episcopalians. • Sermon, * False Brttlirco,' p. S8. PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 331 ( ( That they are as sober and temperate, go as seldom drunk to bed, are as mild in their carriage, as little given to bullying or blustering, as those of High Church: That they are as just in their dealings with their neighbours, as open-handed to the indi- gent, their poor as content, their rich as humble, that they make as kind husbands, as dutiful wives ; as careful parents and as obedient children ; as just masters and as faithful servants, as those that live m communion with the Bishop. No man that is ca- pable of making observations, and is not quite lost to ingenuity, will deny any of these things. If I had said more, and affirmed, that ' outrage, murder, and assassinations are the known practice of the highflyers, as well as of the bigotted Papists, and ' that their true mother tongue is, I will not fad « to cut your throat by G— d, it w^ould be thought « hard ;' yet I might be very well excused, because Mr Bisset, a Presbyter of the Church of England has said every word of it before me.* But, that Mr Rhind may have all due advantage against the Presbyterians; there are many things he has charged them with as very odious, which they not only freely confess, but boldly avow. Such as, for instance: First, When he charges them, p. 189, that they believe ' uncommon measures of « the Spirit of our Lord to be still necessary in the < work of conversion.' The whole Catholic Church of Christ in all ages still believed so ; and I never suspected but that those of the Episcopal communion had believed so too, till their new disciple, whom, no doubt, they have instructed in all their arcana, informed me otherwise. The Scripture tells us, * That if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is « none of his.' But to say, that the Spirit is com- mon to all the baptized 'swearers, cursers, whore- mongers, and adulterers, through the country, or that it is common to such who live in a habitual neglect of God, or unconcerned ness about their ♦ Ubi supra, p. 9» 332 DEFENCE OF THE souls and eternal state, even though they are free of scandalous sins, this I judge to be the rankest blasphemy. And if that Spirit be not common to mil such persons, then certainly it is an uncommon Spirit, or there are uncommon measures thereof, by which good and pious men are actuated. Secondltfy When he charges them, (ibid,) with teaching, that * the best actions of men before the grace of God * are but so many splendid sins.' They own they do believe this, as we have seen before, p. 10, the Church of England does. Thirdly, When he charges them, p. 195, that they * have a hidden * spice of devotion in their tempers :' They are so far from being ashamed of this, that they pray, would to God there were more of it Fourthly^ When he charges them, (ibid.), ' That upon the * commission of some grievous sin, they are affect- * ed with horrible apprehensions :* The Presbyte- rians own that, in that case, they ought to be so : For, they know that it exposes them to the wrath of God ; and beHeve, * that it is a fearful thing to * fall into his hands.' And though, in that case, * Their souls (that I may use Mr Rhind's words, * p. 189), and commonly their bodies too, are in * the greatest disorder ;' yet, they find that the holy men of God, upon Scripture record, have been the «ame way affected in the like case. Thus David, Psalm xxxviii. 3, 4, 5 ; * There is no soundness in * my flesh, because of thine anger : neither is there « any rest in my bones, because of my sin. For mine * iniquities are gone over mine head : as an heavy * burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds * stink, and are corrupt ; because of my foolish- « ness.' In like manner Heman, Psalm Ixxxviii. J 4, 15 5 * Lord, why castest thou oft' my soul ? Why * hidest thou thy face from me ? I am afflicted and * ready to die, from my youth up : While I suffer * thy terrors I am distracted.* The Bishop of Sa- rum, when instructing ministers • how to deal with • Pastoral Care, 4th Edition, p. 176. PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 3S3 those of their people that are troubled in mind, do- livers himself thus : ' Some have committed enor- * mous sins, which kindle a storm in their con- « sciences ; and that ought to be cherished, till they * have completed a repentance proportioned to the * nature and degree of their sin.' Thus he, and thus every one, who is not quite abandoned of God, would teach. But Mr Rhind is not for having people affected with horrible apprehensions upon the commission of grievous sins, much less tor ha- ving these apprehensions cherished till they are broucrht to repentance. What times are we re- serve'dto! FtftMy, When he charges them with a serious air, p. 202, with a peculiar vehemency m preaching, with a preciseness of conversation, p.204, with * discourses of the love of God and Christ, « and sweet communion with the Father and the * Son,' p. 205 : The Presbyterians are so far from beinff ancrry at this charge, that they are sorry there is too little ground for it ; and they are hear- tily sorry that the Episcopal Clergy should have had so little regard to piety, to the honour of reli- gion, and to their own reputation with all serious people, as to have cherished such a book. For besides these instances, is it possible any thing can be more profane, than to jest as he does, p. 194, &c. upon people's exercise of soul about their eternal concerns ? Does not the Apostle command Timothy, 1 Eph. iv. 7. to exercise himself unto godliness ? Nay, does he not command all Chris- tians to ' work out their salvation with fear and ' trembling V Has the Episcopal party found out an easier way of getting to heaven ? Is it possible any thing can be more profane than his charging Presbyterians, p. 200, with resolving much of the spirit of religion into amorous recumbencies, and that they think that they will recommend themselves to God after the very same manner as to their mis- tresses ? Was not this plainly intended to burlesque the Scripture ? Is there any thing more familiar m the Scripture than to represent the intercourse be* DEFENCE OF THE twixt God and the soul by the love of the bridcM groom and the bride, of the husband and the wife ? And if these study to recommend themselves to each other by an agreeableness of temper, and do- ing what they know will be well pleasing to each other, is it culpable in the soul to study to be assi- milated to God, to be made partaker of the divine nature, and to do what is well pleasing in his sight ? What are his amorous recumbencies but a comical phrase whereby he designed to ridicule the Scrip- ture expression, Cant viii. 5. * leaning upon her be- « loved,' which is literally the English of it ? Is it possible any thing could be more profane than to strike at (as he does, p. 190,) the work of regenera- tion through the sides of the Presbyterians, whom he represents as talking of ^ Their feeling the strug- • glings of the babe of grace, in the place of bring- « ing furth of children, a passage,* saith he, ' of « the prophet impertinently applied by them to « this purpose ?* For was there ever any Christian that denied the turning of the soul to God to be ex- pressed in the Scripture by the birth of a child? Do not the Arminians, does not the Church of Rome herself, own this ? And is there not the greatest reason for it, if we consider either the difficulty or the greatness of the change wrought upon the soul thereby ? Was there ever any Christian who applied that passage of the prophet to any other purpose than that of the turning the soul to God? Even Gro- tius himself, upon the place, applies it thus : * That « Ephraim was not wise who so long delayed to re- * pent and turn to God, and so to deliver himself « out of his calamities.' Could there be any thing more wicked than to load the Presbyterians (as he does, p. 197,) with the scandal of Major Weir, that son of perdition, who, saith he, prayed those who joined with him into raptures: for, supposing it were true he had done so, which yet Mr Rhind and all his party can never prove, how could this affect the Presbyterians ? Was there not a Judas among the twelve disciples ? Can any man prove but that I, ■• PRESBYTEIIIAN SPIRIT. 535 he was equally gifted with the rest ? Yet who ever reproached either Christ or the college of the apostles on this account? Or who dare say but that God may employ such as are sons of perdition themselves as instruments of salvation to others ? Could any thino- be more wicked than to represent (as he does, p, 190, 196,) the Presbyterians, as doing execution upon themselves through despair ? There is no doubt but Presbyterians are liable to be oppressed with melancholy as well as others, and that some in that communion may sin themselves so far out of the fa- vour of God, as that, in his just judgment, he may give them up as a prey to Satan. But why should the Presbyterian Spirit be reproached with this i Thou^^h the news prints from London * tell us that, last year, from the 16th of December 1712, to the 15th of December 1713, there were thirty-four per- sons, within the bills of mortality, guilty of self-mur- der, will any body therefore charge prelacy and li- tur cry therewith, though rampant there ? Because I can name a famous divine of the Church of Eng- land, who trussed up himself in his canonical belt, were it therefore just that I should load the spirit of the Church of England therewith ? _ . ^, Mr Rhind does indeed name two books, viz. Shep- herd's Sincere Convert, and Guthrie's Trial of a Sav- incr Interest in Christ, as leading men into that co'iirse, or into deceitful hopes founded upon animal impressions- As for Mr Shepherd's book, I am not so much concerned about it •, he was a man that, as I am informed, had Episcopal orders, and was some- times of Emanuel College in Cambridge. And^l will not undertake to defend some peculiarities he has in his writings; let Mr Rhind, who is more oblicT-ed, do it at his best leisure. But that there i» anything in that book that has the least tendency either to drive men into despair, or to encourage them to bottom their hopes of heaven upon false grounds, I absolutely deny, and challenge Mr Rhind * See the Evening Post, Numb. 683. i 336 DEFENCE OF THE to prove it : for hitherto he has acted as an avowed calumniator, in not daring to cite so much as one passage of the said book for making good his charge. As for Mr Guthrie, he was a genuine Presbyterian, his book is written in a most familiar stile, adapted to the capacity of every common reader, and to the feehng of every good Christian : and God has so signally blessed it with success, that no one book can be named, written by any Scotsman of either com- munion, that has been so instrumental in bringing off people from a course either of vice or indifferen- cy, and in engaging them to thoughtfulness and a concern about their eternal interest, as this has been. Can then Mr Rhind instance wherever the father of lies was guilty of a greater than what he has alleged against that book? No. He was self-condemned, and therefore dared not adventure to cite so much as one line of it for verifying his charge. But we are not to wonder at this his conduct. For when once a man proclaims hostility against piety in the general, he finds it necessary to blow upon every serious book that tends to promote it. I thought it necessary to give these hints by the bye, that the world may see what men they are that separate from the Presbyterians, and are received by the Episcopal party. I am now to consider his argument as he has laid it. Firsts As to its weight, and then as to its truth. In ihe^rsi place, as to its weight. Supposing it were tru«, that the spirit of the Presbyterians is dia- metrically opposite to that of the gospel, would that alone justify a separation ? Mr llhind affirms it would ; and positively says in his penult page, * that * each of his arguments separately is sufficient to « warrant the change he has made ; and as to this * argument particularly,* he says, p. 185, * that it < miff lit serve instead of all these he hath urged.' I affirm the contrary ; and that, even supposing its truth, it could not justify a separation, abstracting from the rest. The truth or being of a church is never to be measured by the manners of the mem- pnESBYTEKIAN SPIRIT. ^37 hers, which may ^^^^^^^^^^^^X::^ and vary as men do. » ^^, ^'^"IJ ^ el.urch. But always, as God had framed '»'.%' "^/^nt. it might if holiness of life had been '"^^^^ « "°^^ ^. , , ,,, ^t all. in some .iunciures have I'cen ca e "O^^^ ;;^, ^^^^,.,, When our Savour ^f't'i^^'f^;;^,, religion of the 5.?'"'^'',tr.^Xv:,id a solid pi^ety. The Pharisees had matle \oia ita. i ^ blood of all the prophets -'^^ !);^"|J°4Je void the through their -vn tnvdmons ey ud madj,^^^^^^^ commandments ot God. ^nd }et, no all this, Cluist did not separae.om them ^^^^^ quently the like object.on cannot Hjj^^^, -"i^r Teni- ;.rouniof -P-f •;-;; S£ -a i;;: is at once son, now prnnate ot aU ^^ V^.""' , reasoned* the honour as well as •^"-^^i^^^H'^i^^f^'me modesty against the Romani^.ts.urgnig (wlh the same^ ; a: Mr Rhind does). '-'''-- '^^^^^.^^tn' wi still hold chu rch. And I su ppose the . ea^omn^ good. It--thenav.-yu.c u^^^ to separate from teo.Uu a ^^^^^ ^.^^^ vutue ana ^"-1 ;:^''3!,Ueist to render them in- have ref ^»«^a lern^M a Ue. ^^^^ excusable. But it is not tue u ^^ sustained and overcome too -, as, i hope, y ao this. . „,„ifTlit let us consider However ^-VVO-^^^- Tlfs 's udl do by exa. the truth of his argument, im^ Havin<' spent „.i„ing the P--^-" -,^^-,S^r;he sphit^t^he two or three l-^*^ "^^ ^'^^^^'^'i^J^JlTe spirit of a party : r^lL'!: I 'Si t the XSvterian spirit is enthu- He alkies 1. 1 ut le ^^^.^^^, ^^. „,,!„,. c^fspt; h TlatiJisa partial spirit, damning rndlei'ing grace to f^^^^^^^^^^ That it is a narrow and mean sp"'^' J . ■ ^„ „„. malicious unforgivny spin . V . Jh J,; . ,, conversible spujt \Jl- \' "^1 ,pi,it of division, liuus spuit. V ill. 1 nat u i^ ^ i \ On BaUnnine • X. Note of the Church. 88S DEFENCE OF THE FllESBYTEniAN SPIRIT, S39 \ 411 J III IX. That it is an unneighbourly, cruel and barbar- ous spirit. Here is a very formidable muster ; yet, after all, not very dangerous. For, Mr Rhind has been so iTell natured as not to cite so much as one line out ilf any Presbyterian author for proving any thing of all this ; though that was, I am sure, the most, per- haps the only habile way of doing his business effec- tually. Nay, though the greatest part of his charge turns upon matter of fact ; yet he has not cited so- much as one historian, great or small, of either side, fof making it good. But such is the Episcopal way of writing, and we must not complain. Harangue and declamation are all-powerful engines when play* ed by a canonical hand : And when they are at so much pains to labour their periods into a cadence, it is rudeness and ill manners in us to ask for proof,, the insisting on which would spoil the harmony of their rhetoric. However, we must crave leave ta enquire a little into the particulars of this charge. THE PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT NOT ENTHUSIASTICAL. I. He charges the Presbyterians with an enthu^ siastical spirit. But on what grounds? hst, Saith he, p. 200, * their most admired practical systems ♦ contain nothing but the very dreg of mysticism, « and a jargon no less unintelligible, than that of ' Jacob Behraen or Molino/ Well, what are these practical systems? He is so far from citing any thing out of them, that he does not so much as name any of them, except the two already mentioned, viz. Shepherd and Guthrie. For vindication of Mr Guthrie's book, I ask no more of any person, but that be will peruse it seriously j and if, after he has^ done, he can say there is any other mysticism or enthusiasm in it, than what the gospel teaches : nay,, than what every man who is concerned about his •oul feels, I will frankly forgive him. Plainly, the import of that system is this. That Ae great work every man has to do in this world, it to secure eternal happiness to himself. That there ire indeed some persons blessed with the advan ta^^^^ of a religious education, and the grace of God ialUng in therewith ; they are insensibly trained up to piety and virtue,andfindthemselvesinafixedhabitihereot,with. out being able to give a distinct account how it be- gan, or by what sensible steps it has arrived at such a height. But then the far greater part of baptised persons, spend a great part of their life, either in a course of vice and lewdness, or at best in indifte- rency and carelessness about their eternal salvation. God, who is an infinite lover of souls, and wills not that they should perish, is graciously pleased, m his own good time, by his spirit, working by those ways he has appointed, to weaken them into a thoughttul temper, and to alarm them of their danger. He en- cracres them seriously to compare their heart and lile with the law of God. And, upon the doing this, they cannot but discover a vast contrariety and con- tradiction between them. He engages them like- wise seriously to lay to heart, the threatenings ot God, and the dreadful things his law has awarded agamst such criminals as they are: And this cannot but at- feet them with the most horrible apprehensions. For, who can be easy either in body and mind under the thought of having God for his enemy ; and un- der the thought of getting hell for his portion ? God is pleased to exercise them with such thoughts, till he sees they are duly humbled, and in earnest con- vinced that it was a bitter and evil thing to depart from the living God. But then, God does not pro- iectfor the uneasiness of his creatures; nor require sorrow for sorrow's sake, but that they may be the more watchful against sin in time coming, and th^ more affected with his goodness in providing a me. thod of delivery for them. And, therefore, when he has exercised them so long, and to such a height as is needful for attaining these ends upon them; he is pleased to begin their relief by intimating to them, by means of the gospel, a possibility of salvatioh through Jesus Christ. Yet even this is not suffl. cient to determine the soul to God. For, be the T 2 1. tt DEFENCE OF THE FRCSBYTERIANr SPIRIT. S41 remedy never so sovereign, yet it can do no good to such as do not apply it ; whether through despair, that it will not be effectual, or through a false hope that the wound will not prove deadly. And, there- fore, yet further God, by the internal operation of his spirit, in the way of gospel means, gives a new turn and bias to the soul ; not only persuades it that it is possible to be saved, and that it is absolutely needful to fall in with the gospel method of salva- tion, but effectually determines it to do so ; so that the soul heartily renounces all sin, sincerely engages in a course of universal holiness, and, in that me- thod, trusts to the merit and righteousness of Christ allenarly for acceptance with God, pardon of sin^ and coming to heaven at last. Now, wh'^n a person finds his case altered thus so much to the better ; is it possible but that he must needs rejoice with joy un- speakable and full of glory? While he goes on in the way of holiness, is it possible but he must find that the ways of wisdom are ways of pleasantness, and her paths peace ? When he is sensible that his eternal hap- piness is secured by an interest in Christ, is it pos- sible but that he must rejoice in the hope of the glory of God ? If at any time he slack his diligence, and fall into sin, through the infirmity of nature, or the violence of Satan's temptations, and thereupon the consolations of the Holy Ghost are withdrawn, has he not the greatest reason to be dejected both in body and mind, and to pray with the Psalmist, Psalm li. 8. 11.* Make me to hear joy and gladness : * That the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. « Cast me not away iVom thy presence : Take not • thy Holy Spirit from me.* Or, if God, even in a sovereign way, overcast his soul ; that he may longso much the more for the uninterrupted joys of hea- ven : Is this any other than what the most holy men recorded in Scripture have felt ? This is the import of Mr Guthrie's book, and indeed of all the other practical systems written by the Presbyterians on the same subject Is there anv Ihin^ of enthusiasm in all this? Any irregular he Its? Why, then, would Mr Rhind ad/enture to expose the internal part of religion in so ludicrous anianner as he has done? Certainly, if ever any man was guilty of the sin of doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace, he is so. This, which I have told, is that which he calls the ' long and senseless sto- * ry of the manner of God's dealing with the souls * of his elect/ These the strange tilings they mk of their manifestations and desertions. This the sudden and irresistible manner of God's influencing them by his Spirit, which Mr Rhind thinks so much a jest; but which no man that fears God will allow himself to think the same way of. It is true, the determining turn that the Spirit of God gives to the soul, is acknowledged by the Presbyterians to be instantaneous ; but then they acknowledge, too, a great deal of preparatory work ; and Mr Guthrie, in particular, largely insists on it: So that Mr Rhind's representing the Presbyterians, p. 193, as pleading for conversions; attended with such cir- cumstances as these of Paul, &c. were, is only an in- stance of that calumny to which he has so entirely given up himself. 2%, Another ground, whereon Mr Rhind would found the charge of enthusiasm against the Presby- terians, is. That they pretend, as he alleges, p. 190, to Illuminations and Raptures, and to the most ex- traordinary inspirations ; and then he falls a dispu- tincr very weightily, in order to disprove their being extraordinarily inspired, and very frequently com- pares them to the modern prophets in their agita- tions. But how does he prove, that they pretend to any such thing ? No way. He has not so much as offered at doing so, nor adduced one syllable for that purpose. What, then, is to be thought of him and his fellow-writers, who ordinarily talk at the same rate ? Is it not plain, that they are under the power of hypochondriacal melancholy, whereof wnd and extravagant imaginations, for which there is no ground, are a most infallible symptom ? 342 V: I DEFENCE OB TH£ •ti ,t il i Put why did Mr Rhind charge the Presbyteriani with enthusiasm, when bis own party had been so scandalously guilty of it ? In thej?r5^ place, when en- thusiasm was in fashion, in the time of the late civil wars, who were the great masters of it ? The Presby- ferians in Scotland preached and wrote against it ; but the Episcopalians in England cherished it j and jpme of their clergy were the principal writers for It — for instance, Mr William Erbery, who owns him- self to have been Episcopally ordained. There is a thick quarto volume of his lucubrations extant, under the title of his Testimony, from which it is evident that Jacob Behmen might have gone to school to him to learn enthusiasm. 2rf/^, Does not Parker, who writes against the Confession of Faith, and has prefixed to it a poem against the Synod of Dort, and in praise of Arminius, and who was just such another Protestant as Mr Rhind— does not he, I say, avow him?elf an enthusiast, and recommend Jacob Beh- men, and such others, as divinely inspired ?* Sdii/, Who knows not that Dr George Garden, one of the first characters among the Episcopal clergy, is the great promoter of the Borignian principles? 4th(i/, Who were they that were mostly carried away by the modern prophets, and seized with tiieir agita- tions? I suppose the Episcopal clergy cannot purge their own families. 5/%, Does not the author of Mr Dodwell's life confess, that, towards the latter part of it, * he seems to grow not a little enthu- * aiastical :* And is it possible any one can read |i49 epistolary discourse and not be convinced of this ? For instance, when he teaches that our Sa- viour preached to the separate souls who deceased before his incarnation. Sect. 41 : When he teaches tliat water baptism was given to the separate souls of tliem who had no means of obtaining it when livings Sect. 42 : When he teaches that the renun- ciation of the devil was performable in the separate state by those who could not know their duty before. • Pagei 6, 14, &c. PRESBYTlttlAN SPIRIT. 343 Sect. 43 : When he teaches, that the Gentiles re- ceived the spirit of our Saviour's baptism in their separate state. Sect. 44 : When he teaches that the Apostles, being themselves deceased, preached to the deceased Gentiles, Sect. 45 :— Were their ever more distracted notions than these vented in Bedlam. I think then it were the wisdom of the Episcopal party, for their own sakes, to drop the charge ot enthusiasm against the Presbyterians. I shall con- clude this with observing, by the bye, that Mr Khind writes inaccurately when he yokes Jacob Behmen and Molino together. Molino's greatest errors, Uor which he seems to be too severely persecuted by the Church of Rome, were, according to the best information, the doctrines of predestina- tion and its dependencies, and his teaching people to place their devotion rather in internal prayer and communion with God, than in numbering their beads : * Whereas, all the enthusiasts are mortal enemies to the doctrine of predestination, &c- and Mr Pioret owns that he levelled his Economie Di- mn mainly against these doctrines ; and Dr Gar- den does the same in his writings. So much for the charge of an enthusiastical spirit. NOT MERELY ANIMAL OR MECHANICAL. II. He charges the Presbyterians with a merely Animal or Mechanical spirit, and that all their hopes and fears, joys and sorrows in religion, are mere mechanism, the effect of melancholy, ima- gination, and animal impressions. Hear him a little, p. 196. * He (that is, a Presbyterian, after the < commission of some grievous sin), dreams of no- * thing but of hell and damnation, which, in the hurry « of his passions, perhaps, forces him to dispatch him- « self. But if the black blood shall chance to be < sweetened by a mixture of bitter, and if the vio- « lence of his passions is abated, he begins to conceive * better hopes. And if he shall chance to recover ♦ S§e Supplement to Dr Burnefi Traveli. /: I li< n . r DEFENCE OF THE « from this fever, so that his blood does again glfde • after its due manner, he concludes that all is well • with liim/ Thus he, and a great dial more to the same purpose. It is true, the Presbyterians <»wn themselves to be compound beings, and that they consist of flesh as well as spirit, and believe that God applies liimself to them according to llie make of human nature, and discovers inflniie wisdom and goodness in doing so ; * for he knows our frame, and • remembers we are dust.' But, because the animal affections operate sensihly, either upon the com- mission of some grievous sin, or upon our having made peace with God, does it tlierefore follow, that the Spirit of God did not excite them ? Or that, because the inferior and bodily faculties do operate, therefore the superior faculties do not ? Is it pos- sible, but that the soul and l)udy must work mutual- ly upon and atlect each other while we are in the emliodieil state ? Nay, will they not do so even after the resurrection, which is the most perfect state ? Does l»e not know that a separate state is a preternatural one, which sin alone has made us liable unto. The truth is, I think Mr Khind, after all his boasts, to be but very indifferently qualified to write lectures upon the animal economy, and that he is a perfect stranger to Solon's precejit nosce teipsum, as well as to the exercise of piety. And, therefore, ere he begin to write his lectures, I cannot but recom- mend to him the perusal of that excellent discourse concerning the mechanical operation of the spirit, annexeil to that very pious book called ' A Tale of * a Tub.' It' Mr Rhind can recover the papers necessary for the fiUing up the Lacuna^ p. 303, his business is done; for tlie bookseller has assured us, that ' in them tlie whole scheme of spiritual mechan- ^ ism was deduced and explained, with an ajjpear- ^ ance of great reading and observation ; though it ' was thought neither safe nor convenient to print ♦ them.* Such devout books tend mightily to the promoting of religion, and many such the Church of England clergy has blessed this sinful age with 3 and pbAsbtterian SWRIT. 845 It cannot but raise Mr Rhind's character to commu- nicate such laudable productions of his bretluen, for the benefit of the public. But, to go on, If Mr Rhind was so great an enemy to every thiitg of animal exercise in religion, whj did he join the Church of England ; for, of all other Protestant Churches in the world, she has aimed most at the raising of the animal affections by her way of wor- ship, though she is so unhappy as to attempt it by methods which our blessed Saviour never instituted; for what else means the pompousness of her service? What else is designed by the cope, surplice, rotchet, &c.? What else by the ceremonies, and all that mimical cringing and bowing (so much practised in the chapel and cathedral worship), which is below the gravity of a man, much more of a minister ? Can there be any thing else designed by all this but to bear upon the senses and affect the imagination ? What is the surplice and all the other sacred accou- trements intended for, but to dazzle the eyes ? What are the organs and singing boys designed for, but to charm the ears ? W hy are the pjayers and the whole devotions parcelled into such shreds, hut that the animal part may be gratified with variety ? Mr Rhind, then, ought to have been aware of touching upon this point ; for, after all the abstraction he and his party pretend to, the world sees well enough that they are but flesh and blood like their neigh- bours. NOT A PARTIAL DAMNING SPIRIT. III. He charges the Presbyterians with a partial spirit, damning and denying grace to all but their own party. * So few/ saith he, p. IDl, 'are they to whom they allow this saving grace, that, if we shall except the Aj)ostles and those of that extra- ordinary age, and St Angu^tine, they will allow none to have been blessed with it, till it was vouch- safed to some Presbyterians in the west of Scotland, about a hundred years ago, who conveyed it to their successors, and infected some of their En- i < c • < c m ■ i' I" I 1 l/i f win) DEFENCE OP THE • glish brethren therewith/ And, p. 204, « they con- « fine/ saith he, * the grace of conversion, and con- * sequently election, to their owq party/ This is in- deed a heinous charge. But how has he proved it ? Nay, not so much as the least document has he offer- ed to produce for that purpose. The Episcopal ve- racity must stand for all. But the Presbyterians deny the charge till they shall see it proved. In the meantime, I charge Mr Rhind, and his party, with a partial, damning spirit, and shall prove It ere I go further. 1st, 1 charge Mr Rhind with it. For, speaking of the spirit of the Presbyterians, p. 216, he expressly says, that « it drives them from • the communion of the church, and cuts them off • from the ordinary communications of the Holy • Ghost/ Besides, he has (as we have heard before) damned the whole Protestant Churches that want Episcopal government. Nay, he has damned the whole Catholic Church of Christ, by declaring her doctrmes fundamentally false and pernicious. 2rf/y, I charge his party with it. Besides many shoals of lesser authors, I instance, for the purpose, Mr Dod- well, the standard-bearer of the party. In his book of schism, the sum of the fifteenth chapter is, that the Spirit of God is not given, nor his graces commu- nicated, nor pardon of sin bestowed, nor salvation to be expected without the sacraments. The design of his eighteenth chapter is to prove, that the vali- dity of the sacraments depends on the authority of the persons by whom they are administered. The design of his nineteenth chapter is to prove, that no other ministers have this authority of adminis- tering the sacraments, but only they who receive their orders in the Episcopal communion. The sum of all is, no bishop no miniister ; — no minister no sa- crament; — no sacrament no salvation; Erga, no bishop no salvation. Or, take it in his own words,* • the alone want of communion with the bishop • makes persons aliens from God and Christ, stran- • gets to the covenant of promise and the common* ? Oftc Priffth0oa, Chiip. ziii. Sect, 14. t^RlSBYTEUlAN SPIRIT. 841 * wealth of Israel. — They must certainly be deprived * of all those real enjoyments and holy relishes « which devout souls experience, even in this life, * in the communion with their best beloved.' In a word, he tells us, that, on that account, we must want the comforts of religion here, and lose the hopes of enjoying them hereafter. Say now, good reader, if it is not modest in the Episcopal party to charge the Presbyterians with a damning spirit. Whether atheism, laziness, or uxoriousness (as Mr Rhind al- leges against the Presbyterians), can engage men of sense to entertain such fantastic principles, I shall not say ; but, sure I am, they come not from the Spirit of God, nor are consistent with the peace of the churcii or nation. NOT A NARROW OR MEAN SPIRIT. IV. He charges the Presbyterians with a narrow and mean spirit. Upon wliat evidence ? I sty * Christ,' saith he, ' died for all men, but the Presbyterians * confine the merit of his death to a predestinated * few,* p. 207. I answer, the Presbyterians ac- knowledge that Christ died for ail men in all that sense the Scripture meant ever that expression. It is true, they confine the efficacy of his death to the predestinated, and acknowledge that Christ^s flock (comparatively speaking), is but a little one ; but it is false that they confine it to a few ; on the contrary, they believe the redeemed to be past numbering, and hope, upon the assurance of the Scripture, ' Rev. * vii. 9. to behold one day a great multitude, which * no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, * and people, and tongues, standing before the throne, * and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, * and palms intheir hands, and hymnsin their mouths/ 2 fif^, * Christ meant,' saith he, * that his grace should * extend universally, which the Presbyterians re- * strain to their own party.' I answer, the first part of this charge is false doctrine, the latter impudent calumny. The first part of it I say is false doctrine, for which (waving other arguments at thii time,) I y> 1^: f li ' I I ll DEFENCE OF THE appeal to the Cluircli of England, whicli, in her cate- cbisin, thoii«r|i she teaches her catechiimetis to say • 1 believe in Goil the Son, who hath redeemed me • and all mankind/ yet she expressly restricts the object of sanctifying i^race : and teaches the cate- chninen to say, * 1 believe in God the Holy Ghost, • who sanctiHeth me and all the elect people of God/ The latter part of the charge, 1 add, is impudent calumny. The Presbyterians are so far from re- straining grace to their own |)arty, that they both be- lieve and profess that • in every nation he that fear- • eth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of • him.* But then, who knows not that high-church is guilty of this narrowness arul meanness of spirit even to the last degree of scandal ? Is it not known that they not only deny grace to Presbyterians, but even con- fine the Church of England to their own party, and reckon all such, even of the Episcopal communion, schismatics, as fall in with the government ; nay, in their most solemn offices, rank their episcopal bre- thren of tlie lower form in the very same class with pagans. Thus, in their new liturgy* which they formed after King William's accession to the tlnone, they prayed in terms, * restore to us again the public • worsliip of thy name, the reverend administration • of thy sacraments : raise up the former govern- ' nient both in church and state, that we may be no • longer without king, without priest, without God « in the world.* Sdij/, < Christ's charity,' saith he, • relieved all men indifferently, enemies as well as • friends, while the Presbyterian bias visibly sways • them to favour the godly, that is, those of their • own way/ It is answered, the Presbyterians, as they have opportunity, do good unto all men ; though indeed, according to the Apostles precept, • especially unto them who are of the household of • faith/ whether of their own or any other way ; • See a pamphlet, entided Reflections upon a Form of Prayer lately fet forth for the Jacobites of tht Church of England, printed for ilichard Baldwin, 1690. PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 849 thotigh, no doubt, they love those of tlieir own way best r and I suppose afl the world does the hke. In the mean while, though it is both vain and sin- ful to boast on this head, yet for stopping the mouth of calumny, the Presbyterians are content it be put to a trial, which of the parties have gone furthest in their public deeds of charity to the other in their distress. By all the information I can have, the Epis- copal clergy, during the whole 28 years of their late reit'-n, never relieved any of their Presbyterian bre- thren with so much as one shilling. The truth is, they durst not ask it, but thought themselves happy enough, if they escaped without being relieved out of all their miseries at once, by [he compendious way then in fashion : whereas, to my certain knowledge, the Presbyterians have often relieved the Episcopa- lians, and I hope shall always continue to do so, in imitation of their heavenly Father, who ' is kind even • to the bad and the unthankful,' and in spite of the apocryphal prohibition, Eccles. xii. 5. ' Give not to • the ungodly : hold back thy bread and give it not • unto him/ NOT A MALICIOUS OR UNFORGIVING SPIRIT. V. He charges them with a malicious and unfor- giving spirit, p. 209, so contrary to that which our Saviour and the blessed martyr St Stephen exempli- jGed. Well, how does he quality or prove this charge ? Why, * their rebellious martyrs,' saith he, * never « expressed their forgiveness of the injtiries, which « they thought were done them by their supposed « persecutors ; their last speeches, so faithfully re- • corded in Naphtali, and so much admired by the « party, containing rather too plain indications of the « malice and rancour of their souls, when they were • stepping into eternity.* Thus he. It is true, these rebellious martyrs did not allow themselves to die as a fool dieth, though their hands were bound and their feet (and legs too) were oft-times put into the most pinching fetters. They boldly avowed the cause for which they died, and with all freedom # BEPINCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 351 i fold their persecutors of their injustice and the wick- ed course they were in. And for this practice they had the example of the blessed martyr Stephen, who treated tlie Sanhedrim with sharper language than any that is to be found in Naphtali. * Ye stifF-neck* * ed, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do c always resist the Holy Ghost : As your fathers did, * so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your * fathers persecuted ? And they have slain them * which shewed before of the coming of the just * One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and * murderers.* Acts vii. 51, 52. But now as to the charge itself. If we shall find these rebellious martyrs expressing their forgiveness of their enemies — if we shall find them doing this in their last speeches recorded in Naphtali ; will not this discover what a spirit of truth and modesty, that is, the Episcopal party, are possessed with ? Let us try it then. The Marquis of Argyle, who suffered May 27th 1661. * And,' saith he, * as I go to make a reckon- * ing to my God, I am free as to any of these ca- * lumnies that have gone abroad of me, concerning * the king's person or government. I was real and * cordial in my desires to bring the king home, and * in my endeavours for him when he was at home, « and I had no correspondence with the adversaries « army, nor any of them, in the time when his ma- * jesty was in Scotland ; nor had I any accession to * his late majesty's horrid and execrable murder, by * counsel or knowledge of it, or any other manner of * Way. This is a truth, as I shall answer to my Judge « —I desire not that the Lord should judge any man ; * nor do I judge any but myself: I wish, as the Lord * hath pardoned me, so he may pardon them for * this and other things, and that what they have * ddne to me, may never meet them in their ac* * counts.— —-And I pray the Lord preserve his ma* * JMty, and to pour out his best blessings on his per. 4C CC « son and government.' Naph. Edit. 1693, p. 285, &c Mr James Guthrie, minister of the gospel at Stir- line, who suffered, June i, 1661. ' God is my re- * cord,' saith he, ' that in these things for which * sentence of death had passed against me, I have * a good conscience. I bless God they are not mat- « ters of compliance with sectaries, or designs or * practices against his majesty's person, or govern- « ment of his royal father : my heart, (1 bless God) * is conscious unto no disloyalty ; nay, loyal I have « been, and I commend it unto you to be loyal and * obedient in the Lord.— The mistake, or hatred or * reproach of my enemies I do with all my heart for- * give, and wherein I have offended any of them, do « beg their mercy and forgiveness.— 1 forgive all * men the guilt of my death, and I desire you to do * so also : ' Pray for them that persecute you, and bless them that curse you ; bless, I say, and curse not.*' Ibid. p. 29 J, &c. The Lord Warriston, who suffered July 22, 1665. ' The good Lord give unto them (his enemies,) re- * pentance, remission, and amendment, and that is » the worst wish I wish them, and the best wish I * can wish unto them.— I am free (as I shall now ' answer before his tribunal) from any accession, by « counsel or contrivance, or any other way, to his « late majesty's death, or to their making that change * of government: and I pray the Lord to preserve * our present king his majesty, and to pour out his * best blessings upon his royal posterity.' Ibid. p. SOI, &c. Captain Andrew Arnot, who suffered December 7th, 1666. * And whoever they be that any way * have been instrumental or incensed against me to « procure this sentence against me, God forgive * them and I forgive them.' Ibid. p. 316. And m his joint testimony which he, with nine others who were put to death the same day with him, subscrib- ed in prison immediately before they were brought to the scaffold, he and they, in terms, acknowledge M2* BEFENCE or THl the Icing's authority. * We are,' say they, • con- • demned by men, and esteemed by many as rebels • against the king, whose authority we acknowledge : « but this is our rejoicing, the testimony of our con- • science.' /fo'rf, p. 307, &c. Mr Alexander Robertson, preacher of the gospel, who suffered December 14th, 1666. * I wish that • they may lay the matter to heart and re{)ent of it, • that God may forgive them, as I forgive all men, • and particularly Morton, who did apprehend me.' And he is so far from entertaining rebelliousthoughts, that he declares, * There was just reason to think, • that if these rigid oppressions had been made • known to his majesty, his justice and clemency « would have provided a remedy.' Ibid. p. 3i0, &c. Mr Hugh M'Kaile, preacher of the gospel, who suffered December 22d, 1666. * I do freely pardon « all that have accession to my blood, and wish that • it be not laid to the charge of this sinful land, but • that God would grant repentance to our rulers, « that they may obtain the same reconciliation with « him, whereof I myself do partake.' Jbid.p. 330, John Wilson, who suffered at the same time with Mr M*Kaile. « For my part, I pray that the Lord may « bless our king with blessings from heaven. And • I pray for all that are in authority under his Ma- « jesty. I can forgive the wrong done to me^ in • taking away my life for this cause, and wish God « to be merciful to those that have condemned me, « or have had any hand in my death.' Il/id. p. iiSl. &c. Mr James Mitchell, while under the torture of the boots, anno 1676, • And now, my Lords, I do • freely from my heart forgive you, who are judges • sitting upon the bench, and the men who are ap- • pointed to be about this piece of horrid work, and • also these who are vitiating their eyes beholding • the same. And 1 do intreat, that God may never • lay it to the charge of any of you, as 1 beg God PRESBYTEKIAN SPIRIT. 353 -5 may be pleased for his son Christ's sake, to blot * out my sins and iniquities.' Ibid. p. 43 J. James Learmont, who suffered September 27, 1678. ' As for Alexander Maitland, who appre- * hended me, my blood lies directly at his door, * who promised me then, that nothing should reach * my life, as he swore by faith and conscience ; and * his brother is also guilty of my blood. I desire * the Lord to give them repentance and mercy, if * it be possible.' Ibid. p. 445. And, in his large speech, p. 450, he thus delivers himself: ' I here ^ most freely, before 1 go hence, (without desire of * revenge upon the forenamed persons, or any other, ' who have been the occasion of my blood shed- « ding, now in my last words, after the example of * my Lord and Master,) say, as is mentioned in * that Scripture, Luke xxiii. 34 2 « And Jesus said, •* Father, forgive them, for they know not what they ** do.^ My dear friends, I give my testimony against * that calumny cast upon Presbyterians, that they * are seditious and disloyal persons, the which as- « persion I do abhor. Therefore, I exhort all peo- * pie, that they will shew loyalty to the King, and * all lawful Magistrates, and all their just and law- * ful commands.' Mr John King^ minister of the gospel, who suf- fered August 14, 1679. « The Lord knows, who is * the searcher of hearts, that neither my design * nor practice was against his Majesty's person and * just government, but I always intended to be * loyal to lawful authority in the Lord. I thank * God, my heart doth not condemn me of any dis- * loyalty; I have been loyal, and do recommend it * to all to be obedient to higher powers in the « Lord.— I bless the Lord, I can freely and frankly ' forgive all men the guilt of it, even as I desire to ' be forgiven of God. ' Pray for them that persecute ** you, and bless them that curse you." Ibid. p. 469. 475. John Neilson of Corsacfe, who suffered December 14, 1666. * 1 pray that the Lord for Christ's saktt z ') jllM ti» .J^^ 354 DEFENCE OF THE « may freely forgive me, as I have forgiven them that * have wronged me/ Ibid. p. 327. These are the rebellious martyrs recorded in NaphtaU, who never expressed the forgiveness of the injuries they thought were done them. Re- bellious martyrs they were \ for, when stepping into eternity, they not only denied and disowned any act of rebellion, but spent their last breath in praying for the King, and in recommending loyalty to their survivors. These last words of theirs, which I have cited, are no doubt as good evidence of the Presby- terian malice, as their sufferings are of the Episco- pal mercy. I cannot but wish that the Episcopal au- thors would retain, at least, some relic of modesty, and not advance things, not only without all ground, but contrary also to the clearest and amplest testimo- ny. I am sure they cannot but be sensible how odious such a way of writing must needs make any party, that uses it, to God and all good men. They very frequently insist on this topic of for* giving enemies against the Presbyterians ; but it is in such a way as sufficiently discovers their meaning. I remember betwixt the year 1680 and 1G88, there was no doctrine more frequently insisted on from the pulpits of Edinburgh, than that of forgivin gene- mies. In the mean time, the gibbet, to save ex- pences, was left standing in the open street, from one market day to another, for hanging the Whigs. , People were mightily puzzled for a while to recon- cile the Episcopal preaching and practice together. At last the secret was found out, that the meaning was» that their enemies should forgive them : but then, that they should forgive their enemies was a different case. They must then take the sponge to their late books, in which they have so often libel- led the Presbyterians on this head, and wait till the memory of the late times is worn out, ere they can persuade people that their insisting on the for- giveness of enemies, is any other than most odi- ous affectation ; just as when the inquisition turns PRESBYTEIUAN SPIRIT. 355 over a poor wretch to the secular arm, entreating, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to be tender to him ; the meaning of which is, that Secular Arm must burn the poor creature quick, on pain of excommu- nication, and a worse turn besides. And is there any other proof needful to shew what a jest the Episcopal insisting on forgiveness of enemies is, than to read over Mr Khind's book, especially the latter part of it, which breathes pure unmixed malice for thirty pages together, and that too which makes it so much the more ridiculous, without the least sha- dow of truth or proof. If a man treat me harshly, however bitter the things may be he says against me, yet, if they are true, and he convinces me that they are so, I ought to bear with him, and it is my own fault if I do not profit by the reproof. But if he charges me with the worst things, without so much as offering to convince me, I contemn the ma- lice of the poor impudent thing, and cannot re- venge myself better than by suffering him to fry in his own grease, and to prey upon his own spleen. NOT AN UNCONVERSIBLE SPIRIT. VI. He charges the Presbyterians, p. 209, with an unconversible spirit, in that they value themselves upon the sullenness of their tempers. A very great fault truly. For certainly Cliristianity is super- structed upon humanity, and the grace of God was intended not to destroy, but to improve and refine it. And the Apostle has expressly commanded us, 1 Peter iii. 8. * Love as brethren ; be pitiful, be * courteous.' Nor does piety ever appear more charming and engaging than when adorned with a good behaviour. But how does Mr Rhind prove his charge r Why, good reader, he does not so much as attempt this, nor has offered so much as one syllable for that purpose. Is it not, then, as easily denied as affirmed. And is not the defender, in all such odious cases, presumed to be innocent till the contrary is proved. It is true, our Saviour's desire (as Mr Rhind suggests) of doing good, car- z2 356 DEFENCE OF THE ried him into the company of the men of loose, as well as regular lives, and I believe all Presbyterians, whether ministers or others, who are piously inclin- ed, are carried, by the same desire of doing good, into the company of men of loose lives, when there is the least hope that their doing so will not rather harden tliem in, than reclaim them from their loose- ness. But then, that they keep at a distance from them in their revels, study a preciseness ol con- Tersation, and will not run with them to the same excess of riot, however strangely they may be thought of on that account : This they are so far from reckon- ing a fault, that they avow it, and are sorry there is not more ground for charging them with it. Mr Rhind may call them puritans on that score, or give them what other ill names he pleases : But tlien what comforts them is, that the Apostle Paul was just such another pmitan -, and not only warrants them in, but obliges them to such preciseness and ab- straction, commanding them, 1 Cor. v. IK ' Witli « such persons not so much as to eat. And, 2 Thessalonians iii. 14. * To note such persons, and • have no company with them.' Om' blessed baviour mm such a physician as was not in danger of catch- ing the disease from the patient. But when virtu- ous persons allow themselves to haunt bad company in their bottle conversation, I am afraid tt too oiteii falls out, that they themselves are infected, and the vicious not reformed. , -d i However, whatever unconversibleness the rresby- tmms may be guilty of, I suppose Mr Rhind might have kept at home, and reserved his lecture tor High-Church : Not that they are very nice in their practice ; for, I believe, the best that can be said of Jhem, as ta that, is, that they are (it I may use our country phrase) but like neighbour and other. 15ut, if the Church of England divines themselves may b^ believed— MrBisset,for instance— the height of their principle makes them so much enemies to the rest k mankind, that neither Presbyterians nor even Low-Church can walk the streets in safely, but are PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 357 every moment in danger of being jostled into the kennel by High-Church. Tantum religio potuit suadere Malorum ! But it is not this or that man's particular testi- mony we need depend on. It is plain their prin- xjiples oblige th«m to such hostility against the rest of mankind; for, were I of Mr Rhind's faith, and believed all the same ill things of the Presbyterians .that he does, I would not only reckon it unlawful -to converse with them, but I should think myself jobliged in conscience to destroy them. If they are cchismatics, heretics, and their spirit diametrically .opposite to that of the gospel, &c. what should men do, but treat them as mad dogs, knock them on the head, and rid the world .of such nuisances ? NOT A DISLOYAL OR REBELLIOUS SPIlUT. . VII. He charges them with a disloyal, rebellious spirit, p. 210. I hope, every man ought not to be believed a rebel \Vho has been at any time called one. I have observed before, p. 29, that Mr Dod- well was proclaimed a rebel by King Jame$, yet who, for all that, believes he was such ? Perhaps the Presbyterians will be found as innocent. Mr Rhind founds his charge both upon their principles and practices. Firsty Upon their principles. But, had he thought that any part of his business, I suppose he would have found the proof of this a very hard task. The principles of a church are to be gathered from her -puhMc formulas. And I appeal to every body who has read the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, if the first is not as loyal as the latter. But they are private authors, not public confessions that Mr Rhind was to build on. And, for his purpose, he names, (for he cites nothing) Buchanan's Treatise de jure Regni, Rutherford's Le.v Rex^ Naphtali, and the Hind let Loose. ' Which books,' saith he, p. 211, « the Presbyterians have not to this day brand- DEFENCE OF THE * ed with any public censure, though they have * been often upbraided, and solemnly challenged to * condemn, otherwise to be counted abettors of * them/ The answer, I hope, will be pretty easy. The Presbyterians love to walk by example, and to give place to their betters, Mr Rhind certainly knows, that the Bishops and other clergy of the Church of England, have published at least a hun- dred books and pamphlets with the same principles and schemes of government as are in Buchanan, Rutherford, &c. Let the convocation once con- demn these, and begin with the Bishop of Sarum, DrHigden, and MrHoadley; and then pdssibly the General Assembly may write after their copy. It is certain the Presbyterians mauitani no other principles of government, than what the Church of England has practised — no other principles than these upon which she, w ith the assistance of her good neighbours, preserved the Protestant religion in 1688. I am not for prying into the power of princes, remembering to have read somewhere, Pe- ricuU plenum est de Us dispntare qui possunt ampu- tare, de iis scribere qui possunt proscribere ; but I think the principles of our Scots Episcopalians are beyond the power of all natural understanding to ac- count for. Claudius and Nero, who reigned succes- sively in the time of writing the New Testament, were both usurpers and tyrants, had neither heredi- tary nor parliamentary right ; yet both the apostles Peter and Paul enjoined subjection to them, and commanded prayers for them. Her present Ma- jesty has both the fullest and clearest right any prince possibly can have. She has exercised it in the most obliging manner, particularly with respect to them. Now that, notwithstanding all this, they should have so long refused to pray for her, and fliat most of them should do so still ; this I affirm is unaccountable in point both of duty and gratitude. Nor have the actings of High Church of England been more accountable, as 1 hope we shall hear af- terwards. \ PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT, 359 Secondlj/9 He charges us with disloyal practices. * They were no sooner hatched,' saith he, p. 212, * than they rebelled.' Sweet Popery ! What a charming thing art thou ; when even Protestants, nay, those that will needs be the only Christians among them, affirm that a reformation from thee was rebellion ? But let us hear his instances of their rebellion ? Jstf He begins where the reformation began, viz. at Queen Mary's reign, • whose reputation,' saith he, ' they blackened, whose authority and govern- * raent they resisted and reviled, whose person they ' imprisoned, and whom they obliged to fly, in * hopes to save that life which she cruelly lost.' Thus he. Every body must needs own, that of all others, the Episcopal writers are the nimblest dis- putants. When we dispute with them about the government of the Church in Queen Mary's days, by no means will they allow that it w^as Presbyte- rian. No. Superintendents were the same thing with bishops.* Well, be it so. And let us dis- pute a little about loyalty in the government of the state. How came it, that under an Episcopacy, Queen Mary was so ill treated ? Oh, now the case al- ters, the whole government was then in the hands of the Presbyterians. Rebellion was the very egg out of which they were hatched ! Qiuo tmeam vultus mutantem protea nodo ? But let us suppose the Presbyterians had then the government, — what did they ? * Why, first,' saith he, * they blackened her reputation.* For answer, I ask, has Archbishop Spottiswood whitened it ? Does not he tell the story of Signior Davie much after the same way with Buchanan ? Does he not tell of the horrid abuse the King met with at Stir- ling — how he was neither admitted to be present at the baptism of his son, nor suffered to come to the feast ? How the foreign ambassadors were dis- charged to see or salute him, and such of the no- * Sec the Fnndamental Charter pf Presbytery, with many o- ther authors. f 0- 360 DEFENCE OF THE bility as vouchsafed him a visit were frowned upon by the Court, and he at last dismissed with a dose of poi^ son in his guts. Does he not e^^pressly tell that the King was murdered by Bothwell and the Queen's domestics ? Does not all the world know, that her Majesty afterwards married the murderer, and that too, upon a divorce from the Lady Jean Gordon, his wife, obtained in the most scandalous manner ? Does not Spottiswood, I say, relate all tliese things ? Was Spottiswood Presbyterian ? Nor is Spottiswood alone in the relation of them. For, not to mention other Scotch or English histo- rians, lluggerius Tritonius, Abbot of Pignerol,, who was a zealous papist, a hearty friend to Queen Mary, lived in the time, was secretary to Vincentius Laureus, Cardinal de Monte Regali, wlio was sent nuncio from the Pope to the Queen, for assisting her with his counsel in the extirpation of heresy, and was lying in Paris waiting for orders from the Queen to come over to Scotland, at the time when the King was murdered, and kept an exact correspondence w^ith the Roman Catholics there i This author, I say, thus every way qualified for bearing witness in this case, expressly relates,* and that with the permission of his superiors, that when the nobility told her Majesty that they had taken up arms for bringing Bothwell to punishment for murdering the King, &c. her Majesty justified Bothwell, and told them he had done nothing without her consent. Did then the Presbyterians forge any of these things ? But, 2dly^ saith Mr Rhind, • they resisted and • reviled her authority and government,' that is tq • Interroj^ati quanara de causa armati illuc accessissent, non ilia, respondisse ferunlur, nisi, ut atroceni injuriam a Boduellio 'actum, ac crudelem et indignam regis necem, vimque ipsimet, re- tinae illatam vindicaient. At rcgina noxani Boduelii purgare : Ni- hil non ipsa assentiente commissum. See Vita Vincenti Laurei S. R. E. Cardinalis Montis Kegalis. Uuggerio Tritonio Pinaro- li Abbate Auciore. Iniprcfs Canoniae, ito, apud Hasredes Juhaa- lit Hus&ii, CI3 I J IC ^uperiurum Feriuiisu. p. 19. 31. tl '{ PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. S61 gay, they would not allow her to restore popery, Bor would they commit the young Prince to the custody of Bothwell, who had murdered his father. Were not these very unpardonable faults ? Yet farther, Sdb/, Queen Elizabeth took off her head ; and no doubt she, and her council that ad- vised her to it, were staunch Presbyterians. So piuch for Queen Mary's reign. Secondly^ In King James VI.'s reign. Mr Rhind owns (which is very much from him) that in his days they did not break out into open rebellion. Why, then, they cannot havebeen so rebelliously disposed as he would represent them : For if they had, it is not quite improbable but they might have made their own terms of peace : * But,' says Mr Rhind, ' they f occasioned vexations and disturbances to him ;' that is to say, they protected him in his cradle, set the crown on his head, fought for him, and kept the country in greater peace, when he went to fetch home his queen, th^n it had been known to be in for many years before ; which he himself acknow- ledged, and gave public thanks to God for. It is true, they grudged the receiving bishops and the five articles of Perth ; which he would need press upon us, in order to a conformity with England. But I cannot think either England, or we, or the royal family, could have been much losers, though he had never fallen into that politic. Before I proceed to the next reign, I must beg leave for a short digression, which, I hope, the reader will the more easily excuse, that it is not so much from the subject as from the author ; and is intended to do justice to the memory of the dead, who are not in capacity to redress themselves. The matter is this : — The Right Honourable the Earl of Cromarty, very lately, viz. in May last, 1713, published a book bearing this title, — An Historical Account of the Conspiracies by the Earls of Gowry, and Robert Lo- gan of Restalrig^ against King James VI, Therein (preface, p. 8.) his Lordship writes thus : — 362 DEFENCE OF THE PUESBYTERIAN SPIKIT. 363 « As to the truth of my present subject, tlie • malicious designers against the Royal Family iii • Scotland, did at first invent, and then foment, a « most improbable falsehood, making it their busi- < ness to suggest, that Govvry and his brother did « never conspire against tlic King; but that the « King did murder them both. This was invented « and clandestinely propagated by Bruce, RoUock, « Dury, Melville, and other Presbyterian ministers/ Thus his Lordship. It is hugely afflicting to the Presbyterians to find their forefathers represented, by a person of his^ Lordship's figure, under the odious character of • Maliciousdesignersagainst the Royal Family.' What is usually advanced against them by the common herd of Episcopal writers they can securely contemn: For, why should that give them any concern, which their enemies blurt out without any care ? But such a charge from his Lordship cuts them to the heart, and would leave them inconsolable, were it not that (as kind Providence would have it), they find his Lordship's much weightier affairs have hurried him into some mistakes, which, they make no doubt, he will rectify upon advertisement j which I now humbly crave leave to give. In the Jlrst place, as for Mr RoUock ; that he did neither invent nor clandestinely propagate such a story as his Lordship alleges, it is certain, by this token, that Mr RoUock was dead, and rotten too, before the conspiracy. Every one knows that Cowry's conspiracy fell out August 5th, 1600. But Mr RoUock died in the month of February 1598. Thus Clerk relates in his life: Thus Melchior Adamt relates in his lives of foreign divines : Thus the manuscript Calderwood, in the University library in Glasgow, relates. — Nay, thus Spottiswood relates in his history, p. 454. And thus, I presume, every body else relates that writes of Mr RoUock. For preventing mistakes, I must advertise the reader, that, as Spottiswood informs us, p. 456, the year among us used to begin at 25th March, till a Dubllc ordinance was made, appointing that the be- Eiincr of the year 1600, and so on thenceforward. Eld'be reckoned from the first of January as now. It is then no objection against what I have advanc- ed though one find Mr RoUock writing books or spoken of in history as living, in January or Febru- arv 1599. The different ways of computation quite remove that difficulty. And though historians^^^^^^^ about the day of the month on which he died, bpottis- wood making it the last day of February, whereas all the rest whom 1 have seen, make it the «th day of that month : yet, that is not of any import in this case: for, even by the lowest account, he was dead at least seventeen months before the conspiracy, and therefore could not, without a miracle, invent or Dropagate false stories concerning it. 2dlt His Lordship is in like mistake concerning Mr Dury. For he died, as Spottiswood abo relates p. 457, upon the last day of February 1600, that is to say, five months and five days before the conspi- racy, and so could not be guilty. These observes, concerning RoUock and Dury, the public owes not to me, but to that worthy per- son, and my very good friend Mr Matthew Crawfoid, minister at Inchinao, in the shire of Renfrew ; who, in an accidental conversation, first gave me notice of his Lordship's book, and that he had observed the said mistakes in it. Which observes, upon exa- mination, I found to be just. ^ His Lordship is not only out as to his reckoning, but is mistaken also in the characters ot the men : for, they were so far from being designers against the royal family ; that as Spottiswood re ates in the places above cited, they spent their ast breath, RoUock, in exhorting his brethren in the ministry, to carry dutifully towards the king ; and Dury, in advising them to comply with his majesty s designs for restoring prelacy. . , . I do not in the least incline to aggravate these his Lordship's mistakes. So much the less, .that 1 hnd it is usual with great men, when writing against the 1 ^1 Ill 11,1 364 DEFENCE OP THE IM Presbyterians, to fall into the like. The famous Monsieur Varillas very gravely tells it as a singular!* ty • concerning Budianan, that, * After having de- • dared himself against his sovereign lady, so far as • to go into England to depose against her in the • criminal process then depending, he continued to • persecute her after she was beheaded. This/ saith be, * is a crime which they, who are most partial in • favour oi* Buchanan, must own he was guilty of.' And yet after all this, it is certain, that Buchanan was not guilty of that crime, for this good reason, that he died some three or four years before the queen was beheaded. But there is a short and ob- vious apology to be made for such mistakes in Va- rtllas or his Lordship, — aquila non capiat MmcflS* To go on. Sdl^y As to Mr Melville. It is true he was in life at that time, yet I cannot find in any history that he was guilty of inventing, fomenting, or propagating •uch a story, or that lie made any the least noise about that matter. His lordship therefore would oblige his country, if he would vouchsafe to give his authors. 4ihti/, As to Mr Bruce. It is true, he refused to give public thanks for the king's deliverance from that conspiracy, declaring, as Spottiswood, p. 46, lelates, ' that he would reverence his Majesty's re- * ports of that accident, but could not say he. was • persuaded of the truth of it :' For which he was banished the king's dominions, and went into France. But this is a very different thing from what his Lordi* ship charges him with. For, to suggest, ' that Gowry * and his brother did never conspire against the king, • but that the king did murder them both,* had been a crime ; because it was not possible certainly to know that ; ami yet much less, to prove such a sug- gestion. But to declare, that lie could not say that he was persuaded of the truth of the conspi- racy, which is all that the historians of that tim^ * Frt face to the Stk loin, of tlie Hiiieire de L'Heretie. PRESBYTEUIAN SPIRIT. 365 charcre him with, was, at the worst, but a weakness ; it no't being in a man's power to believe a story, bu" accordhig to the impression which the grounds of it, and credibility of its circumstances, make upon his mind. And no one knows better than Ins lordship, that there are several circumstances mthe story of the conspiracy, which are not so perfectly clear, but that they require time to believe them . Though indeed, I think his majesty's testimony, with the presumption that the Earl and his brother were out of their wits, as his majesty, before the at- tempt, suspected the Earl's brother to be, is suth- cient to determine the matter. For what may not mad men do ? However it was, it does not appear thatMrBrucewas guilty ofwhat his Lordship charges him with ; there being a very great odds betwixt contradicting a report, and being reverently silent 5lhh/ As for other Presbyterian ministers whom his Lordship indefinitely involves in the same guilt, the accusation can be of no weight till his Lordship is pleased to name them. It is true the ministers of Edinburgh, viz. Mrs Walter Balcanqual, William Watson, James Balfour an* John Hall, demurred at first to give thanks for the king's deliverance, upon this excuse, as Spottiswood, p. 461, informs us, that they were not acquainted with the particulars, nor how those things had fallen out. But how soon they were informed of the particulars of the con- spiracy, they complied. Now, implicit faith ha- ving been cried down, ever since the reformation, it seems hard to blame such a conduct: And it is no less hard to blame Presbyterian ministers for a fault which was common to so many others at that time : Spottiswood telling us that many doubted that there had been any such conspiracy. This may be sufficient for vindication of the Presbyterian minis- ters against his lordship's charge. I crave leave only to add two remarks more on his Lordship s book. L His Lordship, p. 30, 31, has advanced a piece of history in these words :— ' Upon the mformatioa f S66 DEFENCE OF THE * of Henderson, and other witnesses, Cranston and * Craigengelt were pannelled before the Justiciary * at St Johnston ; and upon clear testimonies, and * on their own confession at the bar (which they * also adhered to on the scaffold) they were both « executed : Only alleging that they did not know * of the design to murder the king; but that they * intended to force the king to make great repara- * tions for the late Earl of Gowry's death ; and that * this Earl of Gowry was to be made a great man.' Thus his Lordship. But his Lordship has not thought fit to document this ; and Spottiswood, who lived in the time, has flatly contradicted it, in these words, p. 459 : « An- * other of Gowry's servants, surnmn^d Craigengelt, * was some two days after apprehended, and both * he and Mr Thomas Cranston executed at Perth ; * though at their dying they declared that they knew * nothing of the Earl's purpose, and had only fol- * lowed him, as being their master, into that room ; « where, if they had known the king to have been, « they would have stood for him against their master * and all others.' Thus Spottiswood. I do not, for all this, say, that the Earl of Cromarty is wrong ; but if he is not, certainly the Archbishop is. IL His Lordship has also given us, in his book, a large and particular account of the process and trial of Robert Logan of Restalrig. No one will suspect his Lordship's exactness in the extracts of the docu- ments of that process, which he has produced. But though his Lordship's faithfulness is beyond ques- tion, yet the truth of the story itself is not I shall give my reason why I say so. Spottiswood was at that time at man's age, — ^was Archbishop of Glasgow^,— was one of his Majesty's privy-council, — was upon the scaffold, when Sprot, the notary, from whom that whole process flowed, was hanged; and signs the account of Sprot's be- haviour on the scaffold, which we have, p. 115, of his Lordship's book : Spottiswood, I say, who was thus every way (jualified to give judgment upon, and PRESBYTEllIAN SPIRIT. 367 a true narration of this process ; yet, in his history, tells the story in such a manner, as would tempt any body shrewdly to suspect that the whole business was a fiction. For thus his words are, p. 509 : « Whether or not I should mention the arraign- « ment and execution of George Sprot, notary in Eye- * mouth, who suffered at Edinburgh in the August * preceding, I am doubtful : his confession, though * voluntary and constant, C2inymg small probability. * This man had deponed, that he knew Robert Lo- * gan, of Restalrig, whowas dead two years before, to « have been privy to Gowry's conspiracy, and that * he understood so much by a letter that fell in his * hand, written by Restalrig to Gowry, bearing, that ^ he would take part with him in the revenge of his * father's death, and that his best course should be * to bring the King by sea to Fascastle, where he ' might be safely kept, till advertisement came from, * those with whom the Earl kept intelligence. It * seemed a very fiction, and to be a mere invention ' of the man's own brain ; for neither did he shew * the letter, nor could a^iy wise man think that Gow- * ry, who went about that treason so secretly, would * have communicated the matter with such a man * as this Restalrig was known to be.' Thus far his Grace, who, as we are told in his life, had not only the use of all the registers, both of Church and State, in Scotland, but of all letters of state that could any way concern the work he was about. And yet his account not only differs from his Lordship's, but plainly contradicts it. It is certain, then, there must be a mistake somewhere, which I must leave to the reader to judge upon as he lists. I do not design by these two remarks to derogate in the least from the truth of the conspiracy. For, in the light wherein it now stands, I cannot conceive why any man should suspect it. The Earl of Gow- ry used the black art, wore magic spells in his gir- dle, which his Lordship himself was once master of, and has very well proved in his letter to his printer, prefixed to his book. What crime was not 368 DEFENCE OP THE ^^gl^ § such a person capable of? His brother's wliole conduct in the management of the conspiracy speaks him fran- tic. For, U/, That he should have shut up Henderson in the chamber, in order to perpetrate the murder, and yet no have told him before-hand that this was the de- sign. 2i//y, That after having held the whinger to the King's breast, he should have fallen a parleying with him, and gone down stairs to consult with the Earl Bis brother whether he should murder him or not. Sdlj/^ That he should have taken the King's promise not to open the \^indow or cry out till he should re- turn. 4iklyy That when he had returned and sworn * by Goflf there is no remedy, you must die ;' he should have essayed to tie the king's hands with a garter, when, it is probable, he might have more easily dis*- patched him without that ceremony. Could there be greater symptoms of a man distempered in his wits than these and a great many other circumstan- ces that might be added ? Why then should we any longer doubt whether a man in compact, and his brotlier no?i compos, would attempt the greatest vil-* lany ? But then, both the Earl and his brother bad al- ways, till that very day, passed under the character of wise, sober and virtuous gentlemen — two youth* of great hope, says Spottiswood, • at whose hand* • no man could have expected such an attempt.' Was it any wonder then, if Mr Bruce, and the otiier ministers of Edinburgh, who demurred a little, could not at first dash be persuaded, that they had all of a sudden become, the one of them a devil, the other distracted? It is plain there was a difficulty here: And this is more than enough to vindicate the Pres* byterian ministers. Quod erat Fadendum, 1 go on with Mr Rhind, and proceed to consider his charge of rebellion. Thirdly, In King Charles I.'s time, I believe there is no wise man will undertake to justify ail that was done on either side during those troubles, 'Jhe only question is, who were the first authors of them, and mIjo gave the greatest cause of them ? I'UKSBYTKKIAN Sl'IlUT. 369 Was it the Scots Presbyterians ? My Lord Holies has assoilzied them. ' It was proposed, saith lie, . tha our brethren of Scotland might be called m. . who were known to be a wise people. 'ove'-s of ' m'der, firm to the monarchy : Who had twice « before gone through the misfortune of taking up ' arms, and wisely had laid them do>yn again ; still ' contenting themselves with that which was neces- « sary for their security, avoiding extremities. Iheir « wisdom and moderation, as was presumed, might « then have delivered us from that precipice of mu « sery and confusion, into which our charioteers ' were hurrying us amain. But these men would . none of it at that time.' Thus his Lordship. Were not the Scots Prelates the first authors of those troubles ? Did they not raise the fire ? Yes. Gilbert Burnet has expressly loaded them with it. T It is true, that person has made a vigorous appear, ance these twenty or thirty years bygone against Po- pery, and in behalf of the Protestant interes, which Kault never to be forgiven, i a this world or m the next, if some mens doom hold. And, on that score any testimony he could give now, since he was Bisho^p of Sarum, could be of no weight. Bu E testim^ony he gave, when he was f;" G.^er Burnet, and was as thorough-paced m the F'nciples o"pass ve obedience and non-resistance as ever Mr Dodwell was, or Mr Lesley is. Plainly he tells, 'That the Scots Bishops, by reflecting on the Re- ' formers ; commending the persons, and mollify. ' ng the opinions of Papists; defending the Armi- . niantene?s, advancing a liturgy without law ; pro. . yoking the nobility, by engrossing the King s fa. * vour; crying down the morality of the Sabbath, . and profanfng it l^X th^^^ P-^^^-^^ef ' J^^S . themselves insupportable to the ""inistry by S mo. . naical pactions, and encroaching upon then juris. » Sons, by relinquishing their dioceses, and med- ; SS^f 111; Hou.e of HamiUon, p 29. W, *c. A a \\ 370 DJSrZNC* OF THJC _'*f'i" * dling in all secular affairs, and by advismg thr * King to introduce innovations into the Chiirch, • without consent of the Clergy. By these, and * such like things,' saith he, ' the Scots Prelates « raised that fire in the nation, which was not so ea- ♦ sily extinguished,' Is there any other account to be brought from England ? No. Those of the greatest character^ and most unshaken loyalty, have told the story as to that kingdom the very same way. I shall produce ^n f ^i^^"^ ^^'^ ^'^^ purf)ose. The first is the Lord -Falkland, in his speech before cited before the ilouse of Commons, than which a more exact piece ot eloquence, with such rigid truth, even ancient Mome herself cannot boast of: ' Mr Speaker,' saith lie, ' He is a great stranger in Israel, who knows not that this kingdom hath long laboured under many * and great oppressions, both in religion and liber- * ty. And his acquaintance here is not great, or • his ingenuity less, who doth not both know and • acknovvledge, that a great, if not a principal cause,, ot both these have been some Bishops, and their ^adherents.'— The reader may peruse the rest at his leisure. To him, let us add my Lord Claren- don, an avowed enemy ta the Presbyterians ; an author, who hardly ever allows himself to speak one good word of any Scotsman j and who, even when he has the brightest characters of our nation a-draw- ing, yet lays on the shadowing so thick, that the piece appears but a very indifferent one. Even this noble historian, I say, has expressly charged the troubles of those times upon the unaccountable and liery measures of the Court and High Church party • No less unjust projects of all kinds,' saith he,» « many ridiculous, many scandalous— all very grie- • vous, were set on foot. The Council Chamber, • and Star Chamber, held for honourable that which * pleased, and for just that which profited; and be- * ing the same persons, in several rooms, grew both • Hill. RtbtlL B. I. f. Si, sg. FRESBTTERIAN SPIRIT. 371 « courts of law to determine right, and courts of re- « venue, to bring in money to the Treasury, ihe « Council Table, by proclamation, enjoining to the « people what was not enjoined by the law, and pro- « hibiting what was not prohibited ; and the Star * Chamber, censuring the breach of those procla^ « mations, by very large fines and imprisonment. And, p. 223, That ' there were very few persons ot * quality, who had not suffered, or been perplexed, « by the weight and fear of these judgments and « censures ; and that no man could hope to be longer « free from the inquisition of that Court, than he * resolved to submit to extraordinary courses.' So much for the Court. Was High Church more innocent? No; on the contrary, she was the great spring of all. The same Lord Clarendon owns, * That ' when Laud was * made Archbishop, (which was in 1633,) it was a * timeof great ease and tranquillity. The King had * made himself superior to all those difficulties he « had to contend with, and was now reverenced by « all his neighbours; the general temper and hu- « mour of the kingdom little inclined to the Papist, * and less to the Puritan. The Church was not re- * pined at, nor the least inclination shewn to alter * the government or discipline thereof, or to change « the doctrine ; nor was there at that time any con- * siderable number of persons, of any valuable con- « dition throughout the kingdom, who did wish ei- * ther. And the cause of so prodigious a change, ' in so few years after, was too visible from the ef- * fects. The Archbishop's heart was set upon the * advancement of the Church, &c. He never abat- * ed any thing of his severi:y and rigour towards * men of all conditions, or in the sharpness of his * language and expressions ; and that he entertain- * edtoo'much prejudice to some persons, as if they * were enemies to the discipline of the Church, be- * cause they concurred with Calvin in some doctri. A a 2 • Ubi supra, p. 6l| 71« ..j!'n 572 D£>-£XC£ OF THE PRESBYTERIArr SPIRIT. S73 • nal points, when they abhorred his discipline, and • reverenced the government of the Church, and • prayed for its peace with as much zeal and ferven- « cy as any in the kingdom, as they made manifest • in their lives, and in their sufferings, with it, and « for it.' Thus he, and a great deal more to the same purpose, for which any body may consult the history itself. Say now, good reader, who were the first and greatest causes of the troubles in King Charles I.'s time ? But, says Mr Ilhind, « They betrayed him into • the hands of his enemies, when he had entrusted • them with his sacred person.* Let us hear my Lord Holies upon this, p. 68. « The wisdom of the « Scotish nation foresaw the inconveniences which • must have necessarily followed, had they been « positive at that time, how they had played their • enemies game to their own ruin, and even ruin • to his majesty. Therefore they made for him the • best conditions they could, that is, for the safety • and honour of his person, and, to avoid great mis- • chief, were necessitated to leave him in England, • and so march away. Here then the very mouth « of iniquity was stopped ; malice itself had nothing • to say to give the least blemish to the faithfulness. « and reality of the kingdom of Scotland.' Thus he. Mr JRhind urges, that * they entered into the So- • lemn League and Covenant, and in pursuance of • the design thereof, brought matters to that pass, • that the king's death was unavoidable/ That the English sectarians intended the Solemn League for nothing else but a decoy, I firmly believe. It is plain that they, with Cromwell their ring-leader were as very villains as ever ti'ode God's earth, since the days of Judas. But that the Scots entered into it upon the most sincere and laudable designs, the •aid Lord Holies has amply testified. And that it was not the Scots entering into, but the English breaking of that league, that was the cause of the king's death, is manifest ai light. And therefore tli» I Scots justly reproached them with breach of cove- nant in all that they intended or acted against the king's person. Thus, in the paper of the 5th of July 1648, which was given in to the Speaker of the House of Com- mons, the Commissioners for the Kingdom of Scot- land declared, Uhat they would endeavour, that * the rights and privileges of Parliament may be pre- * served, that there be no change in the fundamen- * tal government, and that there be no harm, inju- * ry, or violence offered to his majesty's person, the * very thought whereof the kingdom of Scotland * hath always abhorred, as may appear by all their * proceedings and declarations. And the Houses of * Parliament have often, upon several occasions, ex- * pressed a detestation thereof in their declarations. * Wherefore we do expect that there shall be no pro- * ceeding against his person, which cannot but con- * tinue and increase the great distractions of these * kingdoms, and involve us in many diflficulties, mi- * series, and confusions.' Thus they. And accord- ing to this declaration they made their protest. Again, The Commissioners of the General Assembly, Ja- nuary 16, 1649, emitted their necessary and solemn testimony against the proceedings of the sectaries, wherein they have these words : * If, after so many * public professions and solemn attestations to the * contrary, the foundation shall be razed, monarchy * be destroyed, and parliaments subverted by an * imaginary and pretended agreement of the people : * as it would destroy the League and Covenant, and * cause the adversary to blaspheme and insult, so it * cannot but be the cause of many miseries and ca- « lamities unto these kingdoms.' Thus they. Once more. Upon the 18th of January, 1649, the estates of Parliament gave a return upon the said testimony, wherein we have these words : ^ Therefore the estates < of Parliament, after diligent enquiry at all the « members of this court, upon their public and so- « Icmn oath, both concerning themselves and others. 1 1 874 DEFENCE OF THE m I! f • do declare, and can assure their brethren of Eng- • land, that they cannot find that either this king- • doni, or any person thereof, had any knowledge of, • or accession unto, the late proceedings of the • English army in relation to the king's person, or • the houses and restrained members thereof, but • are very confident there is no ground for such as- « persions.' Thus they. And accordingly they in- stantly instructed their commissioners, that they should enter, in the name of this kingdom, their dissent and protest, ' That as this nation is free from • all knowledge of, and accession to these designs • and practices, so they may be free of all the ca- • lamities, miseries, and confusions which may fol- • low thereupon to these distracted kinffdoms/ These are the most public and substantial eviden- ces that possibly can be brought to document any matter of fact, and will, I hope, be allowed to be of somewhat more weight, than the furious decla- mations of Mr Rhind, and such others of the like veracity, who stick to assert nothing, and yet cite not to prove any thing. So much for King Charles I.'s time. Fourthly^ In King Charles II/s time. After the English had murdered the father, the Scots pro- claimed his son king, invited him home, crowned and fought for him. And what thanks got they ? Why, the cavaliers were glad that they had left so many of their carcases at Dunbar and Worcester. And Mr L — ley, speaking of the sectaries,* « They • banged,* saith he, • the Presbyterians heartily at • Dunbar, whose word that day was The Covenant, • the best victory ever the king lost.* Yet so ob- stinate were they in their loyalty, that when the king had fled beyond sea, and they were oppressed with a raging enemy in their bowels, yet they still continued to own him, their ministers prayed for him even in the face of the English forces, and en- couraged and assisted General Monk to bring him * Casiandra; Numb. I. p. 60. PREMJYTERIAN Si»IRIT. 375 liome; and all this, notwithstanding they might have had their own terms from Cromwell when he was in Scotland, in case they w^ould have submitted. So untrue is it what Mr Rhind says, that they were serving their own private ends. ^ < But,' says he, * they made the Act of the West * Kirk, wherein they declared, that they would not * own him nor his interest, otherwise than with a ' subordination to God, and so far as he o>yned and « prosecuted the cause of God, and disclaimed his ^ and his father's opposition to the work of God and ^ the covenant.' Well: And w^as this a cause why Mr Rhind should separate from the Presbyterians ? With what conscience, then, could he join with the Church of England ? It is within the memory of man that the Prince of Orange came over to Eng- land in opposition to King James, and that upoa the invitation of the Lords Spiritual as well as Tern- poraL He sent his declaration before him, con- taining the reasons and intent of his coming. The king foresaw what a storm was brewing, and how heavy it was like to fall on his head. He called for the bishops, and desired of them a .paper under their hands, in abhorrence of the Prince's intended invasion. Did they comply with this desire ? No. They, even the loyal and afterwards nonjuring bi- shops—the bishops who had carried the doctrine of loyalty to such an extravagant height, as had delud- ed the king into all those false steps of government which ruinedhim ; even they, 1 say, flatly refused his desire ;— yes, they refused it when he besought them in the anguish of his soul. The Episcopalians are de- sired, always, when they tell the story of the West Kirk Act, to tell this too as a counterpart to it. Salmasius wrote false in the case of King Charles I. when he wrote that the Presbyterians bound, and the Independents killed the sacrifice. Even Milton, his adversary, though a bitter enemy of the Presbyterians, has ob- served, that, in saying so, he has contradicted him- self, having elsewhere wholly loaded the independ- • Defensio pro popul© Anjjiijano, cap. lO. *■ 576 DEFENCE OF THE cuts with it. But it is plain, beyond denial, that i»i the* 'Case of King James, the Episcopalians both bound and killed the sacrifice. For, to be deposed, |iid after live, is something worse than death. 1 am fully persuaded, that what they did was abso- lotely necessary for preserving the Protestant reli- gion. But it is a very immodesl thing in them to upbraid the Presbyterians with such acts as them- selves were guilty of. But to go on with King Charles II.'s reien. It is true that a small luinJfiil of people, enrag- ed with the most horrid oppression, made an insur- rection, first in the year 16-S at Pentland, and after- wards, in the year i679, at Bothwell. Hut first to exasperate men with cruel usage, and then to up- braid them for resentin«r it, is the utmost barbarity the most spiteful nature can be guilty of; and that they were thus exasperated, simply upon the account of non-conformity, before the rising at Pentland, I refer for proof to a small tract, entitled, A short Memorial of the Grievances and Sufferings of the Presbyterians in Scotland, since the year 16O0. But indeed we need not refer to any book ; there are many thousands yet living Mho remember it to their cost. So much for King Charles II.'s time, and as much as is necessai y for King James VII.'s time. In the present, and preceding reigns, Mr Rhind himself cannot charge them with rebellion ; but he falls a prophesying, that they would rebell if put to the trial, and if their interest did not oblige them to live in peace. This is one of his visionary flights, so necessary to make up Dry den's diaracter of the English Lrah : « Some futme truths are mingled in his book, * And where the witness failed, the prophet spoke.' But if Mr Rhind act the prophet upon the Presby- terians, may not I act the historian upon the Epis- copaUans ? I gave a hint before of their new liturgy. Now b«ar their intercession in it. * We pray thee * to be gracious to our prince, who, for the sins, both rUESBYTERIAN SrilllT. 377 *^ of priests and people, is now kept out. Raise him * friends abroad, convert or confound the hearts of * his enemies at home. And by the secret windings * and powerful workings of thy providence, make « the stone which these foolish builders have reject- * ed, the head stone of the corner.' Was not this a very loyal prayer ? And has not their practice been agreeable ? For, whence all the insurrections under Dundee, Cannon and Buchan ? Whence the assas- sination plot against King William? I doubt not, but they will affirm all those efforts were acts of loyal- ty, and so, I am sure, the worst of rebels generally excuse themselves. Even Satan himself does not usually shew his horns, or put forth his cloven foot. But enough of this part of the charge. And to con- elude it, it is very true, the Presbyterians do not a- scribe an unlimited power to any prince on earth. And for my own part, I freely declare, that an un- limited power, without an unlimited wisdom to di- rect it, and an unlimited goodness to qualify it, raises a more frightful idea in me, than is that of the devil himself. Let the Episcopal party make as much of this as they ever can. NOT A SPIRIT OF DIVISION^ VIII. He charges them, p. 216, with a spirit of division, which, saith he, ' drives them from the * communion of the church, and cuts them off from * the ordinary communications of the Holy Ghost.' For answer ; it is true it drives them from the com- munion of Mr Rhind's church : and I hope a mer- ciful God will still keep them, and every good Chris- tian, from such a communion ; — a communion, as I have shewn, so absolutely void of the spirit of cha- rity, that we are as sure it is not the spirit of Christ by which they have acted, as we are sure that Christ the Son of God taught charity. And * better it were,' (as Archbishop Tillotson has most truly taught) * * there were no revealed religion, and that human na^ • TUlotfon'i Serm. VoU III. p. 19. TIB BEFENCE OV THE PRESBYTEllIAN SPIRIT. S79 y « ture were left to the conduct of its own principles • and inclinations, which are much more mild and * merciful, much more for the peace and happiness « of human society; than to be actuated by a religion « that inspires men with so vile a fury, and prompts « them to commit such outrages/ This, then, is the only answer needs be given, that the more the spirit of Presbytery drives people from Mr Rhind's church, the more it drives them into the church of Christ. He adds further, that this their spirit throws them (like the Demoniac in the gospel,) sometimes in- to the fire and oft into the water. By this, I sup- pose, he means, that they are sometimes divided among themselves, which, indeed in the former times of Presbytery, was too true, and I believe they all desire to be humbled for it before God ; and I hope the present generation will make so good a use of the failings of their fathers, as to keep united a- TOong themselves henceforth, as they have done hitherto, to the great mortification of their adver- gariets. The best of men will differ in some things, both as to judgment and practice. But I hope we shall never differ so far as to divide. Non eadem se^Tfitire bongs dc rebus iisdem Incoiumi licuit semper Amicilia, In tflie meantime, it is shamefully immodest in ^ man that pretends to have joined the Church of England, to upbraid the Presbyterians with their divisions. For, pray what has Low Church and High Church been doitig these score of years by-past, but damning each other and separating from other ? What have the upper and lower houses of convocation been doing, hut managing a civil war in the most furious manner ; the ktrer ac- cusing the former of treachery, and the former up- braiding the latter witli ecclesiastical rebellion ? If Mr Rhind knows nothing of this, I recommend to bis perusal the books cited on the margin. * m^TaniitHe animis ccelesiibus ira f ♦ RiglUf of am Englith Convocation. Beflfcliom. an thiit I N NOT AN UNNEIGHBOURLY, CRUEL, OR BARBAROUS SPIRIT. IX. In the last place, he charges the Presby* terians, p. 216, 217, with an unneighbourly, cruel, and barbarous spirit, * That they slander their Ca- ^ thoHc neighbours, exert their ill nature in a spe- * cial manner against their ecclesiastical superiors, * pry into their lives, and aggravate their frailties, * gladly hearken to, readily believe, and zealously * propagate the most idle, false and malicious stories * of them.* I know no other answer this needs, but that it is an idle, false and malicious representa- tion : And when he subjoins his proofi it will be time enough to make a more particular reply. In the mean time, he hints at five things which are to be taken some notice of, viz. ist. The con- duct of the General Assembly in 1638. 2dlj/, The attempts made upon the lives of Bishops. 3d/i/y The barbarous murder of that venerable old man, the Archbishop of St Andrews. 4-t/tlj/, The rabbling of so many ministers at the revolution. And, lastii/^ The deposing so many of them by the Church Ju- dicatories. These are the particular grounds of his charge, and I shall consider each of ihem in order, book. The authority of Christian Princes over their ecclesiasti- cal synods. Appeal to all the true members of the Church of England, in behalf of the King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy. An- swer to that appeal. The rights, liberties, and authorities of the Christian Church asserted. Ecclesiastical Synods, and Parliamen- itary Convocations in the Church of England, historically stated. The principles of Mr Atterbury's book considered. Kemarks upon the temper of the late writers about Convocations. Occa- sional letter on the subject of English convocations. A letter to a friend in the country, concerning the proceedings of the present Convocation. The power of the lower house of Convocation to adjourn itself, vindicated from the misrepre- sentations of a late paper, Narrative of the proceedings of the lower house of Convocation relating to prorogations and adjournments. The right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole Convocation. Vindication of the proceedings of the members of the lower house, with relation to the Arch- bishop's prorogation of it. Letter to a clergyman in the coun- try, concerning the choice of members, &c. The case of the Frtmunitnte considered. Third letter to a clergyman in tlie / If I* 1 DEFKNCE OF THE Firsts As for the conduct of the General Assem- bly, anno 1638, he complains, that * they trod un- * der foot the Bishops of the Church, and pretend- * ed to excommunicate them, while they were with- * out the communion of the Churcli themselves. To which it is answered, l5^ That they themselves could not be without the communion of the church, even by Mr Rhind's own principles: For, they were generally, if not all of them, episcopally or- dained, and no sentence had as yet passed against them, declaring them schismatics, when they de- posed all, and excommunicated the most part of the bishops. 2dli/, That they had just reason to depose, and, upon their obstinacy, to excommunicate them, Gilbert Burnet has assured us. For, if they were guilty of crying down the morality of the Sab- bath and proianing it by their practices ; if they were guilty of Simonaical pactions, of relm- quishing their dioceses and introducing innova- tions without law, without consent of the church ; who can be so hardened as to deny, that such per- sons were iustly dealt with ? How could they be Governors of the Church who were not worthy to be members of it ? , country, in defence of what was said in the two forraer, about the entry of the parliament writ in the Journals of the Convocation, Ac. History of the Convocation, 17OO. History of the Enghsh Councils and Convocations, and of Clergy *s sitting in Parliament. A faithful account of what passed in the Convocation, in three letters. An expedient proposed. Narrative of the lower house vindicated from the exceptions of a letter entti. The right of the Archbishop to continue or prorogue the whole convoca- tion. Vindication continued. Reconciling letter upon the late difference about Convocational rights and proceedings. Faithful accounts. The present state of Convocation in a letter. The case of a Schedule stated. The Scliedule reviewed. The parlia- mentary original, and rights of the lower house of Convocation cleared. Symdns Anglkana. The new danger of Presbytery. A abort state of some present questions in Convocation. A sum- mary defence of the lower house of Convocation. A letter from a Convocation-man in Ireland to a Convocation-man in England. The state of the Church and Clergy of England in their councili, ' Synodsy Convocations, &c. Cum muliis aliiu PKKSBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 881 1 K Secondly J As to the attempts made by them up- on the lives of Bishops. I suppose he means by this, Mitchell's wounding the Bishop of Orkney in the arm with a pistol shot, anno 1668. It was no doubt a most unjustifiable act. But is the body of the Presbyterians to be charged with it ? Hear him in his letter, after he was sentenced to die. * I ad- * ventured on it,* saith he,* * from my own pure and * proper motion, without the instigation of any, yea, * without so much as the privity of any of that * party ; whom, therefore, I earnesly desire that * none may charge with it. And if any shall, * I do with confidence aver, that they deal with * them most unjustly.* Thus he. This, I hope, is sufficient to vindicate the Presbyterians. Mr Rhind is desired to vindicate the Episcopalians in taking his life upon this extrajudicial confession, after he had emitted it upon the public faith that it should not be brought in judgment against him. Thirdly^ As to the murder of that venerable old man, the Archbishop of St Andrews. It is acknowledged that the killing of him (whoever did it) was mur- der, and a most barbarous murder. But I crave leave to put in a word, Jirst^ upon the bishop's charac- ter; Secondly y Upon the weight of the argument, sup- posing Presbyterians had been the murderers. And, Thirdly, upon the truth of that allegeance. As for the ^rst, viz. The Bishop's character. It is true he was an old man : There is no denying of it, and, therefore, the fact was the more inexcusa- ble. Nor shall we grudge him the style of venera- ble. In Titulis Honorariis non est Falsitas. Why may not even a Festus be called Most Noble? But then as to the moral part of his character, I suppose his best friends cannot deny, but that he was guilty of the greatest perfidy a man could be guilty of. The question now is not, whether Prela- cy or Presbytery be the ri^hter government j but • Napthali, p. 410. 'Y 1/ 382 DEFENCE OF THE whether treachery under trust be a vice or a virtue,^ a crime or conuneiidable practice. If Mr Sharp was under convictions that the Presbyterians were wrong, and thereupon had designed to revolt from thern ; as nobody could have hindered him, so no- body could have blamed him any farther than some hundreds of his brethren who did the same. But to undertake the management of the whole Presby- terian interest, which was then lying at stake, to give the most solemn promises to be faithful in it ; yea, to take their money for bearing his charges in that service ; and yet, after all, instead of managing that, to manage over the primacy to himself ;— this was so very foul an act, that as 1 am sure it cannot be justified, so I doubt if it can be paraleUed. Whether he was guilty of other things which were afterwards laid to his charge, I shall not say :^ But I hope I may be allowed to tell a story which Church of England men have published to the world. Mr L— y has given the world an account * of a certain history yet unpublished, and, therefore, called by him, ' The Secret History,' but by the author him- self, * The History of his own Time.' This secret his- torian, who was no Presbyterian, but of an eminent character in the Church of England, tells us, ' That < one of the murderers fired a pistol at the Bishop which burned his coat and gown, but the shot did not go into his body ; upon which a report was s afterwards spread, that he had purchased a magi- « cal secret, for securing him against shot, and his • murderers gave it out that there were very suspi- • cious things found in a purse about hiin. This • was the dismal fate of that unhappy man, who « certainly needed a little more time to have fitted ' him for an unchangeable state. But I would fain « hope that he had all his punishment in that terrible < conclusion of his life.* Thus far the secret histo- riant as reported by Mr L — ley. ♦ CassiintlrA, Number II. p. 29. PRESBYTEllIAN SPIRIT. 283 2(//j/, Supposing Presbyterians had been the mur- derers, of what weight would that allegeance be a- gainst the body of that communion, or against th€ Presbyterian principles ? How many ill things are done every day in every nation by professed Chris- tians ; but were it just to load the whole Christian Church with them, or to impute to the spirit of Christianity ? It is equally unjust to load Pres- bytery with the Bishop's uiurder : And so much the more, that the secret historian just now cited tells us, ' that the murderers (whoever they were) had * not resolved on doing this any time before ; but, * seeing his coach appear alone on the moor, they * took their resolution all on a sudden.' But, Sdli/, Is it true that Presbyterians w^re the mur- derers ? Mr L— ley tells us,* of a narrative that was published shortly after committing the fact, wherein it is said, « that five of their accomplices, * complotters, and abettors of the murder, chose to * die, and to be hung up in chains upon the place, ra- * ther than confess the sinfulness of the action, by * acknowledging it was murder or a sin.' This I suppose is the best evidence for charging the fact upon the Presbyterians, and Mr L — ley triumphs upon it. Now, it is very true, there were five men put to death on Magus Moor (where the Bishop was murdered) on that account, and all the five owned themselves Presbyterians. But now, let us hear them in their last words,while they were upon, or at the foot of the ladder, just a-stepping into eternity. Andrew Sword. ' The Bishop of St Andrew's * death I am free of, having lived four or five score * of miles from this, and never was in this place be- « fore : Neither did I ever see a bishop in the face * that I knew to be a bishop.' James Wood. * As for our coming here upon * the account of the bishop's death : Eor my own * part, I was never in this place of the country f Ibid, ubi supra. "v ^ So4 DEFENCE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 88^ * before; neither ever saw I a bishop in my life, * that I could say, There was the man/ John Waddel. ' As for my accession to the € Bishop's death, wherefore we are sentenced to * die in this place, I declare I was never over < the water of Forth in this country before this Thomas Brown. ' Some of you may judge our « dyin«y and hanging here, is upon the account of « the iTishop's death, and that I was accessary there- « unto. But I must tell you as to that, that I was « never in this country before this time.' John Clyde. * I shall say no more but only < two or three words anent the thing I was accus- « ed of by those that pursued me, and that was the * King's Advocate and Bishop Sharp's brother, * anent the Bishop's killing. I wish the * Lord may not lay it to their charge, tor I < never saw that man, whom they called the « Bishop of St Andrew's, that I knew by another f T¥lQf| * Thiis these five men, who ventured their eternity upon their innocence as to the Bishop's death. Whether the Episcopalians can purge themselves of their innocent blood, I leave it to their own consciences. So much for the Presbyterians bar- barous usage of Bishops. ,n c ■ But, can the High Church purge herself of using Bishops barbarously ? Who, then, were they that assaulted the Bishop of Worcester, broke his coach windows, pelted, abused, and put him in danger of his life? Does not the forecited Mr Bisset tell us, page 8, that it was High Church. Who was it called Archbishop Gnndall a perfidious prelate from the pulpit ? Is Dr Sache- verell a Presbyterian ? Who was it wrote all the scurrilous lampoons against Bishop Burnet, viz. * Salt for the leech.' ' Sham sermon dissected. * Good old cause.' ' Proper defence.' 'Evil, be thou * my Kood ?' Is Mr L ley Presbyterian ? Who is it affirms, That the Spirit of Grace is conferred ft in baptism, after a manner which neither Bishop Burnet, nor the author of the Dialogues between the Curate and the Countryman knows any thing of? Is Mr Barclay Presbyterian ?* Who says that all that Bishop Burnet preached in 1688, was not gospel? Is Mr G n Presbyterian? But I should never come to an end, should I touch upon every thing High Church has both said of, and done to Bishops these score of years bye-past. Had Mr Rhind, then, no shame to charge us with the abusing of Bishops? Let such as have abused them be all reckoned Presbyterians, and I am sure we shall be fifty thousand stronger than we are ordinarily reckoned to be. But I proceed. Fourthly, As to the rabbling so many of their clergy in the beginning of the Revolution. It is true, some of them were rabbled out, and no man can or ought to undertake to justify the rabble in doing so. But had not the clergy exasperated them to the greatest height ? How often had the Government, upon their delation, or by their in- stigation, driven the poor people's cattle, shut up their shops, spoiled their goods, imprisoned their persons, squeezed the marrow out of their bones, with boots and thumbkins, hanged up their bus- bands, fathers, brothers, and other relations, and all this upon the account of nonconformity ? It is true, the people ought to have forgiven them all these injuries, as indeed, generally, they did. — But was it to be expected, but that corruption in some of them would prevail over principle, or that, upon a turn of affairs, their resentment would not vent itself against the authors of these injuries ? I do not talk without book when 1 say the clergy were the authors of these injuries. No. Dr Canaries will justify me beyond the need of other documents, which yet might be produced by hundreds. The doctor, when lately returned from Rome, published, in the year 1684, a book enti- tled, ' A Discourse representing the suflScient Ma- ♦ See Barclay's Persuasive, page 149^ 15Gi B b V SSff BEFE^XE OF THE ^ nifestation of the Will of God/ &c., wliich he de- dicated to the Earl of Pertli, then Chancellor : 1 herein page 187, he draws the Presbyterians in all the odious characters that malice could devise, as • light and wild extravagants, the very dress « and feculency of mankind, on the account both ^ ot their birth and breeding, but especially so, be- cause of their very souls and immoralities ; as ^ being such a herd of dull and untractable, and whining and debauched animals, as scarcely go be- yond those of the hogs and goats, whichever any _of them was ever born for to attend/ Thus he. iNow, when he had thus dressed them up in the skins of hrutes, was it not natural that the next step u 2 ^ ^^ ^^^ ^'^^ ^'^g^ ^^ tliem to worry them f Yes, that he does with a witness. He is ^J.^