A
DEFENCE
OF THB
CHUKCH-GOVERNMENT, FAITH, WORSHIP, AND SPIRIT,
or THtl
PRESBYTERIANS ;
ANSWER TO A BOOK,
BNTITLEO,
AN APOLOGY FOR MR THOMAS RHIND,
SEPARATING FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, AND EMBRA- CING THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
By JOHN'aNDERSON, M. A.
lOMB TIME MINISTKR OF THB GOSPEL, DUMBAKTOK.
1 John. ii. IP.— TAe_y went out from ut, S^c.
EDINBURGH:
Printed iy Michael Anderson^
rOR ALEXANDER THOMSON, SKENE STREET, AND WILLIAM TROUP, GALLOWGATE, ABERDEEN.
1820.
The PxjBLiSHEU has consulted with the fol- lowing eminent Divines, for whose judgment he has the liighest respect^ who have express- ed their approbation, and hearty concur- rence, in the republication of this Work ; — - illustrative of a subject, which it is highly ne- -cessary should be thoroughly understood by the People of this Country, and peculiarly im- portant at the present time ; viz.
Professor KiDD, Aberdeen ; Professor PAXTONjEdiuburghj Dr CoLQUHOUN, Leith ; Dr Peters, Dundee ; Dr M'Crif,, Edinburgh ; Rev. D. Dickson, jun. ditto ; llev. A. Thomson, ditto; Rev. William Burns, Dun; Rev. J. AiTKEN, Kiiriemuir ; Rev. James Aird, Rattray ; Rev. Hugh Ross, Fcarn ; Rev. N. Kennedy, Loggie ;
Rev. H. Bethune, Alness ; Rev. D. Waddell, Shiels ; Rev. P. Robertson, Craig-
dani ; Rev. J. BuNYAN, Wliitehill ; Rev. Jas. Miller, Huntly ; Rev. S. Somerville, Elgin ; Rev. John Monro, Nigg ; Rev. D.Anderson, Boghole; Rev. Adam Blair, Perry
Port-ou-Craig.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE,
ARCHIBALD,
EARL OF I SLAY,
LORD JUSTICE-GENERAL OF THE KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND,
OKE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY LORDS OF SESSION, AMD aOVERNOR OV l)UMBAl|TON CASTLV.
My Lord,
I HAVE, upon more accounts than one, pre- sumed to shelter this Book under your Pa- tronage.
The great family whence you are sprung, and whereof you are so bright an ornament, has always, since the first dawn of the Refor- mation, patronized the cause therein defend- ed. They have managed it by their wisdom, protected it with their sword, adorned it by
VI DEDICATION.
tlieir lives, and too often sealed it with their blood. Yet, even this was a fate rather to be envied than lamented. For, to fall a sa^ crifice at once for their God and their coun- try ; to be transmitted to posterity under the united characters of martyr and patriot ; this, my Lord, was, next to the enjoyment of heaven, the highest glory great and virtuous souls could attain to.
I need not tell your Lordship that the same cause is still in hazard. It is lampoon- ed in the tavern, declaimed against from the pulpit, scribbled at from the press, and its ruin projected by the dealers in the politics. Yet all the nation is persuaded, that it is no less the inclination, than it is visibly the inte- rest of the family of Argi/le, heartily to es- pouse it : And all the owners of that interest, that is, the wiser and better, and far greater part of the nation, have necessarily such an opinion of the personal sufficiency of the prin- cipal members of that house, as to found the greatest expectations thereon.
Your illustrious brother, the Duke, has raised himself to an unrivalled glory, and dis- tinguished himself as the hero of the age.
You, my Lord, not contented to excel in those exercises, which are too often the
DEDICATION. Vll
only accomplishment of persons distinguish- ed by their birth, not satisfied to have adorn- ed your mind with that which is called the polite part of learning ; and, by a true taste of the Belles Lettres, and uncommon advan- ces in the Mathematics, and all the most va- luable parts of Philosophy, to make your con- versation both shining and instructive : Not satisfied, I say, with all this, you have besides, that you might be a public good to your country, stocked your soul with so exact and extensive a knowledge of the Laws, that you are distinguished on the bench by your abili- ty no less than by your quality : And the whole nation finds itself happy in her Majes- ty's wise choice of your Lordship to bear so great a part in those Courts, on the sentences of which their liv-es and fortunes depend.
Though then, my Lord, the weaknesses of the book are mine only, and so can no way affect your Lordship ; yet the subject of it, and the cause it appears for, necessarily entitle it to the patronage of a person of your charac- ter. You, my Lord, know that the Presby- terian establishment in Scotland can never be overthrown ; without breaking through what- ever has been hitherto held sacred amonop men. And your Lordship knows, there is no cause why it should be attempted. .i^^'^-cr^C ^^-.
'^.<.
"^'Mi DEDICATION.
Though the High Church faction, with whom modesty and moderation are reckoned scandal, has taught her proselytes to charge the Presbyterians with a Spirit diametrically- opposite to that of the Gospel ; yet, you, my Lord, from your own personal acquaintance with them, know how false and calumnious that charge is : As it is evident, to the obser- vation of all the world, that they are the most 'serious Christians ; so your Lordship is abun- dantly convinced, that they are the most faith- ful subjects her Majesty has on this side the Border^
They do not indeed allow of a Worship fringed with ceremonies of human invention and imposition. Eut I am persuaded, a per- son of your Lordship's reflection must needs be sensible, that a Minister of God never makes a more unsightly figure, than when ap- pearing in a party-coloured dress, and prac- tising motions and postures his Heavenly Master never enjoined him. It is true, the Presbyterians do not restrict themselves to forms in praying to Almighty God. But, I suppose, your Lordship does not think a beg- gar ever the less sincere, though he do not always ask his alms in the same studied cant.
It is confessed likewise, there are several Articles of Faith taught by the Presby-
DEDICATION. IX
terians, which are above the comprehension of our finite minds : But your Lordship, who, every day, in the search of nature, finds so many appearances perfectly unaccountable from the laws of mechanism, without having recourse to the First Mover and great Author of nature, cannot be surprised to find articles in religion not otherwise to be resolved, but by believing that God's judgments are un- searchable, and his ways past finding out. Nor will your Lordship, I presume, be strait-, ened to believe, that the whole Christian Church, which has taught those articles equal-. ly with the Presbyterians, is as likely to be in the right, as an upstart sect of yesterday, whose confidence is their most useful qua- lity.
In a word, my Lord, the Presbyterians disown a Prelacy amonoj the Ministers of the Gospel : And, on this score, High Church finds in her heart to damn them by the lump, and mercifully to consign them to everlasting flames. But your Lordship has a juster no- tion of the kind Author of our being, than to believe that he v/ill ruin his creatures, for not submitting to a Government, which its freshest and most learned patrons own, is not to be found in the Oracles of Truth.
I HAVE, therefore, adventured to inscribe
X DEDICATIOX.
this piece to your Lordship ; not doubting, but how weak soever the performance may be, that yet an Essay to defend so very good a cause, wherein not only truth, but peace, charity and good neighbourliood are so much concerned, will not be quite ungrateful to you.
That your Lordship may be always blessed with the richest favours of Heaven, is, and shall be the daily prayer of,
My Lord, Your Lordship's
Most humble, and
Most obedient servant, JOHN ANDERSON.
CONTENTS.
Prefack, p. xlx.
Thk Introduction, p, 1-
CHAP. I.
Containing preliminary Remarks, p. 2.
Sect. 1.
Containing Remarks on the Title of Mr Rhind's Book, ib. Re- mark I. That the title of an Apology was ill chosen, the Book itself wanting the Apostolic requisites of an apology, viz. meekness and fear, ib. This proved from his character of the Presbyterians, which is shewn to be malicious, p. 4.— false, p. 4, 5. Truly and indeed the character of Pligh Church, p. 5, 6. Remark II. Upon his concealing what Church it is whose communion he has embraced, p. 6. Proved, That there is no Church on earth whose communion he can in rea- son claim to, p. 6 — 11.
Sect. IT.
Containing Remarks on iNIr Rhind's Preface, p. 12. — Remark!, On the date and motive of his separating from the Presby- terians, ib. Remark II. On his own character of his Book, p. 14. Its true character, Vanity, p. 15. Dogmaticalness, ib. Profaneness, 16'. Remark III. On his bespeaking civil usage for himself, p. 16. Remark IV. Whether Mr Rhind is the true Author of the Apology, 17. See also the Preface, p. xxvii.
Sect. III. Containing Remarks on his narrative of the manner Iiow he se- parated from the Presbyterians, p. 18. — Remark I. Demon- strated that his narrative is pure poesy, p. It) — 23. Re- mark II. The dreadful consequences (upon his own princi- ples) of his having been baptised by a Presbyterian minister.
XII CONTENTS.
p. 2S. Remark III. That he does not ascribe to God his se- parating from the Presbyterians, p. 24. Remark IV. On his mentioning his Obligations to the Presbyterians, 25. Re- mark V. That he refused the communion of the Church of Rome on a quarrel which equally obliges him to refuse com- munion with the Church of England, p. 26. Remark VI. Upon his charging the Presbyterians with want of respect to the Fathers, p. 27. Remark VII. Upon his character of the Episcopal authors, p. 30. Remark VIII. Character of Mr Dodwell, p. yj, and of Mr Sage, p. 36 — A short Digression on the late Vindication of the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, p. 37.
CHAP. II.
Mr Rhind's first reason for separating from the Presbyterians, viz. That they are Schismatics in point of Government, ex- amined, p. 40,
Sect. I.
His Principles and Corollaries examined, p. 41. They are not admitted by the Presbyterians, p. 42. Much less by the Church of England, p. 43. Proved, That if the Presby- terians are Schismatics, eo ipso, it will follow that they are not without the Church, p. 47.
Sect. II.
His state of the debate betwixt the Presbyterians and Episco- palians examined, p.48.
Sect. III. His Arguments for Prelacy summed up, p. 53.
Sect. IV.
His Arguments, for proving that Christ and his Apostles were under a necessity of instituting a Prelatic form of Govern- ment, examined, p. 54.
Art. I. His Argument from the Nature of the Thing, for prov- jng that Necessity, examined, ib — Proved that the argu»
CONTENTS. Xili
ment, Iti, is not modest, p. 56 •, 2<//y, not secure, ib. Sdly, tliat it is impertinent, ns lie has laid it, p. 57. His enforce- ment of that Argument, ]st, from the British Monarchy, p. 57 ; 2dli/, from the Principles of the Presbj'terians, p. 59 ; 5d/t/, from their Practice, p. Cl. The Presbyterians Plat- form justified from the Roman Senate, the two Houses of Parliament, and the Court of Session in Scotland, p. 66.
Anr. IJ, The argument from the form of Government in the Jewish Church for proving that Necessity, examined, p. 67. — Proved, that as he has laid it, it is horribly Impious, p. 68 ; That his management of it against the Presbyterians' is ridi- culous, p. 70. That it is, in itself, weak, and concludes no- thing to the purpose, in this controversy, p. 71. That if it conclude at all, it concludes for a universal Papacy, p. 73. That it is rejected as insufficient by the Episcopal Authors, p. 76.
Aht. III. The Argument, from Political considerations, in com- pliance with the Jews and Romans^ for proving that Necessity, examined^ p. 77.— Proved, Ut, as to the Jews, p, 78; 2dl^, as to the Romans, p. 79 ; that the Argument, so far as it con- cludes, makes directly for Presbytery. The design of the Ar- gument from Political Necessity, discovered, p. 81.
Sect. V.
The Proofs for evincing that Prelacy actually was instituted, examined, p. 82. — The Institution of it not to be found in the Scripture, confessed by Mr Dodwell, ib.
Art. I. The Proof for evincing that Prelacy obtained in Christ's days, examined, p. S3. — Proved that then the Christians wer6 imder no form of Church-Government distinct from the Jew- ish, 81-. That neither the XII nor LXX were Church-Officers till after Christ's Resurrection j or, supposing they had been such, that yet they had both the same power, p. S6. — The text, Matthew xx. 25, ' The Princes of the Gentiles,' &c. largely vindicated, p. 9*.
Art. II. The Proof for evincing that Prelacy obtained in the days of the Apostles, examined, p. 97 — Proved that if the Government, which at first obtained among Christians, as such, was unalterable, (as Mr Rhind says it was), then Pre- lacy is ruined^ ib. Mr Rhind's general Reasonings from the
XIV CONTENTS.
Acts and Epistles examined, p. 99. A succession in the Apostolate clearly disproved, p. 101. Harangues against Pa- rity, hew ridiculous, p. 103. Tlie Civil War amongst the Epis- copal Authors, p. 110. The demonstration for Prelacy from its being confirmed by Miracles, examined, p. 113.
Art. III. The Argument from the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, examined, p. 116. — Proved from Scripture that they were extraordinary Officers, p. 117. Mr Dodwell confesses it, p. 118. The Postscripts no proof, p. 118. The Ancients of the three first centuries perfectly silent of their being Bishops, p. 120. Their Episcopacy cannot be inferred from any thing in the Epistles directed to thuiii, p. 121.
AjiT. IV. The Proof from the Apocalyptic Angels examined, p. 124. — Those Angels not the fixed Bishops of these Churches, p. 125. Not numbered by Seven, p. 126. Not characterized as single persons, confessed by Dr More and Mr Dodwell, and proved at large from the II. and III. Chapters of the Revela- tions, ib. Proved to be false, that all ancient and mo- dern Commentators have supposed these Angels to be single persons and the Governors of the Churches, p. 127. Beza has said nothing on this Argument that favours the Epis- copal cause, p. 131. Dr Hammond's Scheme entirely ruins this Argument, p. 132. as it also does the Argument from the Jewish Priesthood, and from the subordination of the LXX to the XII. This noticed and confessed by Dr Whitby, p. 137.
Art. V. The Testimonies for Prelacy from Antiquity Exa- mined, p. 137. Dr Bedell and Medina confess the Fathers to be on the Presbyterian side, p, 1.'38, Dr Sherlock's and Chilling- worth's Judgment of the Weight of the Testimony of the Fa- thers, ib.— Jgnatius's Epistles discoursed, p. 13,9. Proved in four particulars, that they quite destroy the Modern Epis- copacy, and the Principles on which it is built, p. ItO. Proved that as to the main of the Controversy, they contain nothing contrary to the Presbyterian Scheme, p. 143. No Evidence that the Ignatian Presbyters did Preach or administer the Sacraments, p. 145. Proved that the Ignatian Epistles are cither not genuine, or at least are vitiated and interpolated, p. M9. — Clemens Komanus gives no testimony for Prelacy, p. 1G3. — Nor the Emperor Adrian, p, 167- — Nor Ircnaus, p. 168. — Nor Terlullian, p. 170.
CONTENTS. XV
Anr. VI. The argument for Prelacy from the Impossibility of its obtaining so early and universally, if it had not been of Dir vine Institution, examined, p. l72. — Proved that such an Ira- possibility cannot be inferred, either, 1st, From the Piety and Zeal of the Primitive Times, p. 173. Nor, 2dly, From the Universal Spread of Episcopacy, p. 175. Nor, Sdly, From the Vigilance of the Governors of the Church, p. 176. Nor, 4thly, From the Unparalleledness of the Case, p. 177. Nor, 5thly, From the Non-Opposition made to the Change, p. 179 Tes- timonies for Presbytery from Antiquity, p. 181. — From Cle- mens Romanus, ib. Ignatius, p. 182. Polycarp, ib. Justin Martyr, p. 183. Irenaeus, ib. Tertullian, p. 184. Cle- mens Alexandrinus, ib. Origen, p. 185. Gregorius Thau, maturgus, p. 186. Cyprian, I87. Basilius Magnus, ib. ^rius, ib. Ambrose, p. 188. Chrysostom, 189. Augustine p. ipo. Theodoret, ib. Primasius, p. 19I. Sedulius, ib. ConciHum Hispalense Secundum, ib. Theophylact, 192. G£« cumenius, ib. The Canon Law, p. 193. Jerome, ib. The Exceptions against Jerome's Testimony examined, p. 195.
Sect VI.
Mr Rhind's Reasonings against the Presbyterian Ruling Elders, and Deacons, examined, p. 200.
Abt. I. His Reasonings against the Presbyterian Ruling Elders, examined, ib.
Art. II. His Reasons against the Presbyterian Deacons, exa- mined, p. 211.
The Conclusion of the Chapter concerning Church-Government, p. 213. — An Address to the Gentlemen of High-Church Prin- ciples, shewing the Uncharitableness of thcni, and how de- structive they are of the whole Protestant Interest tlirou^h the World, p. 214. Their confidence upon their Principles so much the less tolerable that they are Groundless, p. 218.
CHAP. III.
Mr Rhind's Second Reason for Separating from the Presbyte- rians, viz. Tliat their Articles of Faith are fundamentally False and Pernicious, examined, p. 22^.
XVl CONTExSTS*
Sect. I.
Mr Rhind's Objections against their Articles of Faith Consider- ed, p. 224 — His Objections against the Doctrine of the De- crees in General, examined, ib. His Objections against their Doctrine of Predestination, p. 228. Against their Doctrine of the Efficacy of Grace, p. 236. Shewed not to be incon- sistent with a Good Life, or unable to persuade one to Re- form, in a Dialogue between a Calvinist Teacher and a De- bauchee of the Party, p. 238. — His Objections against the Doctrine of Perseverance, p. 243.
Sect. II.
The Presbyterian Articles of Faith the same with those of the Christian Church, p. 251. — Proved, that they are the doc- trine of the Foreign Reformed Churches, ib. Of the Epis- copalians in Scotland, p. 253. Of the Church of England, p. 254. The Defences of some modern Divines against this imputation particularly considered, p. 255. The Calvinistic Doctrines asserted to be the Doctrines of the Church of England: 1st, By the English Universities, p. 257* 2dly, By the Supreme Ecclesiastical Governors of the Church, p. 258. 3dly, By the Court, p. 260. Lastly, By the Eng- lish Delegates to Foreign Synods, ib. Proved that the Doc- trines objected against, are the Doctrines of the Catholic Church, p. 262.
CHAP. IV.
Mr Rhind's Third Reason for separating from the Presbyte- rians, viz. that their worship is fundamentally corrupt and imperfect, examined, p. 265.
Sect. I.
His Objections against the Presbyterians' Prayers examined, p. 266.
CONTENTS. XVH
Art. I. His Argument, and Ten Instances for proving, that the matter of them must be, and is corrupt, examined, 266.
Art. IK His exceptions against the manner of the Presbyte- rians' prayers, examined, p. 282. — The alleged Disadvan- tages of extemporary prayer considered, ib. His arguments for proving the excellency of the Liturgic way, examined, p. 286. His argument for it from the nature of the thing, ib. 2dly, From universal practice, p. 293. 8dly, From Heaven's approbation of it under the Old and New Testa- ment, p. 29.5. 4thly, From the usage of it in the Primitive and Ancient Church, p. 297. Lastly, From the practice of the Reformed Churches, p. 298. — Mr Rhind's Answer to the Objection against restricting People to Forms, viz. that they stint the Spirit, considered, p. 299. His horrid comment oa the Spirit's helping our infirmities, p. 301.
Sect. II.
The Objections against the Presbyterian Doctrine concerning the Sacraments, and exceptions against their manner of dis- pensing them, considered, p. 309. — These discoursed: 1st, As to Baptism, ib. 2dly, As to the Lord's Supper, p. 317.— Some Remarks on the Scots Episcopal Liturgy, p. S^l.
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, wliich 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 separation, p. f536. His reason examined as to its truth, p. 337. The Presbyterian spirit not enthusiastical, p. 838. Not an Animal or Mechanical Spirit, p. 3i'3. Not a partial damning Spirit, p. 345. Not a narrow or mean Spirit, p. 347.
XVlll CONTENTS.
Not a malicious or unforgiving Spirit, p. 349. Not an un- conversible 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- rit not a Spirit of Division, p. 377. Not an unneighbourly, cruel, or barbarous Spirit, p. 379.
The Conclusion, p. 889,
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 worsJiip, and some too (though these not always excessively qualified, eitlier morally or intel- lectually, for such an undertaking^, upon our spirit ;and practice. But Mr Rhind has widened the com-
XX PREFACE.
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 for 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 j and Mr Rhind 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 Rhind's book, 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 ; 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 tlie nation into rage and fury against the other ? And, should it gain faith, how dire must the consequent
PREFACE. XXI
ces be ? 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 be 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.
That unhappy fellow De Foe, some ten or twelve years ago, put all England in a ferment by his Shortest "uoay xvith the Dissenters. 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 communion, 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 ? If Pres- byterians are not only without 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
XXll PREFACE.
with their neighbours, upon the presumption of their being Christians ? If Presbyterian parity is so inconsistent in its own nature with monarchy, are not the 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, tiien, being the natural product of the
* See (he Apology, p. 205, &c.
PREFACE. XXIU
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 obhged to bring ray 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 but justify my writing.
But then the next question will be, Why so largely ? Was it so very hard a matter to answer Mr Rhind, 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 ; nor had the reader been at any great loss, thougli 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 ai proof.
All this I acknowledge is very true ; and such a conduct, it is plain, had brought my book within a very moderate compass : but then, too, such a con- duct had sunk its usefulness proportionally with its bulk J for I did intend by it, and shall be sorry if the reader find himself disappointed, somewhat more than a simple confutation of the Apology : I
XXIV TREFACE.
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 managed.
Plainly, I designed, in the^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 pamphlets, 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 had deserted. Here, then, the old apology takes place
—— Sciat Responsum, non dictum esse, quia laesit prius.
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 docui. ments, a piece of drudgery which Mr Rhind has, and the writers of his party generally do excuse themselves from, ^^/j/, I designed to say as much as I thought needful for convincing any man's
TKEFACE. XXV
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 j 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 they 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 furtht^ 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 c>f a dispute.
Ornari res ipsa negat, contenta duceriv
My greatest care, next to that of the matter, was that 1 should not be intricate or perplexed, as con- troversies are apt to be : And this 1 hope I have obtained ; For I have never made any blind refe- rences 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 book is so large.
To both which I may add a third, viz. That I have
XXVI PREFACE.
inserted some few digressions, thoiigli 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. S3, is but short : And though one would think that Scotchmen ought to be very lit- tle concerned with the English liturgy, yet that being the dispute of the day, I understand that tlie 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 tlie reader will lind p. 361, is that on the Earl of Cromarty's late book. Besides that it was 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 of.
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 1 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
PREFACE. XXVll
better grace. Farther, I must advertise the reader, that having used the word whigy in some few places, I meant it in the original Scotch sense, as signifying a Presbyterian, except when by the context it ap- pears, that it is to be understood in that more com- prehensive notion use has now fixed to it.
I hope the reader will be merciful as to the er- rors in printing. Such as are of any moment are but few ; and both these and the lesser escapes in spelHng, pointing, or dividing of syllables, I expect will be excused upon the account of my distance and necessary absence from the press.
After all I have said, p. 17, there are some would still persuade me, that not Mr Rhind, but another person of a much higher character is the true au- thor of the Apology » But it is the same thing to me, whether it be so or otherwise : For, I never thought that external character could either heighten or diminish the intrinsic value of a book : Nor did I intend to dispute against any man's per- son ; but though I ordinarily name Mr Rhind only, yet I generally mean his party : And, therefore, though he complains that the Presbyterians have exhausted all their common places of slander a- gainst him, yet, for my own part, I have consider- ed him merely as the writer of the Apology y with- out so much as touching upon his personal quali- ties or circumstances in any private concern. I know the public could have been very little edi- fied with personal objections ; and I did not think I wanted such adminicles, the argument itself hav- ing given me sufficient advantage.
XXVlll PREFACE.
Plainly, I persuade myself that every one who has read Mr Rhind^s book, will, upon the reading of mine, allow that I have kept more temper than perhaps was due to such a piece. For, when a set of people, about whom there is nothing extra- ordinarily Christian appearing, will needs put such a jest upon mankind, as to monopolize the name of Church to themselves, and belch out their fire and venom, without fear or wit, against the whole reformed interest, and yet at the same time will have us to believe them Protestants j iiji such a case I must needs own, that
1 ifficlle est atyram non scribere.
However, I have restrained myself as much as the matter could admit of, or either justice pr charity required.
I reckon upon it, that my book will be answers ed ; and it is hardly possible to foresee what kind of argument may be used against me ; but there is one which I deprecate, viz. that powerful one-r damn me. I don't fear that any of their laity will attack me with it— I have a better opinion of their piety and manners ; but I dare not promise so much on their clergy's head : For, what has been,* may be. However, by way of prevention, I own it to be an unanswerable kind of argument ; and tlierefore, they may save themselves the trouble of it ; so much the rather, that they carinot be great losers, though they omit it.
But I am sensible, that by the length of this Preface, I add to the transgression of the book.
* See Mr Caldei's Miscellany Numbers, Number IV.
TREFACE. XXlX
After all I can say, I know it must, as all other books have ever done, take its fate according to the inclinations or capacity of its different readers. And, therefore, as it is, I send it forth into the world with its father's blessing, heartily praying that the God of truth and peace may prosper it, to the preserving among us two such valuable en- joyments.
March 17tfi, 1714.
Mr RHIND'S
APOLOGY
DISPROVED.
THE
INTRODUCTION.
-L HE general method of Mr Rhind's Book is, I acknowledge, abundantly distinct. Therein, after the history of the manner, how he gives an account of the reasons for which he separated from the Pres- byterian party ; to wit, because, upon inquiry, he found their government to be schismatical, their ar- ticles oi faith fundamentally false and pernicious, their worship scandalously corrupt, and highly im- perfect; and their spirit diametrically opposite to that of the gospel — a heavy enough charge truly; and if but one half of it hold true, every good Christian must needs at once justify his separation, and con- gratulate his escape- But it is the design of the following Sheets to ex- amine his performance ; and if, in the issue, it shall be found, that there is neither truth in his asser- tions, strength in his arguments, proof for his al- legeances, nor modesty in his characters ; — then, I hope, it will follow, that, how much reason soever some other party may have to be fond of their nevr
REMARKS ON
proselyte, yet the Presbyterians have no such cause to be swallowed up of overmuch sorrow for their loss, but that they may hope the days of their mourning may wear over, and they may be com- forted.
CHAP. I.
CONTAINING PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
Though his Tiile^ Treface, and Narrative, have no great influence on the main subject ; yet, that I may proceed in order ; for clearing the ground, I shall beg leave to take them under review in some few remarks : — the rather, because the doing so will, I hope, sufficiently distinguish the spirit of the Au- thor J perhaps, too, help to enlighten his Book.
Sect. I. Contaming Remarks on the Title of Mr Rhinos Boole,
I. Mr Rhind has given his Book the Title of An Apology. But, I apprehend, when the book itself is looked into, it will appear to be very ill chosen. The Apostle Peter enjoins * Christians to be always ready to make an apology (so it is from the original) to every one that asks a reason of the hope that is in them. But, though that Apostle had as much edge on his temper, and possibly was as forward in
* I Epist. chap. iii. 15.
MR RHINd's title-page.
his zeal as Mr Rhind ; though the cause of Chris- tianity was at least of as great importance as that of Prelacy, and the enemies the Church had then to do with little better natured than the Presbyterians ; yet he would not allow them, in putting in an apology even for Christianity itself, though against Jews and Pagans, to use rudeness or bitterness, far less calum- ny and slander ; but expressly charges them to do it with meekness and fear. Mr Rhind was not igno- rant of this precept ; he has fronted his book witli it : But, since ever apologies were in fashion, I very much doubt if ever any v/as v/ritten with so unchris- tian a spirit, so absolutely void of both these requi- sites. I do not beheve the reader would think him- self much gratified, by entertaining him with a col- lection of all the passages in the Apology that might contribute to prove this character I have given of it ; yet it is necessary I produce one, lest any should suspect I charge him falsely ; and one, I am persua- ded, will be fully sufficient for that purpose. I shall, therefore, without adding, altering, or diminishing, transcribe one paragraph from him, wherein he has drawn the character of the Presbyterians ; distin- guished, too, into its periods, for the reader's more distinct conception. It is thus : —
* 1. They (the Presbyterians) are naturally rigid
* and severe ; and therefore conclude, that God is ' such a one as themselves. 2. They damn all w4io ' differ from them, and therefore think that God
* does the same. 3. And because they love them- ' selves, they are pleased to persuade themselves, ' that they are his special favourites. 4. In a word,
* they are respecters of persons, and therefore think ' to patronise their partiality with his authority.
* 5. Hence they conclude, that they owe them no
* civilities whom God neglects, nor kind offices
* whom he hates. 6. He neglects, and hates all ' who are not capable of his grace, which none are
* (say they) who- are not of their way. 7. This
* wicked persuasion sanctifies not only the ill man- 5 ners, but, which is worse, the ill nature of the
* REMARKS ON
* party, towards all who differ from them. It cott- ' tradicts the ends of society and government, and is
* only calculated to advance the private interest of ' a partial and designing set of men !' Thus he, p. 20S.
Now, if in all this paragraph, there is the least allay of meekness, he would very much oblige us, if he would tell us what bitterness and malice is.
But though his zeal swallowed up his meekness, yet, was there no place for fear, (the other requi- site), I mean a reverence and regard' to truth ? Might he not have thought it necessary to offer at least at some instances for supporting the said character ? Did he fancy it would be believed on his bare word ? He must be abundantly sanguine, if he did. How- ever, Presbyterians do not think themselves much in hazard, from writers that sacrifice their veracity to the pleasure of breathing their spleen. They are accustomed to have the most black characters drawn of them by the rampant High Church authors ; but they do not feel themselves much hurt thereby, be- cause they are as notoriously false as they are black. It is difficult to name that ill thing, which a Heylin, a Hicks, a Lessley, a Sacheverel, Calder, or some other very Reverend Divine of the like probity, has not written of them, or imputed to them. Who were the instruments that procured the Spanish Ar- mada to invade England in 1588 ? The Whigs. * Who burnt London in 1666 ? The Whigs, t Who piloted in, and assisted the Dutch to burn the Eng- lish fleet at Chatham ? The Whigs. X Nay, who cru- cified Jesus Christ ? who, but the Whigs ; the very children are taught to lisp out that. § Calves-head feasts are with these authors true history. Why ? Because one of themselves wrote it, and the rest cite it, II and who dares doubt it after that ?
But, suppose it was below an author of Mr Rhind's soaring genius, to adduce proof for his assertions, or
* Cassandra, Numb. ii. p. 57. f New Association, Part II. p. 58' j: Ibid. § Calder on the Sign of the Cross, Numb. VIII. P* 32. II Cassandra, Numb. I. p> 46.
MR RHIND S TITLE-PAGE. D
to regard so small a circumstance as truth in his cha- racters ; yet might he not have used so much com- mon prudence, as not to draw the Presbyterians in the habit of High-Church Tories, and to twist them with that whereof himself and fellows are notorious- ly guilty, beyond what was ever heard of among any party of Christians, except the Church of Rome ? His fore-cited character turns mainly upon un chari- tableness. The Presbyterians, saith he, ' damn all
* that differ from them, and therefore think that God ' does the same.' But is not this ever the distin- guishing principle of a High-flyer ? Has not Mr Dodwell, whom Mr Rhind so much admires, and upon whose principles he professes to have formed his own, p. 24, 25., expressly taught, that there is no communicating with the Father or the Son, but by communion with the Bishop. * It is,' saith he,
* one of* the most dreadful aggravations of the
* condition of the damned, that they are banished ' from the presence of the Lord, and from the glo-
* ry of his power. The same is their condition, al-
* so, who are disunited from Christ, by being dis-
* united from his visible representative (the Bishop).* Nay, has he not shut up even the small cranny of the uncovenanted mercies of God, which might have let in some faint ray of hope, against all the world but Episcopalians alone, by declaring, in that same place, * That it is extremely uncertain, and at least ' infinitely hazardous, (and what can be beyond in-
* finite ?) that ever they shall share in them.' D^ not scores of their other authors talk at the same rate ? But why do I speak of others ? Is not thi; the very design of Mr Rhind's book ? Was not thai the reason why he separated from the Presbyterians because they are not in the ordinary road to heaven i p. 31 : Nay, I hope to make it good to every man'' conviction, ere I have done, that he has damned th( whole Christian Churches on earth, the Church o England herself too among the rest, excepting somi
• One Priesthood, Chap. XIII. Sect. 14.
6 REMARKS ON
High-flyers, who can no more be said to be of the Church, than an overgrown wen, or some monstrous tumour on the body, can be called a part of it. Think, now, how well calculated Mr Rhind*s Book is to bear the title of an Apology ; how wisely and justly his meek and Catholic spirit charges the Presbyterians with rigour and uncharitableness. I would advise him, if ever his book come to a second edition, to alter the title a little j and instead of an Apology, to call it a Libel.
II. In his title, he promises to give an account of the reasons for which he separated from the Presbyterian party, and embraced the communion of the church. I cannot but wish he had been a little more particular, and told us of what church. It is true, the church is but one ; yet there are several communions. There is the Roman, the Lutheran, the Church of England communion, with too many others, which diifer from each other in very consi- derable points ; but though I have read his book with all the application I was capable of, I sincerely declare I cannot find out that church whose com- munion he can reasonably claim to. •
The Presbyterian party is that which he hath a- bandoned. He hath, though indeed in very modest terms, disclaimed the communion of the Church of Rome, p. 14, 15. The Greek, Armenian, Ethio- pic Churches, &c. lay too far out of his road. The lesser fractions and sects among Christians he gave not himself the trouble to enquire about, from a just fear lest if he had, he had ended his days ere he had formed his confession of faith, p. 14. What church, then, can it be, whose communion he has embraced? He has given us three hints to find her out by, but none of them sufficient to give light in the matter, and determine the inquiry.
1. He tells us, p. '28, it is the communion of the Catholic Church. But this Catholic is a hackney which every party press into their service ; every church claims, and the Church of Rome, which yet he disowns, appropriates to herself.
MR RHIND S TITLE-PAGE. 7
2. He tells us, in the beginning of his Preface, that it is the communion of the Suffering Church, by which he means the Prelatists in Scotland. But though he hath joined himself to them, yet that he is not of them, nor within their communion, I shall, ere I go further, make abundantly evident upon this single postulatum, that that church is the same in her principles, now she is suffering, that she was while flourishing.
She was, while flourishing, Erastian in her go- vernment, Calvinist in her doctrine, her worship without a liturgy, her discipline exercised by lay elders. All which is directly contrary to the prin- ciples of Mr R hind's book.
First, I say, his suffering church was Erastian in her government. Besides the tract of our history and many acts of Parliament, Archbishop Glad- stones has given emphatic testimony that it was so in the time of King James VI. In his letter to that prince, of the date August 31, 1612, he has these remarkable words: * For, besides that no estate ' may say, that they are your Majesty's creatures,
* as we may ; so there is none whose standing is so
* slippery, when your Majesty shall frown, as we.
* For at your Majesty's nod we must either stand or
* fall.' Thus also it was in the late times, after the restoration of King Charles II. as appears by the act of Parliament redintegrating the estate of bishops: For therein ' the disposal of the external government
* and policy of the church was declared to be in his
* Majesty and his successors, as an inherent right of
* the crown, and that tliey might settle, enact, and Ji- ' mit such constitutions, acts, and orders concerning
* the administration of the external government of
* the Church, and the persons employed in the same,
* and concerning all ecclesiastical meetings, and
* matters to be proposed and determined therein, as
* they, in their royal wisdom, shall think fit.* Did she alter this principle upon the Revolution? No. In the year 16'J2, no fewer than ISO of the Episco- pal clergy, with Dr Canaries on their head, in their
0 REMARKS ON
own name, and in that of the whole body of the Episcopal clergy in the North, addressed the Ge- neral Assembly to be assumed into ministerial com- munion, and a share of the church-government, upon a formula, whereof the first words are, — I, ' A. B. do sincerely declare and promise, that I
* will submit to the Presbyterian government of the
* church, as it is now established in this kingdom.* This they could not, without exposing themselves to damnation, have promised to do, had they judged Presbyterian government to be schismatical ; but their doing so was very well consistent with the Eras- tian principles. Now, Mr Rhind's principles are di- rectly opposite to these ; for he hath not only taught, ' That the church is a society independent upon the
* state,' p. 29, but that Prelacy is the only govern- ment of the church by divine right, and that ex- clusive of all others. This is the avowed design of almost one half of his book.
Secondly, His Suffering Church was Calvinist in point of doctrine. Knox's Confession of Faith was formed in the year 1560 ; exhibited to and ratified by the Parliament that same year, and oftentimes af- terward. It was owned as the only confession of this church, without rival, without controul, either by Prelatists or Presbyterians for almost sixty years.
1 need not tell any body who has seen it, that it was Calvinist all over. In the year 1616, the General Assembly at Aberdeen, wherein Archbishop Spotis- wood was moderator, formed a new confession of faith, which we have at length in Calderwood's His- tory, from p. 638. This was yet more expressly and rigidly Calvinist than the other. In the late epis- copal times, Knox's Confession of Faith was again revived and sworn to in the oath of the test. The whole Episcopal clergy, except some few that were Whiggishly inclined, and refused it on other ac- counts, went into that oath : And therein not only
* declared that they believed the said confession to ' be founded on, and agreeable to the written word
* of God 3 but also promised and swore to adhere
MR riiind's title-page. 9
* thereto during all the days of their life-time, yea, ' and to endeavour to educate their children there -
* in.' After the Revolution, the Westminster Con- fession of Faith was ratified and established as the avowed confession of this church. How much Cal- vinist that is, every one knows. Yet in the year 1692, the Episcopal clergy, who desired to be as- sumed upon the formula before mentioned, promis- ed, ' that they would subscribe the said Confession
* of Faith, and larger and shorter Catechism con-
* firmed by act of Parliament, as containing the
* doctrine of the Protestant religion professed in
* this kingdom.' This promise, if it signified any more than a juggle, which we ought never to suppose a clergyman guilty of, could import no less, than that they owned the doctrine of the said confession and catechisms to be true, at least, that they did not judge them to be fundamentally false and pernicious. This is a short history of all the confessions of faith that were ever received in Scotland since the refor- mation. All of them were formed upon the Calvinis- tic scheme — all of them have been assented to by the Episcopal clergy ; yet all of them directly con- trary to Mr Rhind's book in the doctrine of the decrees, predestination, perseverance, universal re- demption, universal grace, &c.
Thirdly^ His Suffering Church had her worship without a liturgy. Knox's liturgy was falling into desuetude ere Episcopacy was established in the time of King James VI. Besides, ministers were never bound to constant observance of it. On the con- trary, the book of itself allows them to use the se- veral forms, or the like in effect. And, saith, one of its rubrics, * It shall not be necessary for the minis- ' ter daily to repeat all these things before men-
* tioned, but beginning with some manner of con- ' fession to proceed to the sermon ; which being
* ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates be-
* fore mentioned, or else prayeth as the spirit of
* God shall move his heart, framing the same ac-
* cording to the time and matter which he hath en-
10 REMARKS ON
* treated of/ It is true, there was an attetnpt made in the time of King Charles I. to bring in a liturgy, much after the Enghsh 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- gy did not so much as essay to bring in a liturgy. For many years after the revolution, none of them pubHcly 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. Hov/ 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 I have been well employ- ed. And I have known five hundred 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.
Fourthly/, His Suffering Church exercised her dis- cipline by lay-eiders ; and this every one knows that lived before the revolution. I conclude, then,
* Memoirs of the House of Hamilton, p. 32-25i t P. 156, 157.
MR rhind's title-page. H
that Mr Rhind is not of the communion of 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 us 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 matter 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 his 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.
' ART. XIII.
* Works done before the grace of Christ, and
* the inspiration of his spirit, are not pleasant to
* God J for as much as they spring not of faith in
• P. 136, 1S7, ISt;
12 REMARKS ON
* Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to
* receive grace, or (as the school authors say), de-
* serve grace of congruity : yea, rather, for that ' they are not done as God hath commanded and « willed them to be done, we doubt not but that they
* have the nature of sin.'
It is plain, then, that he has impugned and re- jected the doctrine of the Church of England. Now let us hear what censure she has awarded to such as do so.
* CANON V. 1603. ' Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that any of the
* XXXIX. articles agreed upon by the Archbishops ' and Bishops of both provinces, and whole clergy in
* the convocation holden atLondon,in the year of our
* Lord 1562, for the avoiding of diversities of opi-
* nions, and for the establishing of consent touching
* true religion, are in any part superstitious or erro-
* neous, or such as he may not, with a good con-
* science, subscribe unto ; let him be excommuni- ' cated ipso factOy and not restored but only by the
* Archbishop, after his repentance and public revo- 5 cation of such his wicked errors.'
Who now will say that Mr Rhind is of the Church of England communion, when she has excommuni- cated him ? I conclude, then, upon the whole, that it is not possible to find that church wherein he can be classed, I mean, here on earth. As for the wi- spotted church * of which the late Edinburgh ad- dressers professed themselves to be, I don't believe it to be on this side the clouds.
Sect. II. Containing Remarks on Mr RhincCs Preface. I. Our apologist is earnest to have his readers • See London Gazette, Numb; 5080;
MR rhind's preface. 13
believe that it was not upon any sinful bias or worldly consideration that he changed sides. And, therefore, in the beginning of his Preface, tells us,
* That a forcible conviction, which was the refu-
* sal of an impartial inquiry, determined him to a-
* bandon the Presbyterian party some years ago, ' when the church was under severe pressures in this ' nation, and when there were small hopes of de-
* liverance.' But, he has been too general in the date of his conversion, and some people are tempted to think there was a reason for it. Her Majesty was pleased, some years ago, to write a gracious let- ter to her Privy Council of Scotland, of the date, February 4, 1703, in favours of the Episcopal clergy and others of that profession. Her Majesty was so far from intending that the said letter should have any ill influence on the Presbyterian esta- blishment, that, on the contrary, she recommended it to her Council to give them all due countenance and encouragement. Yet it is abundantly well known in this nation, that the Episcopal party con- structed the said letter as a preface to the overturn- ing of Presbytery and the re-establishment of Pre- lacy ; as if her Majesty, like a kind mother, teased with hungry children, had bid them content themselves a little with that morsel, till she could get dinner provided for them. And, in op- position to all her Majesty's promises and assu- rances to the contrary, the distinction betwixt a secret and revealed will was industriously propa- gated. And from that time, some young divines, who hitherto had been warmed and fledged, under the wings of Presbytery, began to look with a kind- ly eye towards the Prelatic party, and to alter their conduct accordingly. If Mr Rhind's separation was prior to that time, there is the more charity to be had for him, and he was not kind enough to him- self in not signifying so much. But if it was after it, I can see nothing extraordinary in it : For, to run from under a falling house, and to worship the ris- ing sun, is what people do every day.
14 REMARKS ON
Besides, how little encouragement soever Mr Rhind might hope from the suffering Church in Scotland, yet he might very reasonably, upon his revolt, expect more elsewhere than ever he could have found among the Presbyterians. A Presby- terian minister is like the heath in the wilderness, that never grows higher. When once he got him- self possessed of a church, however shining his parts are, there is a ne plus ultra set to his ambition. But in the Prelatic way, there are various degrees of dignity to animate the generous spirit. It is pos- sible one may rise from a curate to a rector, from thence to a dean, archdeacon, or so — at length obtain a mitre, and never cease advancing, till he hath lodg- ed himself in Lambeth. Though I will not sup- pose Mr Ilhind so airy as ever to have dreamed of mounting the highest pinnacle of honour ; yet had he so humble an opinion of himself as not to allow himself to think, that he might one day merit some of the greater church dignities ? Was it no motive to him to know, that there are people in the world much fonder of a proselyte from Presbytery than from Paganism ; and that the writing of an Apology might very much contribute to his advancement ? He does not seem to be so very much a stranger to good authors, as not to have heard of Juvenal's secret for rising in the world.
Would'st thou to honours and preferments climb, Be bold in miscliief, dare some mighty crime,
DiiYDEN, Sat. i, 1. 73.
And is not Dr Sacheverel a fresh instance of the wisdom of that precept, whose high misdemeanours made him at once the idol and the darling of Pligh Church, the theme of her praise, and object of her bounty.
II. 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- niiss to give mine to, before I enter on the book it- self. Besides the ill nature (already noticed) which
MR rhind's preface. 15
bewrays 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
* 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 before 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.
2. Dogmaticalness. He writes with the same po- sitive air as if he were infallible. Everv thinff 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 unpreju- 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 him. 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. 2.
IG REMARKS ON ,
of England have owned, that the Calvhiista Iiave 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. Frofaneness. 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 stuff vo- mited out on that head j 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, Vanlnus, 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 fully to the world. Were I of his council, I would advise him, ere he proceed further, once to prove
• See Hooker's Sermons, subjoined to hia Eccles. PoUt. Edit. London, 1705. f Bishop Hopkins, Dr Edwards, Ac.
MR nillND's PREFACE. 17
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 beard it both from Prelatists and Presbyterians, that it was not done by Mr Rhind himself, but that 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 1 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
B
iB: REMARKS ON
Sermons he had preached at several occasions, or at least of large shreds of them artfully tacked toge- ther. Some such sermons were necessary to ingra- tiate h'm with his new masters: his haranguing way seems rather adapted for sermons (according to the Episcopal v/ay 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 in the year 1711, engrossed verbatim into his A- pology, though he has not acquainted his reader therewith.
Sect. III.
Containing Remarks on Mr RhincCs Narrative, of the manner how he separated from the Presbyterian party. From /?, 1. top. 29,
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
MR rhind'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.
All 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 the test. But, in order to this, prejudices were to be shaken off; p. 9, 10. Every body that has a competent know- ledge of himself will allow that this was not to be done without time.
B S
so REMARKS ON
2. Thus prepared, he made the first experiment in 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 was not th-e 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 was able to make ; and ceased not till be was rationally persuaded about the truth of a natural reh'gion J p. 13. This, considering how many fine books have been v/rit 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 J 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.
(j. When he 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 them pretended to be so ? He resolved, then, only to examine the pretensions of
MR rhind's narrative. 21
the most considerable parties, viz. the Roman Ca- tholics 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- tholic way; 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 he 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 j p. 2 1 , 22. This was a yet larger task than the former ; for though he hail never gone beyond the tliird uge ; yet, to get through the works of Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Atlu^n- agoras, Theophilus, Tatianus, Irena?uf, Tertullian,
22
REMARKS ON
Clemens Alexanilrinus, Minutius Felix, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, &c. — To get through all these, I say, with the histories relating to their times, was sufficient 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 was to be diligent in good earnest ; For, to read on the Episcopal side, Andrews, Bancroft, Biison, 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 pro and con. ; 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 ; 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. AH this
MR RHIND S NARRATIVE.
23
lie 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, bashluliiess or fear restrained him, till at last a forcible conviction, and the severe remonstrances of his conscience, obliged him publicly to declare himself j p. 2G — 2i9.
This is his account; but now, how a man could do all this within the space of 22 years, when he had not so much as a thought of doing any thing of it at an age wherein he was capable to be a preacher, which we cannot suppose earlier than 21 ; that is, in a word, how Mr Rhind could do that in one year which would have kept any ordinary man constantly busy seven years, he has yet to account for to the world; and till it be done, he must excuse his readers, me at least, from believing the sincerity of his Narrative, notwithstanding the solemnity of his asseveration. And so I proceed in my remarks.
II. Though Mr Rhind has told us, p. 6, that he owes 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, but
24 REMARKS ON
enemies 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 madevalidbyaposterior 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 purpose to answer the case of persons in such cir- cumstances. This must needs afiect Mr Rhind very heavily ; for, according to his own principles con- cerning baptism,! he is no Christian — is without grace — incapable of salvation — can neither be priest nor deacon, consequently the baptism dispensed by him to otliers is null j consequently, by his principles they must all be damned, if extraordinary mercy in- terpose 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.
IlL 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 ofi* 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,' saitli he, p. i). *at a competent age, in
* some lucky minute, my thoughts suggested to me the
* reasonablenessofmy enquiring into my opinions about ' things.' God is not brought into the account here ;
• Piefxce to the Invalidity of Lsj-Eaptism. f P. 177. &c.
MR rhind's narrative. 25
nay, 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 the truth of the Christian religion, — and till he had resolved himself against the Romish. After all this, and no sooner, did he address the God of all truth, p. 19. This conduct of his was designed and founded upon two reasons, which thereadermay weigh at his pleasure. First, he is so much an enemy to enthusiasm, that he did not think it would become him to impute any motion in his soul to the spirit of God : For the man- ner of God's dealing with the souls of his elect, is but a senseless story, and it was below his philoso- phical genius, to ascribe that to a divine etliciency, 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 in 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 Rhindjin 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 in general of 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 j but he does it, that he may raise his own character, by shewing how great temp- tations to the contrary, he had se})arate 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 1 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 belialf, wlien actually allowed ' \QTy liberal expressions of their fiivour and esteem/
26 REMARKS ON
— I cannot persuade myself, that such artifice would become a man recommending his soul to God in his last minutes.
V. I said before, that he parted ways with the Church of Rome upon a very slender quarrel. What was it? Take it in his own words, p. 15. * Though
* I had been convinced of the truth of all the articles
* of Pope Pius's creed, (which you may think
* would argue a strong faith, and a great deal of vio-
* lence offered to my reason,) yet could I never be
* persuaded, that the damning of all, who did not be- ' lieve as I did, should be a condition of my salva-
* tion. In a word, the absq, qua fide^ ^c, 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 j 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 « faithfully, 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 camiotsay it was
MR uhind's narrative. 27
unwisely done : For the smaller the quarrel was, the easier may the reconciliation be.
VI, While Mr Rhind is giving an account of his own study of the Fathers, he falls heavily, p. 21, upon the Presbyterians, for their want of respect to them. But has he adduced in all his books one instance from the writings of the Presbyterians to prove his charge ? Not one. What meant he then ? Why, he knew that was a common-place for declaiming on among his party, and it had been a pity to miss it. No other proof has he for his charge, unless you will be so kind as to take his own assertions. * They who had the
* directton of my studies,* saith he, * never recom- ' mended to me the reading so much as of one Fa-
* 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 in training young theologues, now hear him : * — ' It may seem ' strange, that in this whole direction, I 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.' Thus 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
REMARKS ON
ed contemptibly of the Fathers, I can say, from my own personal knowledge of him, to be confirmed by naany thousands yet alive, that it was what he hard- ly ever did of any body else. Mr Rhind then must prove this ere he is believed.
But while he charges the Presbyterians so fiercely on this head, why does he himself give such a con- temptible hint of Augustine? Why, p. 114, talks he so contemptibly of Jerome, that he contradicts himself, &c. ? Why, Augustine was for the doctrines of predes- tination and grace, and Jerome for Presbytery, both which are Mr Rhind's aversion ; yet one would think he 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 Rhind's learned brethren of the clergy, * has lately appeared \Qry loudly in defence of tiie book about
* Mr Caldcr.
MR rhind's narrative. S9
Antichrist, ascribed to Hippolitus, though no man tliat had not quite prostituted his sense would have done it. He has been told how Coke, Fulk, Whit- aker, three famous divines of the Church of England, have disparaged it, and how Monsieur le Fevre, that eminent critic, hath made a jest of it, and how, supposing it were, what he would have it to be, yet makes nothing for his purpose. Yet he, like a true Teague, is resolved to keep his text, whatever he say on it. To put him in liumour, then, after so much wrath, it shall be allowed that Hippolitus's book is genuine. Now hear, with what profound re- spect. Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, treats * the re- verend Father and his work. * *Tis a very little ' book, of small price, and as small credit. It ap-
* peareth that it was some simple man that wrote the
* book, both for the phrases of his speech in the
* Greek tongue, which commonly are very childish,
* and also, for the truth and weight of the matter,* He beginneth the first sentence of his book with Enim, which a very small child would scarcely do. After a recital of several of his blunders, he adds,
* And this he saith, without either warrant of the
* Scriptures, or authority of the church. — He al-
* legeth the Apocalypse of St John in the stead of
* Daniel, which is a token of great ignorance, or of
* marvellous oblivion.' Say now, what discipline a Presbyterian had deserved, had he treated so worthy a Fatlier so familiarly. Take another instance. Bishop Wlytgift f runs a comparison betwixt the Fathers and the English Bishops in truth of doc- trine, honesty of life, and right use of exernal things, and very mannerly gives the preference to himself and his colleagues in all the three. If these instances are not sufficient, Mr Rhind may have five hundred more upon demand, and perhaps some of them be- fore we have done. To put an end for ever to this topic of declaiming against the Presbyterians, I here
• Reply to Mr Hartling's Ans. Art. 1. Div. 5. f Defence of the Aus. p 472.
so REMARKS ON
challenge the Episcopalians to make a collection of all the contemptible things the Presbyterians have written of the Fathers. And if I do not make as large a collection of as contemptible things, that the Episcopal authors have written of them, it shall be owned they have reason for their declamations. If they refuse this, they must give us a reason why they may make bold with the Fathers, and the Presby- terians not. Have Prelatists only the privilege of railing at them ?
VII. Mr Rhind gives an ample enough commen- dation to the writers of his own way. * I found them ' all, saith he, p. 23, to be men of discretion and sense,
* so that should I name all whom I thought to have
* acted their part handsomely, I should leave none un-
< named.' Is this the sincerity he promised ? Could he find never one senseless author on the Episcopal side ? Why, certainly he has looked on them with a lover's eye ; for who is there that knows not, that the confusion of languages at Babel was never great- er than is among the Episcopal writers ? Where shall we find any two of them that go entirely upon the same scheme ? Does not every body know how they mutually reject each other's arguments ? Should I instance any of their writers whom I judge to have performed but so and so, I know I would be declined as a partial judge ; but let us hear one of themselves giving the character of his fellows that went before him. Mr Thomas Edwards asserts* of them, that as to their proofs out of Scripture, * they understood « notwhattheysaid, nor whereof they affirmed.' And in a later book,t he is so far from repenting of these hard words, that * he hopes every body will grant he
< had reason for them.' And he would not have this meant of one or two only of his fellow writers, but of the whole bulk of them. And therefore, he pulls down the whole frame of Episcopacy, to build it after his own new and better fashion. Now, either Mr Edwards has not acted his part handsomely, or none
• Discourse against Extemporary Prayer, f Diocesan Episcopacy proved from Holy Scriptures, p. 231.^
MR RHIND*S NARRATIVE. St
of the rest have : For it is sure but a sorry way of acting, when one knows not what he says, or where- of he affirms.
VIII. Of all the Episcopal authors, Mr Rhind gives the preference to Mr Dodwell and M. Sage.* To the first particularly for his book of Schism, and that of the One Priesthood and One Altar; and to the latter for his Principles of the Cyprianic Age, and the Vindication thereof.
That Mr Dodwell was a man of vast reading and abstract life, every one must acknowledge ; but that his books are of a most pernicious tendency, I am well persuaded no one ought to deny. For in order to make room for planting Prelacy, he hath, so far as his principles prevail, not only destroyed charity, but grubbed up the very roots of Christianity, yea of natural religion. Whether this be an unjust cen- sure, I refer it to the reader upon hearing of the fol- lowing account.
His book against Schism he published in the year 1679, when the civil government did not want to have a bad opinion of the Non-conformists. There- in he attempts to prove, not only that the separatists from Episcopal government are Schismatics, but t that no prayers made by themselves, nor by others for them, can find acceptance with God, except such prayers as are put up for their conversion from the Schism, and that their separation is the sin unto death, spoken of by St John, 1 Ep. chap. v. ver. 16. That t that dreadful text, Heb. vi. 4, 5, 6. * It is impossible * for those that were once enlightened,' — is applicable to them. That§ they are guilty of the same crime, and as real enemies to Christ, as those who in terms professed him to be an impostor. That || such se- paration is a sin against the Holy Ghost,^ and an interpretative disowning Christ for our master. Nay,** that it is as criminal as the sin of the angels, and the old world, and the Sodomites, and the Israelites in the wilderness. In a word, that nothing is effectual
* P. 24. f Chap. xi. sect. 7- % Chap. xlil. § Ibid. sect. IS. II Chap, siv. f Ibid. sect. 20, ** Ibid. sect. 22.
S2 REMARKS ON
to salvation, without being in the Episcopal cont- munion. I pose now Mr Rhind to find any thing more impious and scandalous in Spinosa's book, to which, he says, the Presbyterians compare Mr Dod- well's.
This, one would have thought, was enough for one man in his whole life. But Mr Dodwell did not think so. The parliament of England, considering the great danger the nation was in from Popery, saw it was necessary to have better thoughts of the Dissenters, and to give them more countenance than would have followed upon his principles. And therefore, shortly after the pubHshing of his book^ viz. upon the 10th of January 1680, the Common* declared by their vote, nemine contradicente, * It is
* the opinion of this house, that the prosecution of
* Protestant Dissenters, upon the penal laws, is at
* this time grievous to the subject, a weakening the
* Protestant interest, an encouragement to Popery,
* and dangerous to the peace of the kingdom.' This was plainly to blast all hopes of the fruits might otherwise have been expected from Mr Dodwell's book. Whereupon he makes a second attack, and in the year 1683, published his book of the One Priest- hood, One Altar, wherein he over again attempt- ed to prove the Non-conformists Schismatics, and imagining he had done it, infers* that they can lay no claim to the one altar, nor to the one priesthood, to the favour of God here, nor the enjoyment of him hereafter.
It was no wonder he was thus severe upon the Dissenters : For he proceeded, and made the Church of England herself, upon the revolution establishment, schismatical, and in the year 1704, published his Latin book, entitled Parcenesis adeMeros de nupero Schismate Arigiicano, to advertise foreigners thereof. What, you will say, was his quarrel with the Revolu- tion Church of England ? Was it her injuries to the late King James ? No. W^as it her renouncing the
♦ Chap. xiii. tcct. 9. 12, 13, U.
MR rhind's narrative. 3S
doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance on any pretence whatsoever ? No. Was it the scandal- ous new prayers she had put into the liturgy ? No. All these things he expressly tells us, p. 3. He, with those of his principles, made a shift to bear with ; perhaps so much the more easily, that, as 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 digested, 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 w^orst 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 were 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 efJ'ect. For, such as were before in 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
34 REMARKS ON
tural mortality 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.
* It is true,* saitli he, 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 soulj but this he did in a manner so learned,
* 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 j for Vvhat 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 han- dle not only to his enemies, but to all the world that had any regard for religion ? Bat why does Mr Khind 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 com.prehension of ordinary 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 the 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 fioribility of the wills of dead souls, * separate souls receiving water baptism, t and the like, are notions as much above the capacitiesof Presbyterians as Jacob Behmen*s lucubra- tions are. I hope many are not in hazard of being per-
* S«et. 4l.p. 17S. t Sect. 42.
MR riiind's narrative. S5
verted by it. Bat Mr Rhind himself is so unhappy as to be one ; for it is nothinc^ but a supposed singular opinion, he will not positively say it is erroneous ; but allowing it to be so, it is not dangerous because of its obscurity. But how, in all the world, could he suf- fer these words to drop from him, ' That his search
* was not to be employed about that singular opi-
* nion of Mr Dodwell's, but to know whether his ' arguments for Episcopacy were forcible or not ?* Is not the natural mortality of the soul, and its baing immortalised by Episcopal baptism, or in de- ject of it, by the pleasure of God to punishment, one of his arguments for Episcopacy ? What meant Mr lihind by such a juggle ? Thinks lie, Mr Dod- well's book is not extant, or that all the world is turned quite senseless, and w^ants 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.
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 de})rived sees, since the death of William 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 Dodwell's account. Plainly, his head was turned with immoderate zeal ; and therefore schism, schism, was his everlasting clack. Mr Rhind, indeed, has given,
C 2
S6 REMARKS OX
p. 25., another character of him, viz. * That he has
* 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 kominem, 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 Khind 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,* saitli 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 Chai^ter of TresbyterTj, 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 w^eak his historical arguings were in the said charter, upon the usage of the English Liturgy in Scotlanda,
• YiaiUcatioa ef tlit Fuadameatal Charter, p. 79..
MR rhind's narrative. 87
has been sufficiently shown in the Country-man's Letter to the Curate, on that subject.
It is true, there is lately puljhshed a Vindication of the Fundamental Charter, in opposition to the said Letter. But, I hope, upon comparing the two, the Vindication will appear to be a very harmless piece. For, 1. Who is likely ever to be moved by an author, that tells, 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, P. 166. p. 13. 2. Who will be moved by his ar- guings on Buchanan, when, notwithstanding that Buchanan is ackuowledged to be the sole relater of what he argues for, he yet says, ' That Buchanan ' was doating when he wrote 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 have 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 : — ' 1 in-
* deed was once induced by a conjecture, (by this it
* appears, that the Civil History was written before
* the Geographical part), to believe it to have been
* the temple of Terminus, which (we have learned)
J58 REMAnKS ON
* used to be built round, and open above.' But then he tells us, * that he was informed by ere-
* ditabie persons, that there were several other build-
* ings of the same form in other places of the na- ' tion. This,' saitli 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 Dodu'ell 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. y 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-
* nics 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
* Parsenes, Sect. 15. p, 61.
MR rhind's narrative. S9
' 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 accurat* 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 reading 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 Archippiis, ' 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. Parsenes. Sect. «?. Proemonition to tlio Epiitolary Discourse, p. 49, *c.
40 DEFENCE OF THE
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.
CHAR n.
WHEREIN MR RHIND S FIRST REASON FOR SEPARATING FROM THE PR.ESBYTErvlAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEY ARE SCHISMATICS IN POINT OF GOVERNMENT, IS EX- AMINED, FROM P. 29. TO P. 1 19.
For justifying this reason of separation, Mr Rhind uses the following method : — First, He lays down two principles, from which he subsumes some corol-
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 41
laries. 2dly, He states the debate j and, Sdly, Ad- vances his arguments.
Sect. I.
Wherein Mr Rhind's Principles and Corollaries, p, 29., are Examined^
His two principles are : — * I. 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: — * I. 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.'
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, 81. * 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
42 DEFENCE OP THE
* disown and oppose those who govern after that
* manner, is without the Church by the third corol-
* 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 go- 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 the 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 wiHing- 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 parJons sin will pardon errors loo.
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), v;ith 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
PBESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 43
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 figur- 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.
Secojidlj/, I say Mr Rhind's scheme will yet far less please the Church of England, which he has joined ; which I shall make good in two particulars ; when once I have premised, that by the Church of England I do not mean only this or the other parti- cular doctor, but that I mean her articles, homilies, liturgy, canons, and such other public formulas.
1st, 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 of 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 ' judge 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 of 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, ^ since that time ; yet we are very sure, that not
* Expos. Art. XIH. p. 259.
44 DEFENCE OF THE
* 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 government of King- Charles I. that the English Ambassador, with his retinue, 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 Khind 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 them to theconviction of all the world ; but then it was by reasonings which quite overturn Mr Rhind*s scheme. Dr Sherlock fost enters the field, and, with open mouth, declares! against the unchurching doctrine for the want of Episcopal government. * I am sure,* saith he, * that
* is not a safe communion where there is not a suc-
* cession of apostolical doctrine ; but whether the
* want of a succession of Bishops will, in all cases,
* unchurch, will admit of a greater dispute : I am
* sure a true faith in Christ, with a true gospel con-
* versation, will save men ; and some learned Ro- ' manists defend that old definition of the Church, ' that it is Ca'tiis Fidelium, the Company of the
* Faithful, and will not admit Bishops or Pastors into
* definition of a Church.* Thus he : Dr Clagget,
* Hist, rebell. ■\ Vindication of the Discourse concerning tha Notes of the Church, p. 53.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 45
succeeds 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 too. But expressly denies that any of these kinds and instances of unity are necessary to the being of a Church, except these of one Lord, one faith, one baptism. And further asserts, ' that 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 defini-
* 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 Stillingfleet, after- wards Bishop of Worcester, who has proved,! be- yond contradiction, that the main 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 of the king- dom ; and herein they were against Mr Rhind and his fellows. And that they have also acknowledged 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.
2f////, This is not the only quarrel the Church of England has against Mr Rhind's scheme. No one wonders to find the Presbyterians asserting the intrinsic power of the Church. They still claimed it, have been always wrestling for it — to be sure they never renounced it ; but it certainly very ill becomes one wlio has joined the Church of England to lay it down for a principle, as he has done, that tiie Ciiurch is independent of the State- ]? so, what then means the 2Jst Article, which declare?,
* Upon Bellarmlne'd Vllth Note of the Church. j- Irvnic Part 11. chap. viii.
46 DEFENCE OF THE
* that general councils may not be gathered together
* without the commandment 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! What, then, means the first Canon, I64t0, 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 1 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 furnished 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 GOVERNMENT. 'iT
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 dcy^ of the late King James, rea- soned exactly after the same manner with Mr Rhind, 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 ;
* apostates cease to be of the cliurch, 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 ' the CiUU'ch for them 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 DodwelPs usual style, though
" Ubi supra, p. 27, 2S.
48 pEFENCE OP 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 I 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.
Sect. II.
Wherein Mr Rhind^s State of the Debate betwixt the Preshj' teriajis and Episcopalians, P' SI, 32, is examined.
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 ; ' among whom there were neither ruling elders, nor ' deacons, such as the Presbyterians have. Tiiis,' 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
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 49
-they 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 remark by what he has added, That among these subordinate officers, there were neither ruling elders nor deacons such as the Presbyterians have. This, I acknowledge, when proved, will be a considerable point gained against the Presbyterians. But tlien, Imo, Why has he not restricted himself to the proof of this? For, in all his state of the debate, there is not one svl- lable more to the purpose ; and yet, of the 90 pages he has spent in the prosecution of it, he has employ- ed only five of them, and these too only by the bye, against the ruling elders and deacons — with what success we shall afterwards hear. 2do, 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 former.
,11. Why does he say, That a subordination of officers, without such ruling elders and deacons as the
50
DEFENCE OP THl:>
Presbyterians have, is, upon the main, all that the Episcopal writers plead for? Of ail things in the world, 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, 1 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 Dod well 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-
* riority over 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 assem-
* blies only, but their sacrifices, which can entitle to « a principle of it.' Thus Mr D'odwell. And what now would it signify though Presbyterians should grant all that subordination which Mr Rhind pleads
* One Priesthood, Chap. xiii. Sect. 13, p. 396.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. SI
.or, when notwithstanding, they must still remain Scliismatics 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 ? It 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 written 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 prove, that, by divine right, they should have some hundreds, or even scores of congrega- tions under their inspection, Presbyterians are hearti- ly content to yield the cause, and to accept of bi- shops with all these powers, or so many of them as they shall prove of divine right to belong to them. On the other hand, if the Prelatists are content with bishops that are neither absolute monarchsj nor have a negative voice, nor sole power, nor a greater charge than they can personally inspect, that is, preach and dispense the 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 can
D 2
-52 DEFENCE OP THE
be eitlier demanded or offered ? Why, then, did Mr K-hind 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 distin'ct 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- parating 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 j 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.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT,' 53
But there is no need of running into niceties in this matter. Every body has a tolerable notion in the jQjross what is meant by Prelacy and Presbytery. If Mr Rhind's arguments prove that the latter is a schismatical kind of government, the former that which should obtain in the church, I shall grant he has gained his point. If they prove not that, it is nothing to us what else they prove. And whether they do so or not, I am now to apply myself to try.
Sect. III. Wherein Mr R/iincTs Arguments for Prelacy are summed up.
He has cast his argument into the form of a ha- rangue ; but so far as I can distinguisli them, they amount to the number of nine. The three first of which are calculated to argue that Prelacy should ' have been instituted ; the six latter to prove that it actually was instituted.
1. That it was necessary that Prelacy should be instituted, he argues,
J. From the nature of the thing, which made it indispensably necessary in itself. A monarchical or subordinate form being able to answer the ends of government better than the contrary.
2. From the form of government in the Jewish Church, seeing God must be uniform in his actings.
3. From the rules of political prudence, seeing a levelling form of government would have been dis- tasteful both to the Jews and Romans, as being op- posite to the hierarchy of the former, and mo- narchy of the latter.
II. That it actually was instituted, he attempts to prove,
1. From its obtaining in the days of Christ, as appears from the subordination of the Seventy to the Twelve.
2. From its being continued in the days of the
54 DEFENCE OF THE
apostles, as lippears from the history of their acts, and their epistles, and a succession in the aposto- late.
S. From the episcopacy of Timothy and Titus.
4. From tlie apocalyptic angels.
5. From testimonies of antiquity.
6. From the impossibility of its obtaining so early ^nd 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.
SJECT. IV.
Wherein Mr Wiind's Arguings for proving that it'wasneces- sarii that the Prelatic form of Government should have been at first instituted^ are examined^ fromjp. S2 to jp. 49,
I HAVE just now observed tbat he attentpts 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 thi» controversy by a subordinate form of government on the one hand, and a levelling form of govern- ment on the other, with such like phrases, is a very ridiculous, as well as unjust style j 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- cessary for 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 J 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.
PBESBYiTERIAN GOV^IVNMENT. 55
as common usage has fixed the notion of them in this controversy. This; premised, I now proceed.
ARTICLE I.
JVherein JWr Rhind's Argument, for the Indispen- sable Necessity of instituting Prelacy, from; the Na- 'ture of the Thing, is ej^amined, from p, 32 to 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- signs 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 this 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 i* 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,'' * is •indispensably necessary 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-
• Eccles. Polit. B. III. Sfct. 2. p. 154, iSS,
56
DEFENCE OP THE
* gue, that God must needs have done the thirig^
* 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 vvherein 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 right of 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 acquiesce in God's judgment, how great evidence soever there might seem for differ- 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
« Oa Schisjn, Chap. xlx. Sect. 39, 40. p. 454, 455.
PRESBYTEKIAN GOVERNMENT. 57
* age. But for bringing these reasonings clown to .* determine the rights of any particular government, ;* many particular matters of fact are requisite to be ' known.' Thus he.
Thirdlij, His argument, as he has laid it, is quite 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 as he.
11. iSupposIng his argument were otherwise tole- rable, how does he prove, that a monarchical or sub- 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 : — All the subjects of Britain must own monarchy to be the best form of government for the State ; 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, 1?720, Unless he could prove, (perhaps Dr Lesley may help him to it,) that Monarchy is the only government i)y 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, iii 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- cess as her Majesty fills the throne j but these same
58 DEFENCE OF THE
-persons are not persuaded, that it would be the best for the United Provinces, the Republics of Venice, Genoa, Lucca, the Swiss Cantons, Geneva, &c. ; and consequently, they must be persuaded too, ac- cording to Mr Rhind's way of reasoning, that a mo- narchical government in the Church would not be best for them. His argument, 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. 2f/o, Is it not pret- ty odd, to find one, who has read the Bible all over, as Mr Rhind says he has done, and has heard our Saviour not only declaring, that his kingdom is not of this world, but expressly discharging his disciples to exercise such dominion and authority as the Princes of the Gentiles do ; is it not odd, I say, to find such a one urging the cutting the Church go- vernment 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 just 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, if that can be a good argument for determining the government of the Church, which was the greatest cause of her corruption. StiOf 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 main force, wrung their liberties out of their
• See Dr Cave, Primit. Christ. Part I. Chap. viii. p. 225.
PRESBYTERMN GOVE«NMENT. '59
liatids. 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 Church ; 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 plus H^iclent Oculi quam Oculus, Two eyes see better than one ? Does he not know that' all the apostles were
60 DEFENCE OF THE
equal in their apostolical character, and when the controversy about circumcision was started at An- tioch, Acts XV. doubtless Paul, being under an in- falHble conduct, could have determined it as ortho- doxly as the whole college of them ; yet, for satis- fying people'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- byterian subordination the judges are still the same. Now, what could put this in his head, or how he could possibly stumble into it, I cannot conjecture. Was he so long among the Presbyterians and does not know it to be false ? Could he meet with never one in the whole country to tell him it was so ? when I am sure there are very few in the nation but could have done it. All matters that come from a subordinate to a superior judicatory are trans- mitted either by way of reference or appeal. In the first of these cases the judges are not merely the same, but a vast plurality added to them j for in- stance, when a matter is referred from a Presbytery to a Synod, the whole ministers of the province, with a ruling elder from each parish, are the judges in the latter. Whereas in the former, only the ministers of that particular Presbytery, with one ruling elder from each of its parishes, are the judges. In the case of appeals, not one member of the inferior judicatory is admitted to be a judge in the superior. They are indeed allowed to plead, but the pleading being over, they are not allowed to advise, much less to vote in the process. The use, then, of a subordination of judicatories is obvious, to wit, that the superior may rectify the mistakes, &c. of the inferior. But this will not go down with Mr Rhind : For * he cannot understand how their . * fellow members (to whom they are supposed in ' all respects equal) shall judge better than they." I know nobody obliged to find him in understand- ing. The thing is abundantly intelligible in itself; Solomon, a wise enough master, having told us, that in multitude of counsellors there is safety. But 2
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 61
whence did Mr Rhind learn that all the members of the Presbyterian judicatory were to be supposed in all respects equal ? Was it from the Presbyterians ? Surely not. They willingly own, that all the mini- sters, for instance, in one Presbytery, are not equal in all respects. One of them is more learned than another. Another perhaps, though he has not much learning, is yet wiser, for the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men. Was it from his fellow wri- ters of the Episcopal side ? No. On the contrary, they plainly declare, that the Presbyterians neither plead nor suppose any such thing. Thus, the au- thor of the Seventh Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. 3d : * They,* saith he, ' which cannot
* brook the superiority which bishops have, do not- ' withstanding themselves admit that some kind of
* difference and inequality there may be lawfully
* amongst ministers. Inequality, as touching gifts
* and graces they grant, because this is so plain that ' no mist in the world can be cast before men's eyes 'so thick, but they needs must discern through
* it, that one minister of the gospel may be more
* learned, holier, and wiser ; better able to instruct, ' more apt to rule and guide, than another ?' Let Mr Rhind then say, at his best leisure, whence he got that supposed equality in all respects.
His third argument is taken from the practices of the Presbyterians themselves, the sum of which, in his own \vords, page 35, is, * That, though by their ' principles all church officers are allowed an equal
* authority, yet, in effect, the whole, or at least the 'chief power, is in the hands of a few, who are the « most knowing and wise. And for proof of this he
* brings an instance, how, that in three several ge- « neral assemblies, though the most numerous party
* in the assembly were earnest to have the intrinsic ' power of the church asserted by an act, yet the au-
* thority of a leading junto, who were upon the mat- « ter so many bishops, crushed that dangerous af- ' fair. Why then,' saith he, page 37. * do they op-
* pose that kind of government, which is not only
60 DEFENCE OF THE
equal in their apostolical character, and when the controversy about circumcision was started at An- tioch, Acts XV. doubtless Paul, being under an in- fiiUible conduct, could have determined it as ortho- doxly as the whole college of them ; yet, for satis- fying people'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- byterian subordination the judges are still the same. Now, what could put this in his head, or how he could possibly stumble into it, I cannot conjecture. A¥as he so long among the Presbyterians and does not know it to be false ? Could he meet with never one in the whole country to tell him it was so ? when I am sure there are very few in the nation but could have done it. All matters that come from a subordinate to a superior judicatory are trans- mitted either by way of reference or appeal. In the first of these cases the judges are not merely the same, but a vast plurality added to them ; for in- stance, when a matter is referred from a Presbytery to a Synod, the whole ministers of the province, with a ruling elder from each parish, are the judges in the latter. Whereas in the former, only the ministers of that particular Presbytery, with one ruling elder from each of its parishes, are the judges. In the case of appeals, not one member of the inferior judicatory is admitted to be a judge in the superior. They are indeed allowed to plead, but the pleading being over, they are not allowed to advise, much less to vote in the process. The use, then, of a subordination of judicatories is obvious, to wit, that the superior may rectify the mistakes, &c. of the inferior. But this will not go down with Mr Rhind : For « he cannot understand how their .
* fellow members (to whom they are supposed in
* all respects equal) shall judge better than they." I know nobody obliged to find him in understand- ing. The thing is abundantly intelHgible in itself; Solomon, a wise enough master, having told us, that in multitude of counsellors there is safety. But
2
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 61
whence did Mr Rhind learn that all the members of the Presbyterian judicatory were to be supposed in all respects equal ? Was it from the Presbyterians ? Surely not. They willingly own, that all the mini- sters, for instance, in one Presbytery, are not equal in all respects. One of them is more learned than another. Another perhaps, though he has not much learning, is yet wiser, for the greatest clerks are not always the wisest men. Was it from his fellow wri- ters of the Episcopal side ? No. On the contrary, they plainly declare, that the Presbyterians neither plead nor suppose any such thing. Thus, the au- thor of the Seventh Book of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, sect. Sd : * They,* saith he, ' which cannot
* brook the superiority which bishops have, do not- ' withstanding themselves admit that some kind of
* difference and inequality there may be lawfully
* amongst ministers. Inequality, as touching gifts
* and graces they grant, because this is so plain that ' no mist in the world can be cast before men's eyes ' so thick, but they needs must discern through
* it, that one minister of the gospel may be more
* learned, holier, and wiser ; better able to instruct, ' more apt to rule and guide, than another ?' Let Mr Rhind then say, at his best leisure, whence he got that supposed equality in all respects.
His third argument is taken from the practices of the Presbyterians themselves, the sum of which, in his own words, page 35, is, ' That, though by their ' principles all church officers are allowed an equal
* authority, yet, in effect, the whole, or at least the ' chief power, is in the hands of a few, who are the < most knowing and wise. And for proof of this he
* brings an instance, how, that in three several ge- « neral assemblies, though the most numerous party
* in the assembly were earnest to have the intrinsic ' power of the church asserted by an act, yet the au-
* thority of a leading junto, who were upon the mat- ' ter so many bishops, crushed that dangerous af- « fair. Why then,' saith he, page 37. * do they op-
* pose that kind of government, which is not only
6^ DEFENCE OF-XH^
' indispensably necessary in itself, but does, in desr
* pite of their principles, actually obtain among them-
* selves ?* Thus he. In answer to which : How lucky soever Mr Rhind may be in some of his minutes, yet perhaps he is the most unlucky in his arguments ever man was : they being generally so ill-natured as to cut their own throat. For, 1 wo, who told him that it is against Presbyterian principles, that one minister should have a greater hand in managing than ano- ther ? Not the Presbyterians j they refuse it. Not his brethren, the authors on the Episcopal side ; witness him last cited, who tells us (Ibid J, ' A pri-
* ority of order they deny not but that there may
* be, yea, such a priority as maketh one man amongst
* many a principal actor in those things whereunto
* sundry of tlyem must necessarily concur, so that
* the same be admitted only during the time of such
* actions, and no longer.' 'Ido^ Is it indeed true, that the Presbyterian government is in effect in the hands of a few, who are upon the matter bishops ? Then it is certainly true, that they are not Schismatics, conr sequently that Mr Rhind's separating from them on that score is unjustifiable. Is this my reasoning on-, ly ? No; but of one of the best men that ever w:ore raitre, I mean Dr Bedell, afterwards Bishop of Kil- raore, in his answer to IVIr Waddesworth, once 21^ minister in Sufibik, then a Roman Catholic and pen- sioner of the Holy Inquisition in Seville. Waddes- worth, in his scripts after liis revolt, fell foul upon the reformation in these words: * In France, Holland, and ' Germany, they have no bishops.' To this Dr Be- dell answers,* ' What if I should defend they have ? ' Because a bishop and a l^resbyter ai*e all one,* as St Jerome maintains, ' and proves out of holy
* Scripture, and the use of antiquity. Of which 'judgment, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of the
* ancient fathers,^ both Greek and Latin, St Am-
* brose, Augustine, Seciulius, Primasius, Clirysos-
* tQm, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylagt; :
*' Burnet*ai Life of Bisil)0|>. Bedell, ]^ i^^ 454.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 63
* which point t have largely treated of in another 'place.* Thus he. But Mr Waddesworth was an adversary much of Mr Rhind's temper, not to be sa- tisfied without bishops superior to presbyters. Dr Be- dell therefore finds a way to make all the Protestant churches Episcopal. In Germany the superintend^, ents were bishops. But what was to be done with France and Geneva where these were not. ' Why/ saith he, ' there are usually certain chief men, tliat •^ do'in a' manner bear ail the sway. And what are
* these but bishops, indeed^ unless we shall wrangle
* about names.' I hope Mr Rliind is here fitted with a' wedge of his ov/n timber. Common sense dic- tates that superiority in wisdom and dexterity for managing business, attended with a due integrity^ should bear sway among all^ societies, even wher« the constituent members are otherwise equal in their character : Which amounts to. no more than thisi that the weaker should follow the counsel; of the wiser, and no other superiority but this could the Doctor find necessary by the word of God among ministers : ' But,' saith Mr Rhind, * why do ' those whose superior abilities entitle them to
* the chief power, and who exercise the same in
* fact, refuse to be regularly admitted to the ex-
* ercise thereof, that is, plainly, to be consecrated
* bishops ?* I answer from the excellent Lord Falk- land', who died in the bed of honour, fighting for the royal martyr.* ' There was once a hen in
* ^sop, which, upon a moderate proportion of barley
* laid every day an egg. Her mistress enlarging her
* diet, in hopes she would proportionally encrease
* her eggs, she grew so fat upon that addition, that
* she never laid more.' Dignities and preferments often turn men's heads, blunt their wits, or rebate th'C edge of their diligence. How often has it been seen, that a very good minister has made but a very in- different bishop? So long as they are equal in au- thority, they know it is only their superior wisdom
• See his Speecli before tlie House af Commons!, concerai»g B- plscopacy, in RushvYorlh^a Collect. Vol. I. Fart ill. p. 182,
64 DEFENCE OP THE
and virtue that can entitle them to respect from, or sway among their brethren. This first excites their spirits, and then keeps them on the bend ; but when once they are settled in the dignity by a formal in- stalment, 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 proportion 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 plainly 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. 25, 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. Stio, 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 ; I believe he had spoken truth, but nothing to the purpose, be- cause Presbyterians still 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 cre- 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 II. meanly truckled to an avowed
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 65
Erastian usurpation, without the least remonstrance or reclaiming. And when the late King James sent down his proclamation of the date, Feb. 12, 1687, for an unbounded toleration, wherein by his absolute power and prerogative royal, he annulled and revok- ed the penal laws against papists ; the Archbishop of St Andrews, and the elect Archbishop of Glas- gow, were the second and third persons who sub- scribed a letter of thanks to him for the said tolera- tion and proclamation. The letter bears date, Feb. 24, 1687. It is stuffed with the most fulsome flat- tery, and a soothing of the king in those measures which took away the barrier of the Protestant reli- gion, and at last ruined himself. So unwilling were that unfortunate prince's best friends, to venture their posts by giving him free and honest counsel ; when they might have possibly saved their king, and certainly their own consciences, by the doing it. The General Assembly on the other hand, have acted a somewhat better part : for when, in the year 1692, the Earl of Lothian would needs dissolve it in a very abrupt manner, to say no worse, the moderator, with all due respect to the civil powers, and yet with that courage that became a churchman possessed of the chair in the highest judicatory, boldly asserted the intrinsic power, even in the face of a frowning go- vernment, and the whole Assembly adhered to him in so doing. I hope then Mr Rhind will see that he should have been wise in his wrath, and not needless- ly have given occasion to such a piece of history. 5to, His reasoning concludes alike against Bishops, as weli as the members of the General Assembly ; for the world does not want to know that Bishops are not always the wisest, any more than the best men. And he himself was aware of this: ' But,' saith he, p. 38,
* when such is the government of the church, that
* there are different spheres in which men are to act,
* it is presumed they are chosen with qualifications
* proportioned to each.' But why should that be presumed which no man can prove, and every man will deny ? And does not he himself own, that it has
66
DEFENCE OF THE
too frequently happened, that men of inferior abili' ties have attained to the Inchest ecclesiastical di'sni- ties r And does not the history of the late times confirm this ? Witness Mr Wallace, who, in the year 1662, was preferred to be Bishop of the Isles, though he understood not one syllable of the native language of his diocese : yet a powerful recommendation, and the good quality of pliancy procured him the crosier. But, saith Mr Rhind, this is not the fault of the con- stitution, but of thf)se who prefer them. Very man- nerly ! And so all the faults of the bishops must be charged upon the prince. But the very constitution has been always such in Scotland, that it was at least a very great hazard if ever a worthy person was chosen. Generally men of merit ai'e modest, and love obscurity ; the most unworthy persons are most forward to put in for preferments ; courtiers, by whose eyes and ears the Prince must see and hear, are most ready to recommend such as are likely to be the most serviceable tools to themselves in their political designs. The Prince's conge (TeUre makes the election of the chapter a sham. So that upon the whole, there was a fault in the very constitution,. even though the office had been in itself lawful.
III. Mr Rhind is resolved to end this argument with one bold stroke. ' According,' saith he, p. 38, ' to the Presbyterian platform, the less known and ' wise are allowed an equal authority with those who * deserve it best: an establishment which seems to ' bid defiance to common sense.' Did Mr Rhind never hear of the Roman senate ? It was reckoned the most venerable bench in the world j yet there did parity reign in perfection, and that notwithstand- ing the inequality among the constituent members in point of prudence. That fine gentleman the younger Pliny, giving his friend Arrianus an account of an ac- tion hei'ore the senate, in which he had been employed to plead, tells him*. Thus it seemed good to the
* Sed hoc pluribus visum est. Numcrantur enim sententlscj nou pomlerantur. Ncc aliud in puhlico concilio potest fieri, in quo. Oihil est tani incquale quam aeqiialitas ipsa: nam cum sit iropac prudentia, par omnium jus est. — Plin. lib. ii. Ep. xii.
PRESBYTEIJIAN GOVERNMENT. 67
plurality : For the votes are numbered, not weighed. Nor can it otherwise be in public council, in which there is nothing so unequal as the equality 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 Parliament ? 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 they 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 Justice in 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- bly 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 thing, of which he is so vain, that he affirms, p. 39, it may in some measure serve to determine the con- troversy about church government : and I hope, after what has been said, every reader will grant that he may for ever enjoy that good opinion of it without fear of a rival.
ARTICLE n.
Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for the Necessity/ of ins ti tut 'nig Prelacy from the Form of Governmeiit in the Jewish Church, is Ea:amined. From p, 39 to J). 45,
Before I state this argument, I must put (yet once more) the reader in mind, that though the Presbyterians are against a subordination of pastors, yettiiey are for a subordination of officers, as well as the Prelatists arc. And tiiat, therefore, when his arguments conclude against a parity of officers, or i: 2
68 DEFENCE OP THE
for a subordinate form of Government, It is only 3 parcel of empty insignificant words huddled to- getiier, unless by the former we understand Pres- bytery, and by the latter Prelacy. This premised, his 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 in the
* Jewish Church, was constituted by officers 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 can 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 it unlawful I 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 ; 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
* different from it.' And now you have his whole argument, an argument which he thinks sufficient to prove the perpetuity of that form.
In discoursing it I shall shew, First, That as he has laid it, it is horridly impious. Se- cond/j/y That his management of it against the Presbyterians, is ridiculous. Thirdly, That it is in itself weak, and concludes nothing to the pur- pose in this controversy. Fourthlij, That if it conclude at all, it concludes for an universal Pa-
PERSBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. (50
pacy rather than a diocesan Prelacy. And, Lastly ^ That it is rejected as insufficient by the Episcopal authors themselves.
I. The argument, as he has laid it, is 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 form of go- vernment he had formerly instituted? Has Mr BJiind 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, imder 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 Priest ? And might he not have learned this from Dr L — y him- self? * Tlie Jews fondly dreamed that their polity was to last with the world, and persecuted the first martyr, Stephen, to death, because he had taught, that Jesus of Nazareth would change the customs which Moses delivered, Acts, vi. 14. But, if Mr llhind's argument is good, Stephen's doctrine was fixlse, 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 govcrn- 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, of necessity, a change also of the law. How impious
* Finishing Stroke, p. 2.
70 DEFENCE OF THE
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 Words, p. 43. « Seeing there was one of the highest
* order in the Jewish Church, it follows unanswer-
* abl}^ (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. This,' saith he,
* is enough to prove the point against the Presby-
* terians, and I defy themj if they sliall 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-
* blish another quite different from it among the
* Christians ;' and then it will follow unanswerabl}^, that as there was one High Priestin 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 I'll 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 rather 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 Gospv^.l Minister to be an ecclesiastical ruler
PP.ESBTTERIAX GOVERNMENT. 71
of til e highest order, and are very well persuaded that one of them is needful in every congregatioE. They are 60 far from being against multiplying of Bishops, that where there is one in England, they wish there were three hundred. But, saith Mr llhind, * let them allow one Bishop for every district, in *■ proportion to that to which the High Priest's autho- •' rity did extend, and the debate is at an end.* The Presbyterians will be content with this likewise upon two very reasonable conditions : \st. If he can prove that there is any divine institution appointing it to be so. But MrRhind's dictating to God, and thinking it j-easonable it should be «o, will not be admitted by them as a proof of this. 2^, If he can prove that the ecclesiastical rulers of the highest order in the Christian Church are appointed for the same fimc- tions the High Priest was under the law. The Priest, that Imayspeak in MrDodwell's style, was to offer up the national or popular sacrifices, for appropriating to the Jews, only (whether by birth or proseiytism, it is the same thing,) the privilege of the SeguUah, and the patronage of the Supreme Being. But in all the New Testament, I cannot find that any such, either national or provincial appropriation was ever designed to be the end of any of the functions of any Gospel ruler. Nay, we find all on the contrary : For, by the Gospel Institution, all that worship the same Supreme Being, and in the same way that he has appointed, are within the Church, whatever na- tional distinctions they have.
HI. The argument is in itself weak, and con- cludes nothing to the purpose in this controversy ; because, from the whole strain of the Scriptures, it is plain, that the Aaronick Priesthood was typical, and had at once both its end and accomplishment in Christ. Mr Rhind was aware of this exception, and therefore essays to take it off by two answers, 1. If the constitution of the Levitical priesthood was subordinate, the Christian must be so too, o- therwise the type is not adequately represented by the antitype, p. 42. This the Presbyterians grant: For Christ is the great high-priest of our profession.
72 DEFENCE OF THE
Heb. iii. 1., 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 Pligh 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 only, but in their sacrifices, which can entitle to a principle of unity. Therefore Mr Rhind 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 such 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 Diimascenum. Now the author of that work expressly affirms it+. ' The
* See Lcfore, Chap. ii. Sect. 2.
•f Alt. Daniasc. p, HO. Sed cum sancti omncs sinl Deo sacer-
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 73
< very eminency,' saith he, ' of the High Priest, in
* which the Episcopal writers place the order and
* eutaxyof thatgovernment, was typical, and shadow-
< ed the super-eminent dignity of our High Priest
* above all other priests, whose priesthood has an
* influence on all the faithful, and makes them
* priests and pastors in an ethical, though not poli-
* tical sense.' It is then plain that Mr Rjiind's con- fidence in this point has been much greater than his caution. 4. Seeing under the Jewish dispensation the ordinary priests had a share in the government with the High Priest, why did not Mr Rhind tell us what share the ordinary priests in the Church of England have with their diocesans, or high priests, in the government ? I cannot find it : No wonder, truly, for the great Bacon, Lord Verulam, could not. This is one of the things, wherein he con- fesses he could never be satisfied, viz. the sole exercise of their authority. * The bishop,* saith he, * * giveth orders alone, excommunicateth ' alone, judgeth alone. Tins seems to be a thing
* almost without example in government, and there- ' fore not unlikely to have crept in, in the degene-
* rate and corrupt times.' Thus he. Where is then the subordination in government which Mr Rhind pleads for ?
IV. His argument, if it conclude at all, con- cludes for an universal Pa})acy rather than a Dio- cesan Prelacy : For there was but one high priest over the Jews, and consequently there should be but one supreme bishop over the Christian Cliurch. And indeed Mr Dodwell has roundly asserted, that the original government of the Christian Church was a Papacy; — that the whole Cinistian churches were subject to the church at Jerusalem, and that
dotes, annon ilia ip«a eminevtia summi saccidotis In qua illl pommt ordincm ct eutaxium, lijpica fuit, et super eviinentem summi pontificis nostri supra alios cnincs sacertlotcs dignitatem adiimbrabat, cujus saccidotium in onincs litlclcs iiifluil, cL ciliicos licet non poli- ticos in exttrno legimine sacerdotes tt pastores facit ? * Certain Consideration* touching the Church of England, p, 14.
74 DEFENCE OF THE
the bishop of Jerusalem was the principle of Catho- lic unity, and that there were no other bishops in the world but himself, and that the settling of bi- shops 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 in the second 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 oft'. ' 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. When the Prelatists go in 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 in- fer the form of government in the Christian, from that of the Jewish Church), tell them so much for fear of obliging the Romian 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 ? Lie indeed refers his readers to the authors who have managed this controversy against them ; but his
* Paiicncs. Sect. 6, p 9. Ecclesisc Catliolicae univeisoe, prima- tumteniiit Eplscopus llierosol) niitanus. Partm ill! quem simllitev tenuit pontifex teiiipll Hierosolyniitani Jiulacus in synogogas Judae- oinni per oibeni terraruni ubUjue dispersas. Et parem illi qucm sibi vcndica per Christianuni Ofbcm universum pontifex Roniaaus.
Presbyterian government. 75
own defence is absolutely naught. It is this, p. 43.
* In so confined a society as was the Jewish Churchy
* any more than one officer of the highest order was ' needless, seeing the people could easily repair to
* him from the remotest corners of Judea, upon all ' the proper occasions ; and one was sufficient for
* the discharge of all the duties of that office. But ' since the partition wall is broken down, the church
* is become a society of so large an extent, that all
* the faithful cannot have access to one, nor can
* one serve all the purposes of that office.' But •why may not one serve all the purposes of that of- fice now, as well as during the whole first century, and a part of the second, according to Mr Dodwell ? It is true the professors of Christianity are more numerous now than they were then, yet not more widely dispersed. For, if we may believe antiqui- ty, Christianity got considerable footing in the apos- tles days, even in the nations most remote from Je- rusalem, the centre. And that St Andrew, St Simon the Canaanite, and, as some say, St Paul himself, planted the gospel in Britain. And if the bishop sitting at Jerusalem could be a principle of unity to us then, why might not the bishop of Rome, who is much nearer hand, be so to us now ? Let Mr Rhind satisfy the Roman Catholics how, for in- stance, all the faithful in the cities of London and Westminster, amounting to about a milHon of souls; how all the faithful in the rest of Middlesex, Essex, and part of Hertfordshire, on this side the globe; how all the faithful in the foreign English plantations on the other side of the globe, and in both the Indies, can have access to the bishop of London, their dio- cesan, or how he can serve all the purposes of that office to them. — Let Mr Rhind, I say, satisfy the Roman Catholics in this ; and then I believe they will find it no hard matter to shew how all the faith- ful through the world may have access to one Pope at Rome, and how one Pope alone may serve all the purposes of that office to the Church Universal. It is plain, then, that Mr Rhind's argument must needs infer the necessity of the Pope's supremacy.
<i''k.
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-
* ner 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
* he 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, t 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 j yea, Mr
• Perpetual Gov. of Christ's Cliurcli, Chap. ii. p. 12; f Iieiiic- Part II, Chap, vi;
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 77
Dodwell* has found the ancient Bishops wearing the sacerdotal frontlet in imitation of the Jewish High-Priest. Yea, he has found t their succession hereditary. Who knows where the humour may- stop ? If they go on at the same rate, it is to be feared they may turn Christianity into somewhat more than a mystical Israelitism, and revive upon us the old controversy, that * except we be circumcis- • ed, we cannot be saved.'
ARTICLE III.
Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for the Necessity of instituting Prelacy from the Rides of Political Pru- dence, in compliance with the Jews and Romans^ is examined. From p* 4i5 to p, 49.
This is an argument, which, as Mr Rhind has discoursed it, is, 1 dare affirm, a pure original piece ; and that as no man ever used it before him, so no man readily will after him. The sum of it is : The Jews were zealous for their hierarchy ; the Romans were under a monarchy. A parity of officers, or le- velling kind of government, (such as he, with equal justice and accuracy, supposes the Presbyterian to be), would have quite alienated the Jews from, and raised the jealousy of the Romans against Christiani- ty. Therefore, it was not consistent with the wis- dom and goodness of our Lord, and the inspiration of his Apostles, who became all things to all men, to provoke their aversion, by determining against their inclinations, p. 46. And if they had instituted such a republican form as the Presbyterian is, their doing so would have justified the persecutions were
* One Priesthood, Chap, ix. Sect- 4' f Ibid. Sect. S.
78 DEFENCE OF THE
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 in- finite wisdom limited, and infinite freedom confined in the most effi'onted manner. All the business of the sons of men, is to know what gov^ernment 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. 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 as 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- ing the first times of the Apostles, they did for a while forbear the setting any bishop up in any
* One Priesthood, Chap. ix. Sect. 7. p. 218.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 7^
consulenible superiority over his brethren. ' For/ sailh he, ' if this superiority of the Bishop were a
* substituting him in the place of the High Priest, ' and the multiplying such superiors in several ci- ' ties, were the multiplying High Priests in several
* cities, it plainly appears how this must have been ' interpreted by those who were Jewishly affected, ' from the principles already mentioned. They must ' have looked on such persons as not only violators ' of their law, but as breakers of their mystical
* union, and consequently obnoxious to the same ' curses and execrations, which on the same account ' had been thundered against the Samaritans.' Thus he. Yea, he tells us elsewhere, * that Christ was so far from instituting a hierarchy, that he did not so much as intimate to his disciples, that ever any hier- archy, distinct from the Jewish, which already ob- tained, was to be set up ; yea, that if he had inti- mated any such thing, the disciples themselves had been in ])eril of revolting from him on that very ac- count. 1 hope, then, we are in no great hazard from the Jews.
n. As to the Romans, It is true they were under monarchy. Ergo, say I, lino. Such a constitution in the church as made every bishop a monarch in his own city, and raised him to a throne, (1 hope Mr Rhind knows the Episcopal style), would have height- ened their jealousy and provoked their indignation against the Christians. For, though our Lord dis- claimed all meddling with secular affairs, and at length became invisible, upon which accounts the Romans had no just reason to be in any apprehen- sion from himself; yet who knows not that states are jealous even of the smallest appearances ? Was it not Christ's being called King of the Jews that stung Herod so sharply that he sought to murder him in his cradle ? Was it not on the same pre- tence that Pilate condemned him in judgment, when he had acquitted him in his conscience ? If they were
• Parccncs. Sect. 1 !.. p, /JS.
80 DEFENCE OF THE
thus jealous of a monarch who owned his kingdom was not 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 tliat church, that the head being once lopt off, Christi- anity might be ruined at once. 2c?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 Rhind 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, cequo jure^ as Eutropius X expresses it — so far were they from having an ill opinion of parity. 4/0, 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- ment ? Does he not know, that upon the death of
* Paracneg. Sert, 16, page 68. Suspicor lioc fine adeo in eccle- siam Hieiosolymitanam sevire Gentiles, ut, capite sublato, res Chris- tiana univtrs;i una coucidcrtt,
f Ep. 'JJ. Lib. X. X Breviar. Lib. viii.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT, 81
Caligula, the senate decreed that the memory of the Caesars shoidd 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 miUtary 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 MrRhind, 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. Judaeos (saith Sueton)* impulsore Chresto assidiie tumultuantes Romo ea:pulit'
But I have insisted too long against an argument the most maggotish was ever bred in the head of a Jiving 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: \mo. 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 clmrch, in case her government had been Presbytery ? This is iiis 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 ? 2g?o, 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 Clautl. cap. xxr, f
82 DEFENCE OF THE
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 Wiind's Proofs far evincing that Prelacy actually was instituted^ are examined^ from page 50 to page 1 19.
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 I 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 liis other reasonings, do proceed in a mathematical
PRESBYTEIUAN GOVERNMENT. 83
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 Dodwell's authority, nor straitened with his reasonings, but on the contrary, will find him frequently helping us to answer Mr Rhind.
ARTICLE I.
Wherein Mr Rhind*s Proof Jor the Institution of Prelacy Jrom its obtaining in the days of Christy is examined. From p. 50 to p. 61,
Mr RhimDj in discoursing this proof, proceeds iti
• ParjEnes. Sect. 14. page 57. Opus non est ut rcgiminis Ec- cleslastici forma hodie observanda tradita fuerit in scripturls canoni- cis. — NuUiis eiiiin est qui id profiteatur apcrte sacri scriptoris locus. Et ne quidcni ullus qui ita de regimine agat ecclesiastico quasi id voluit et scriptor, aut scriptoris auctor spiritus sanctus, ut Ibrmatn unam aliquam rcgiminis ubiqiie et in omne iEvuni duraturi describe- ret. Nusquam scriptures sacri satis expresse tradiderunt quanta se- cuta fuerit in regimiiie ccclesiarum mutatio cum priraum di»cederen
F 2
84 DEFENCE OF THE
the following method. T. 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 EvangeHcal 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 ? 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 Churchy with which they were still incorporated, and from which, as we have already proved, no consequence can be drawn ibr the nature of the Christian government.
a synagogarum communione ecclesiae. Nusquam satis aperte quan- tum (lonis concessum fuerlt spiiitus sancti personalibus quantum vicis- Bim locis et officiis. Nusquam officiarios extiaoitlinarios qui illo ips(^ teeulo finem babituri essent ab ordiiiariis satis accurate secernunt^ • Viml. of tb« Prin.of the Cypr. Age, Chap. vi. Sect. 6,
rRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 85
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 liimself was its sole king and head. And if this will content him for making tlie 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 necessitv 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 officers ; and that a parity of rulers under a monarch would make a monstrous, and in itself a contradictious con- stitution, how would this affect the Presbyterians ? For though they deny that Christ, while on earth, in- stituted a subordination 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 govern- 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 he was upon earth. It is then evident that
86 DEFENCE 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- tles 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 him with an 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 j 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 ; and sometimes they make the compari-
* son here mentioned : but then it must be also
* granted, that this comparison will not strictly hold j
* 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-
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,
* Annot. on Luke x« f Ibid, ubi supra.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 87
< 23. 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 the like commission recorded
* Matth. X. could constitute the Twelve such stand-
* ing 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 is become of the orderly gradation. The Apostles themselves were 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 ?
And thus now we have heard Mr Rhind'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.
88
DEFENCE OF THE
But Mr Rhind is resolved to be equal with the Presbyterians, 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- not find any one Presbyterian author that ever in- sisted, 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 Khind allows that the said text has the least aspect that way ; 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 ail to forbid a subordination of officers — pastors, he should have said. 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 Bellarmine, 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.'
2. ' 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. Damas. cap. Iv. 142. Irenic. Part II- Chap. v.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 89
« the Church* — which the Presbyterians insist on to the same purpose with the former.
S. * 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 in- 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,Cibid.) ' 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 sincerity 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 of 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 of the
/
./
90 DEFENCE OF THE
Primate of all England, who is alterius Orhis 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 he, * * humility in the domination that is required,
* but the very domination itself that is forbidden.' And then o-oes on answerin<T the criticisms advanced by Mr Ilhind, 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 tlie Church of Rome. No wonder. They had both truth on their side, and 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 5 for t.he very same arguments wherewith they de- feated tbiC Romanists, with the very same Presbyr terians defeat them : whereby they make the exact moral of the goose in the fable, which was wound- ed wiih an arrow feathered from her own wing.
5. * The original word,' saith he, p. 56, * which our
* translators have rendered to exercise authority
* (dominion, he should have said), does properly sig-
* nify such an exercise of it as is tyrannical ;' which he endeavours to prove, Jirst, from Beza ; secondly, from the Septuagint; thirdly, from St Luke, Acts xix. 16. ; ' which,' saith he, 'is the only other place where
* it occurs in all the New Testament, and certainly ' implies violence and tyranny, being used to signiiy
* how the Demoniac overcame the sons of Sceva.' — Now, let us examine this. In \\\q Jirsi place, Beza, on that place, is not criticising on the word, or tell- ing what it naturally imports, but is describing the actual practice of the princes of the Gentiles. And expressly says, t * That our Lord there dehorts,
* De Pontif.. Quest. I. Chap. iii. Sect. 1.
f Exhort:itur ne quis inter ministios Terbi sui (pEerat praecelleii- tiam et potcstatera. — Beza in locum'
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 91
' that none amongst the ministers of his word seek < pre-eminence and power.' Secondly^ As for the Septiiagint, he has produced no place where they take the word in such an ill sense. It is none of my business, therefore, to consider where they do so ; but this is certain, that they frequently use it in a good sense. For instance, Gen. i. 28. * Have
* dominion over the fishes of the sea.' Psalm Ixxii. 8. ' He shall have dominion from sea to sea.' Psalm ex. 2, ' Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.' In all those places, the Greek word used by them is the same with that in the text. But will any body say, that Adam's, Solomon's, or Christ's dominion, was to be tyrannical ? Thirdly ^ Is that place. Acts, xix. 16., which relates the Demoniac's overcoming the sons of Sceva, the only other place in all the New Testament where the original word is used ? I wish somebody had helped Mr Rhind to a Greek Concordance. For 1 Peter, v. 3., where ministers are forbidden to carry ' as lords over God's heri-
* tage,' the original word is the same. Thus you see all this criticism is quite lost. But why did not Mr Rhind, when he was in the criticising yein, ob- serve, that though the compound verb, which Ma- thew and Mark use, signify sometimes violence and tyranny ; yet that Luke, in the parallel place, used the simple verb, which, however, it may be some- times applied, yet in its own nature signifies only dominion, without the superaddition of tyranny or violence ? Why, I say, did not Mr Rhind observe this ? The reason is pluii ; it would have made against him, and quite spoiled his argument j and why should a man harm himself?
fcj. He endeavours to make good his gloss on the text, by criticising on the word Euergetes, which our translators render * benefactors.* ' If,' saith he, p. 57., * these Gentile princes, whom their mean
* flatterers sirnamed Euer^etcs, were some of them
* guilty of violence, then doubtless the authority, ' which was exercised by those wlro were so called, .* is meant to be tyrannical, and, in that respect, it
92 DEFENCE OF THE
* is that oiir Saviour forbids his Apostles to copy
* after them.' Now, that some of these who had this surname given them, did abuse their authority to the worst of purposes, he proves by the instance of Ptolemy VII. King of Egypt, surnamed Euer- getes 11. , who was indeed a very ill prince. This is a very deep criticism. But in the first place, who shall secure us that our Saviour so much as alluded to any of those princes that had borne that surname, there being no hint thereof either in the text or con- text ? 2. Be it that he did allude to them, yet who shall secure us that it was to such as were ill rather than such as were good of them ? But it is nause- ous to dispute against a trifle, though there were other princes whom their flatterers upon occasion now and then called Euergetes, or Benefactors, in a way of compliment ; yet I do not find any who bore that for their surname, save two of the race of the Ptolemies in Egypt. And as the second of them was very vicious, as Mr Rhind has observed ; sa the first of them, viz. the son of Ptolemy Philadel- phus, was a brave man, engaged in a just war a- gainst Antiochus Callinichus, for the murder of his sister and her little son, — had success in it, and in token of his devotion, offered sacrifices to the God of heaven at Jerusalem. On which account Jose- phus* makes honourable mention of him. Now, when there were only two princes who bore that surname, whereof as the one was bad, so the other was good ; why should Christ allude only to the ill one ? For to atlirm he did so, without proving it, is to beg the question.
7. Mr Rhind argues t from ' the opposition which ' our Lord states betwixt his own example, which
* he proposes for their imitation, and that of the
* princes of the Gentiles, which he forbids the
* apostles to follow. It cannot,* saith he, * be said
* without blasphemy, that he put himself upon a
* level with his apostles, with respect to authority
* Contra Apioii. Lib. II. p. [milii] Sii. Vide etiam Justin. Hist. Lib. XXVIl, t P. 59,
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 93
* and jurisdiction ; and consequently, that autho-
* rity which they were to exercise in imitation of < him, does not import a perfect equality among ' them, in opposition to that imparity w'hich obtain-
* ed in the lieathen governments.' The answer is easy : Mr Rhind has mistaken, (whether wilfully or otherwise I shall not determine), the design of the argument, and the way how it proceeds. For when our Lord commanded, ver. 27, 28. * Whoso-
* ever will be chief among you, let him beyourser- ' vant ; even as the Son of Man came not to be ' ministered unto, but to minister,' He argued from the greater to the lesser thus : — For as much as I, your Lord and Master, have humbled myself to the basest services, therefore you who are indeed servants, and each upon a level with other, should be ashamed to be thinking of, or aspiring to be lords and masters over one another. This makes our Saviour's words plain and intelligible ; whereas Mr Rhind's gloss, instead of extinguishing, would have inflamed their ambition, by supposing it lawful for one or two of them to lord it over the rest.
8. ' Our Lord,' saith he, (ibid. J ' cannot be sup-
* posed to forbid in this text such a subordination
* of rulers in the church, as was that which at that
* time obtained in most of the Gentile states ; see-
* ing this were to condemn that form, by which he
* thought fit the church should be governed in the
* days of his flesh, which was monarchical.' The an- swer is short- 1. We have already heard M. Sage owning that there was no Christian Church in being at that time, consequently no Christian governors, consequently no particular form by which the church was then governed. 2. Supposing both the Twelve and the Seventy had been governors, yet we have heard Dr Wiiitby confessing that they were both vested with the same power. There being tlien no subordination of pastors, no different orders of tiieni under Christ at that time, it necessarily follows that Christ's words in the controverted text, according to Mr Rhind's peremptory sentence, p- 61, ' Doubt-
94 DEFENCE OF THE
* less, whatever kind of government obtained in
* the church, in the days of Christ, was designed
* to be perpetual,' must needs condemn such a su- bordination in all time coming.
Lastly, Mr Rhind argues, p. 60, That if the sense of our Saviour's words was not according to his gloss, it is probable he would have ' stated the op-
* position, not betwixt them and the princes of the ' Gentiles; but rather betwixt them and the High ' Priest, priests, and Levites among the Jews/ It is answered — Christ had the greatest reason to state the opposition as he did. He had the greatest reason not to state it as Mr Rhind thinks probable he would have done, upon supposition of the Presbyterian sense. 1. He did state the opposition betwixt them and the princes of the Gentiles, because the disciples having a notion <^f a temporal kingdom of the Messias, and being swelled with the expectation of dignities in the same, our Saviour thought it needful to answer them agreeably to the notion they had entertained, and withal to insinuate to them that no one of them was to expect any superiority over the rest in any capacity, civil or ecclesiastical, but that they were all to be on a level in point of authority. And thus, in fact, we find afterwards they were : though indeed, on account of personal excellencies, some of them seemed to be pillars. 2. He did not state the opposition betwixt them and the Jewish High Priest, priests, and Levites, because the disciples themselves did not yet think of any other church government than what at present ob- tained among the Jews ; and Christ did not find them yet ripe for receiving any intimation thereof, but thought it enough to give them a general rule to be observed by them afterwards, and whereof, when it was to be put in practice, they would easily con- ceive the meaning, after their understandings were opened, and things brought to their remembrance by the Holy Ghost, which was to be communicated to them. This thought is suggested to us by Mr Dodvvell.* * The apostles themselves,* saith he,
* Parasncs. Sect. M. p, 58. Ante secessum asynagogis, nee de re-
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 95
< do not seem to have known any thing concerning
* the g6vernment of the church till their separation
* from the synagogues : Tiiey were by birth Jews,
* and zealous of the law and customs of their fa-
* thers ; and if our Lord, before that, had revealed
* any thing to them which looked that way, that is,
* to a change of goverpment, they had been in ha-
* zard of revolting from, instead of obeying him. ' And therefore our Lord dealt cautiously with
* them, and would not put new wine into old bot- ' ties, nor while their minds were yet alienated,
* bear in new revelations upon them concerning facts
* from which they would have had an aversion.'
And thus now I have considered every thing Mr Rhind has advanced upon that controverted text; and I hope it sufficiently appears, that not one of his' thoughts ; nay, nor all of them jointly, are of the least force to wrest it from the Presbyterians, or to justify the gloss he has put upon it. For besides all has been already suggested, that not only the tyrannical exercises, as Mr Rliind would, but the dominion itself too, as the Presbyterians would, is discharged by that text, is evident both from the occasion of it, and likewise from our Saviour's known character. First, From the occasion of it, which was the mother of Zebedee's children, her asking a boon for her sons. How earnest soever she might be for their promotion, unless we should suppose her to have been a monster of vvomen, and another Jezebel, she could not have been so impudent as to ask for them a power of domineering tyrannically over their fellows. Could siie have got them raised to the dominion, no doubt she had been glad to see them manage it virtuously and with temper and moderation : But our Saviour would not allow the
gimine, nee de ipso secessu, ipslrescivisse videnturApostoli. Erant enim ipsi ortu Judai, patriarunique consuctutiinum legisque studi- osi. Si quid antea patefecisset Doniinus quod eospectare credere- tur; periculuin erat ne deficerent potius quam parerent. Caute ergo egit Dominus, nee vinum novum vasis rcdidit veteribus, nee proinde alienis animis novas, de factis a quibis abhorrebant, in« gessit revelationes.
96 DEFENCE OF THE
dominion itself, and so there could be neither place nor temptation for the tyrannical exercise of it. Secondly, From our Saviour's known character. — He not only taught loyalty, and a regard to tlie civil powers, but gave too a most bright and shin- ino- example of it in his practice. Was it consistent with this character to represent, indefinitely, (which is much the same thing with universally), the whole princes of the earth as a knot of tyrants, counter- acting the design of their office, which is the good and happiness of mankind, by their violence and op- pression ? What else could have been the effect of this, but to produce in his followers an utter aver- sion to monarchy, and to make them all State Whiffs ? This sense, then, is absurd ; and there- fore ought not to be put upon our Saviour's words. And I cannot enough wonder how Mr Rhind could stumble upon it. Had it dropt from some old re- publican, the matter had been the less ; but in Mr Rhind, who has made loyalty so great a part of re- lio-ion, and has recommended it to the world in so very pointed a sermon, it was an unpardonable es- cape. To confirm my thoughts upon this text, let us hear Dr Whitby on it. ' Nor do I think,' saith he, * * Christ only here forbiddeth such dominion as « is attended with tyranny, oppression, and con- < tempt of their subjects. First, Because St Luke
* uses only the simple verbs, which bear no such ill
* sense, ^dly. Because kings and governors were ' not always guilty of this mal-administration ; and, ' 2dly, Because Christ does not oppose unto their
* government a just dominion, but a ministry on-
' ly.'
And now, upon the whole, I refer it to the reader, if the argument for Prelacy, from its obtaining in Christ's days, is not even ridiculous ; when the great- est Episcopal writers own there was no Christian Church in being at that time — therefore no subordi- nation of pastors in it — therefore no prelacy. Or,
* Annot. on Mattli. xx. 2S,
niESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 97
supposing the Twelve and the Seventy liad been Church officers, yet that they had both the same power, and so it becomes an argument for parity.
ARTICLE II.
Wherein Mr Rhind's Proof Jor the actual Institution of Prelacy, from its being continued in the days of the Apostles, and from a succession in the ApoS' tolate, and from its having been confirmed by Miracles, is Ed'amined. From p. 61 to p. 74.
Upom this I shall, I. Examine Mr Rhind's transi- tion, which is indeed very remarkable. II. His general reasonings from the Acts and Epistles. III. His particular argument from a Succession in the Apostolate. IV. His demonstration for the Divine Right of Prelacy, from its being confirmed by Miracles.
I. I am to examine Mr Rhind's Transition, which is indeed very remarkable : I mean it would be so in any other author, though it is very familiar with Mr Rliind. He, presuming he had proved, that our Saviour, by his authority, established the imparity he pleads for, contends not only that that establish- ment was not abrogate afterwards, but that even Christ himself could not abrogate it : ' For,* saith he, p. 61, * it would reflect odiously upon his wisdom * to have settled a government, which must be almost " as soon altered as instituted.' It is indeed the known character of the generality of the writers on the Episcopal side, that tliey dictate their crude notions with the same masterful air as if they were demonstrating one of Euclid's propositions ; yet, generally this positiveness amounts to no more than ill manners, and therefore may either be neglected, or chastised with a little raillery. But that a no-
98 DEFENCE OF THE
thing of a croatiire sliould at every turn f;^ive mea- sures to tl^e Divine wisdom, is insupportable, and most of all in this case. For, 1st, Who, that has any reverence for our blessed Saviour, will presume to affirm, that because lie used one method for con- stituting the church, therefore it was inconsistent with his wisdom to alter that method in governing her when constituted ? 2^/7/, Mr Dodwell, who has reasoned in a mathematical chain, has very pro- lixly attempted to prove,* that the original ■govern- ment of the Christian Church not only might be, but actually was altered. Yea, that tlie Episcopal constitution of government, which now obtains, is later than all the writings of the New Testament, and, therefore, is not to'be sought for there. If it was not inconsistent with the wisdom of Christ to alter the government of the church from a Papacy to a mere Prelacy, why should it not be so to alter it from Prelacy to Presbytery .? Sdh/, Mr lihind, himself, must needs confess, that tlie original go- vernment of the Christian Church is altered. For, by his own principles, there were bishops in the time of the Apostles ; for instance, he has declared, p. 78, Timothy and Titus to have been the ordinary and fixed prelates of Ephesus and Crete. Yet the Apostles were then superior to them. But now, all bishops, by divine right, are equal, and have no superior above them. If, then, it is consistent enough with tlie wisdom of Christ that there should be at this day, bishops without suj>erior apostles, notwithstanding it was otherwise at the begin- ning, how is it inconsistent with his wisdom, that there should be presbyters w'ithout superior bishops? But then, lastly, to complete all, if Mr Rhind*s assertion be true, then Prelacy is undone for ever : For it has already been proved, from the Episcopal writers of the best note, that our Lord did not esta- blish an imparity — that the Twelve were equal among
• Parecnes. Sect. 13, p. 54. Hodicrni Ecgiminis Ecclesiastici Conslitutio, Jicet emanarit ab Apostolis, est tamen scriptis N. T« emnibus recentior, et proinile noii ibi cxpectanda.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 99
themselves, the Seventy among themselves, and the Twelve and the Seventy completely equal, without any subordination of the latter to the former. If, then, the first institution could not be altered, pa- rity must obtain for ever.
IL I am to examine Mr Rhind's general reason- ings from the Acts and Epistles. He cannot find in his heart to enter on them till he have spent a page, the 62d, in philippics against the Presbyterians for their invincible obstinacy, which will not yield, even when he levels demonstrations against them. Hard-hearted creatures they ! But Mr Rhind must even comfort himself with this, how small soever his success is likely to be, that yet he is in the way of his duty. I shall give the reader every word of his reasonings, that he may judge whether his party must not be (to use his own courtly phrase), an im- plicit herd indeed, that keeps itself in countenance by them. ' The acts and epistles,' saith he, page i 3,
* favour the Presbyterians as little as the four gospels.' Nay, if they favour them as much, they are not like- ly to be great losers. ' These acts and epistles,' adds he, * are so far from intimating that the first
* establishment was altered by the Apostles, that on ' the contrary they plainly shew its continuance.' Why, then, adieu prelacy for ever ; for the first establishment was only of the Apostles — they were the first officers in the church, for a while the only officers, and still acted in a perfect parity. * Do not ' the acts and epistles,' proceeds he, * all along
* make mention of several orders of men who were
* undisputedly clun-ch officers, that is, who were
* soleuuily separated for ecclesiastical offices by the
* imposition of hands ? And do not they assign to
* each their difl^'erent powers?' I answer, not all along ; for, as I have said just now, there was at first but one order, viz. that of the Apostles, and even these, too, solemnly separated for their office without imposition of hands, at least we read nothing of it in the Scripture. * What,' he goes on, * does more
* frequently occur through these sacred writings, than
c 2
ICO DEFENCE OF THE
* the mention that is made of presbyters and deaconsr,
* the one subordinate to the other, and of the apostles
* paramount to them alb* It is answered : There is indeed frequent mention of presbyters and deacons, the one subordinate to the other, and of the Apostles paramount to them all ; but how came he to lose prelates in his enumeration, who ought to have been inserted betwixt the Apostles and Presbyters ? Were there none such in the days of the Apostles ? If not, what hath the Church to do with them now ? If there were, why did he drop them in his catalogue in this place, when he avers it afterward, though at the distance of sixteen pages, that Timothy and Ti- tus were the ordinary and fixed prelates of Ephesus and Crete ? The reason of this artifice is obvious. The inserting prelates here would have quite spoiled his reasoning ; it would have made four orders of officers in the apostolic times, viz. apostles, prelates^ presbyters, and deacons ; and if there ought to be as many different orders now as there were at first, W'hich is the scope of Mr Rhind*s reasoning, and without which it signifies nothing, then prelacy is lost : for they have but three different orders among them, viz. Prelates, Presbyters, and Deacons, for which they do so much as pretend divine right. But to go on with Mr Ilhind*s reasonings. What though the Acts and Epistles make mention of the different and subordinate orders of Apostles, Presbyters, and Deacons, what follows ? ' Why,' saith he, ' could one
* wish a clearer proof than this, to evince that there ' was then an imparity among Church officers ?* I an-' swer, none. For every Presbyterian owns that there- was then, viz. in the days of the Apostles, an im- parity not only among the Church officers, but pas- tors too» No doubt the Apostles were superior to the Presbyters. But he has a second inference to make, viz. ' That the same also is a most clear proof
* that that imparity was of divine institution.' The Presbyterians grant it : for the Apostles were cer- tainly acted by the divine spirit. His third infe- rence, which completes the whole, is, that conse-
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
101
quently that imparity, viz. of pastors, ought to be still continued. But here the Presbyterians and Mr Rhind part ways : for, though the Presbyterians ac- knowledge that the Apostles were superior to the Presbyters ; yet they affirm that a superiority among pastors is unlawful now, because the apostolate was an extraordinary office not to be continued, — the Apostles extraordinary officers not to be succeeded to, except in the ordinary functions, preaching, dis- pensing the sacraments, and governing the church, in which they are succeeded to by every minister. And this brings me to examine, «
III. His particular argument from 1, succession in the Apostolate. He expressly denies, p. 64, &c., that * the Apostolate was an extraordinary office, or
* that the Apostolic government was temporary,
* and asserts that the Bishops of the Church, mean-
* ing Prelates, as superior to Presbyters, do succeed
* them therein.' Is this true? 1^/, Davenant, Bishop of Sarum, not only denies but disproves it;* multitudes of others of the Church of England do the same* The Church of Rome, a society of a very large extent, of a long standing, and such as has produced not a few wise and great men, expressly contradict it, denying that any of the Apostles had successors, save Peter, in the Papal chair. 2dly, Which must conclude Mr Rhind, Mr Dodwell t himself has denied it, and asserts that the office of the Apostolate failed with the last Apostle, and that never any of them had a successor but Judas, the traitor. Did this escape Mr Dodwell through in- advertency ? He repeats it over and over, and over again, in different places. But, Sdly, which is worst of all, Ignatius himself, who is both stem and stern of the Episcopal cause, always makes the Presbyters to succeed to, and represent the Apostles, but the
• In Coloss. p. 4, 5.
\ Defecerat cum ultimo Apostolo etlum Apostolatus officium ; cum nulli unqaam proeterqufim Jiulx pi-oditori, biifficcreiitur Apos- toloram successores.— Parwues. Sec. vi. p. 11 j Sec. xv. p. 62 j Sec. xvi. p. 68.
3
104 DEFENCE OF THE
* these extraordinary gifts to be an argument of an
* extraordinary office, yet must they, at the same
* time, grant, that that office should continue as ' long as these gifts were necessary, at least as long
* as they actually lasted.* And, upon this conces- sion, he attempts to prove, p. 67, 68, by the instance of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, Irenasus, Bishop of Lyons, Gregory the wonder-worker, Bishop of Neo- caasaria, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and by the testimony of Eusebius, that these extraordinary gifts lasted for several ages ; and from thence infers, that, consequently, Episcopacy must have lasted so long. * This reasoning,' saith he, ' is good enough, ' ad hominem^ and does sufficiently expose the
* weakness of the Presbyterian evasion.' But it is neither good ad hominem nor ad rem, nor exposes any thing but Mr Rhind's want of arguments. First, It is not good ad hominem ; for the Presbyterians make no such evasion, as we have already heard. Nor, ^dly, is it good ad rem ; for the instances of miraculous Bishops, v»'hich he has insisted on, are very injudiciously chosen. I do not deny that ex- traordinary gifts were continued, in the Church, even down to the third or fourth century, or longer, if Mr Rhind please ; but then, so far as relates to their having been possessed by Bishops, he has had the ill luck to pitch upon the most suspected in- stances. \st. As for Melito, (this was the eunuch who was Bishop of Sardis), I shall easily be- lieve what Tertuliian, as cited by St Jerome, and Polycrates, as cited by Eusebius, say of him, viz,
* That he was a man divinely inspired, and in all ' things directed by the afflatus and suggestion of
* the Holy Ghost,' if no more be meant thereby, than that he was a man of eminent piety ; for the Spirit of Christ dwells and acts in every man that is Christ's ; and 1 think it is plain Polycrates in Euse- bius meant no more ; for he says only, that * he was « led in all things by the grace of the Holy Spirit.* But if Mr Rhind will needs have us to understand thereby, that he was, in all things, under an infallible
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 105
conduct, I assure him I do not believe it ; for the Apostles themselves were not always so ; even Peter sometimes stept awry, and walked not with a straight foot. Gal. ii. 14. ; and I hope to make Mr Rhind himself confess that good Melito was wrong in some things. The Church of England never keeps Easter upon the day of the full moon, but upon the Sun- day after, when it falls upon a working day ; or that day se'ennight, when it falls upon a Sunday. But Melito always kept Easter, after the Jewish fashion, upon the very day of the full moon, whether it fell on Sunday or Saturday, &c. ; and Polycrates, in Eusebius, cites him, for that very purpose, in oppo- sition to Pope Victor. It is plain, then, that Mehto was sometimes wrong, or the Church of England is. Mr llhind may choose as likes him best. ^dJij^ As for Irenaaus, Bishop of Lyons, Mr Rhind says, that ' he converted many pagans in his diocese by * the miracles which he wrought ;' but he has not instanced any of them, nor told us where the relation of them is to be found, and I am not willing to condescend, lest I should l)e suspected to do it too favourably for myself. He tells us, indeed, both from Irenasus himself, and Eusebius, that mira- culous gifts and powers were very common in his time J but what says this to Irenasus's share in them ? When Mr Rhind is more particular I shall be so too. 3^/y, As for Cyprian, all that Mr Rhiud alleges is, that he assures us, concerning himself, that he was blessed with uncommon measures of the Divine Spirit, and so, I believe is every good Christian, and do think Mr Rhind was very wise in not being more particular upon Cyprian's miraculous gifts. But, then, lastly^ Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the wonder-worker, is Mr Rhind's great man, yea, even a second Moses for miracles. Well, what vouchers does he bring for them ? Two, indeed, of a very great name, viz. Gregory Nyssen, in the life of the Wonder-worker, and St Basil de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 29. But what credit is to be given to them ?
103 DEFENCE OF THE
In the ^/^s^ place, hear the great Spanliehn.* The ' learned,' saith he, * deservedly doubt about the ' canonical epistle ascribed to the Wonder-worker.
* But much more about the prodigies and miracles,
* which, almost without end, are attributed to him
* by Nyssen, in his life, and by Basil himself; whence ' he got the name of the Wonder-worker, and
* Another Moses. Certainly many things in Nyssen
* breathe the credulity even of an old wife.* Thus Spanheim. 2dli^^ Erasmus, in the epistle dedicatory prefixed to Basil's works, rejects the latter half of his book de Spiritu Sancto, as spurious ; and, at the end of cap. 14, observes, on the margin, ' that here ' the author changes.' Consequently the 29th chap- ter, which Mr lihind insists on, is of no credit. Sdlijy Coke, a Church of England divine, and some time Fellow of Brazen-Nose College, Oxford, proveSjt from the body itself of that 29th chapter, that it is spurious. And, lastlj/y which is worst of all, Dodwell himself t reprobates these dreams and miracles of the Wonder-worker. Was not, now, Mr Rhind very well provided with miracle-working Bishops, when these were the best he could pitch on?
Secondly, Mr Rhind having vainly spent ten pages in pleading for a succession in the Apostolate, without the least limitation, or dropping so much as one syllable ibr explaining himself; at length, p. 70. he tells us : that by ' the Apostolic office, abstract- ' ing from it all accidentals, he means that superio-
* rity of power with which the Apostles were invest-
* ed in the ordination of inferior church officers, and
* in governing them and the Church : And pleads, 1 that it was not extraordinary in this respect ; and
* Introd. ad HJst. Nov. Test. Sec. Hi. p. 332- De Epistola Ca- nonica eiilem ad sciipta, mcrito ambiount eruditi. At ninlto magis de piodigiis et nijraculis, piopemodum sine fine, quae illi a Nysseno in ejus vita, et jtassim a Basilio ipso, &c. tiibuuntur. Unde Tliauniaturgi nomcu et alterius Mosis. Multa certe apud Nyssca- um aniluin quandani credulitatcm spirant.
\ Censuia quorundam Script, vet. p. l23'
X Dissert, iv. in Cyi'i- Num. l6.
rRESBYTEIlIAN GOVERNMENT. 107
' as such to cease.* But the Prelates (supposing there were then any such), were church officers in- ferior to the Apostles ; the Apostles were invested with a superiority of power in the ordination of them. I ask now, whether that superiority was ordinary or extraordinary ? If ordinary, then there ought still to he officers superior to bishops. If extraordinary, then the superiority of power with whicli the Apostles were invested in the ordination of inferior church officers, and in governing them and the church, must be extraordinary too. I challenge Mr Rhind and all his party to take oft* this by a sufficient answer.
Thirdly^ He argues, p. 72. * If that form by ' which the Church was governed in the days of the ' Apostles, be in all respects as good, and in many
* undeniably, better than any other, then I think I ' may safely conchide, that it never ought to be al- ' tered.' Vi Mr Dodwell's judgment be of any weight, then this reasoning is horridly false : For he teaches* that the form of government which obtain- ed in the days of the Apostles was altered, notwith- standing that it was better calculated for gathering and planting Churches, for suppressing heresies, for propagating the faith, for the public good of all the Churches, than that which took place afterward.
Lastly y ' If,' saith he, p. 72, ' the Presbyterian were
* designed to be the standing form of Church go- ' vernment, it would seem to reflect disparagingly on
* the wisdom of Christ and his Apostles, that they
* could not make it serve all the purposes for which
* such a government ought to be appointed j but ' that to supply its defects, they must usher it in
* Paraenes. Sect. 39. p. 180, 181. Dum ColIIgendae essent et plantaiidae Ecclesiae, admodum utilis erat Primatus ille Ecclesias, Hierosolymitaiiae, — Et quo latius Collegii Apostolicl ct Episcopi Hierosoiyniitani patuit auctoritas (diini eani piorsus infallibilem esse constabat) eo erat etiam utilior bono Ecclesiaruin oniniuni publico. Id sane docet Hegesippus, tanti per Haereticos prodire la publicum lion Ausos, dum unius P.cclesiae sententia damnati, spes nulla deinde esset ut ab aliqua alia ecclcsia reciperentur. — Et quideni ad lidem propugandam utilior erat unius ecclesiae aulorilas quae aliarum omnium longe latcque Dominaretur.
108 DEFENCE OF THE
* with a form, not only inconsistent with it, but
* which also in after ages would be declared an in-
* supportable yoke. Is it to be supposed, if they
* had foreseen that parity would be ever after the
* fittest form of government in the Church, or that
* it could be useful in it, that any other would have
* at all obtained ? No. Or was there any necessity ' that any other should obtain ? Doubtless none at
* all.* Is not this a very mannerly harangue ? Mr Rhind must discipline both Christ and his Apostles into their duty, and teach them what was consistent "with their wisdom, — what would reflect disparagingly upon it. But admitting it were mannerly, is there any truth in it ? No, not one syllable, even accord- ing to the principles of his own master, the great Dodwell, according to whom the Apostles did not appoint several orders of men, as Mr Rhind alleges, for 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 Bishop of Jerusalem ^ (as we have already observed), was Primate of the ' Chiistian Ch.urch all the world over. That the
* Church of Jerusalem by her itinerant missionaries
* exercised the whole discipHne in all the Christian
* world.* That these itinerant missionaries,^ whe-
* ther Apostles or others, were extraordinary officers.
* That wherever they came, they never ordained
* any Bishops, but simple Presbyters only, with a ' chairman among them, for order's sake ; all which
* had indeed a power of preaching the v/ord, and
* dispensing the sacraments,* but neither they nor their chairman were to. touch the government
• Ilaec erfTO, cum ita se Ijabueriiit, fiiclle inde coUlginius, miicuin fulsse, in hoc universo iatervallo, Cliristianis omni'ous uiiitatis Prin- ciplum, Eplscopum Hierosolymitanuni. — Piimis autem tempoiibus vix fere alii potestatem in obnoxias Ecclesice Hievosolyniitanae Ecclesias exercuerunt quam Ecclesiae Hieiosolymitanse, Ministri missi Hierosolymis ad res eoruni in paitibus remotioribus prociivan- das. — Paiaeiies. Sect. 10. p. SO, 32,
■f Nam ab extraordinaiiis ubique constituta sunt F-cclesiarum cxterarum Presbyter!, extraordinariorum autem rectorum sumuios sacras literas ipsse agnoscunt Apostoios. — Ibid.
PRESBYTERIAN 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 such 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 length, about the year JOG, the name of Bishop, before common to all Presbyters, was appropriated to one in each Presbytery. And this was the first year, says he,i 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 alo7ie ; in his hands
* was the whole government, and that legislative
* power that is competent to the Church, and that
* without a rival or mate.'l^ Yea, so uncontrolable was his power, 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- bytersj nay, not 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,
• Piirsenes. Sect. 10. p. 32. S3. Munlis sane Ecclesiarum pa- blici-! obcuiulis ita vacaliant, ut tamcn disciplinae partem nullani aut rcgiminis admini^tralint. Nee legimiis umjuam ab his Eccleslaruta PiesliYltris scu exauctoratos, cum ita meiercntur, Presbyteros j sea novos ia demoituoium loca suilcctos. Nee pulsum aliquem core- munioue, nee liorum Presbytcrioium dccrcto restitutum.
f J bid. Sect. 23. p. 102. Non longe, ut opinor, aberrabimuj si annum constltuti tplscopatus piimordialcm statuamus Cliristi CVL ut scilicet luerit anno il!o paulo vel antiqulor vel lecentior.
jl Ibid. Sect. 37- ?• 176. Sic penes solum Episcopum ciunt socie- tatis Chiislianac Priemia omnia atque panse. Indc sequetur penes «undcm esse vi^ibiiis Ectlcsiai Kegiinen onine, Potestatemque, quaiis in liac Societale locum babet, Legiblativam. Et quidem sine
§ Ibid- Sect. 42. p. 192. Nee opus erat Judice qui euni exuat, sed quo scdes iilius aatea vacua suppleatur. Talc crimen erat idoliv
110 DEFENCE OF THE
this the Cyprlanic Bishop, this the Episcopacy that should always obtain.*
I am fully persuaded that this Dodvvellian scheme, so 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 j but let his followers look to that the best way they can : only, it is plain, that so far as Mr Dodweli'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. 1 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 \hejirst place, I observe that there is nothing, the Episcopal authors, and Mr Rhind as much as any, more frequently and willingly slide into, than Jiarangues 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 tiie former account from Mr Dodwell, we have heard that Presbyters had not the least share in the government, and that the whole government w^as in the Bishop's hands, and in his alo7ie. Secondly.
sacrifiicasse; Tale Crimen erat Hcercsis, — SImilis erat causa Scisma-
tis, Ituqiie sententia nulla opus est quie illos ejiciut ex Ecclesia,
vel exuat officio. Huciisque ergo nulla est Potestas in Episcopos. Sed vero nullas legimus liis tempoiibus Episcopoiuni depcsitiones propter Crimlna quae non potestatem ipsam Episcopalem sustulerint. Nullas propter morura vitia sola. Nullas propter Ecclesiam male administratam.
* Ibid. sect. 57. p. l76. Rccte ergo sine Episcopo Ecclesiam ncquidem esse posse censuit Ignatius, Sect. 40- p. 186. supremos enim, in sua quemque Ditione, Christoque Soli obnoxios Episcopos agnoscit ibi S. Cyprianus, Sect. 54. p. 240. Bono fieret reforoiationis publico, si Episcopi primsevis illorura juribus restaurentur.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. Ill
The same Mr DocUvell assures us, and he is certain- ly right in it, that all Bishops were originally equal. By divine right are so, and continued to be so till towards the reign of Constantine the Great, that Archbishops and Metropolitans were brought in, not upon any divine warrant, but by pactions among themselves.* Thirdly, He assures us, in like man- ner, that the Church in each nation and province was governed by the Episcopal college,t and that too acting in a parity. Fourtiily, ' That the said parity ' of all 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 j^arity, 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 Formuke Oratories ; lor though they import nothing in the controversy of Church government, yet they may be worth their iQom there, and possibly be useful to some school- boy of a barren fancy, to furnish out his oration with.
* Paraenes. Sect. 40. p. 184. Sequitur ergo, qiijcciinque deinceps oblinULiit imparltus, earn oninem singuloinm Episcopornm pactis esse tribuendani, tantnndenique valere quantum ilia valent pacta. Qiiamdiu obtinuerit Paritas statuere difficile est, tot priniaevis iDoniimentis depeiditis. Suspicor autem obtinuisse ad tcmi)ova fere Constuntini.
f One Priestliood. Preface, Sect. 8.
% Partcnes. Sect. 39. Sic nihil obstabit quo minus, in Iiac ipsa Episcoporum omnium Paritate, vigeat tamen Disciplina tarn Fidei, quam iVIorum, consentientissima Paiitas ccrte ipsa iites illas omnes ablatura erat, quae e typlio seculari, ex aemulatione, vel ex invidia saepe oriuntur.
112 DEFENCE OF THE
In the second place, What a very jest do the great- est authors on the 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 tv/o 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 likest thing in the w^orld to a Presbyterian minister. But if Mr Dodv/ell is right, the Presbyterians clearly gain the cause 5 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 worthier 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
* Diss. 4, cap. 19, 20, 21, 22. Vind. 'of the Diss. Chap. ii. AuQot. on Act. i\y h. aud 14. a.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 113
of 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 j* which is this, in his own words :
* Seeing, after that time, in 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 o^ 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- stitution, 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 ingenuously 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 llhind, who was so well furnished with arguments from the Scripture, to oppress us with these, and with miracles too, was very unmerciful. However,
• Parjcnes, Sect. 17- p. T^. Erant praeterea, illo quoijue se- culo dona spiritus S. et miracula illustria, qui^i Deum sub ilia quo- que disciplina praesentissimum probarint. Quae sane sperari non poterant, si ab Antichristo et iniquitatis mysterio mutatio tanta processisset, quod voluut nuperi magistri.
11
114 DEFENCE OP 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 that 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 Cr^ig, another Presbyterian mi- nister. Twenty other things, as miraculous, and at least as well attested, as those of Melito. Irenaeus, or Gregory, might be related of other 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 have superseded all other arguments, and put an.
• Church Hist. p. 234-. f Ibid. p. 264. t Ibid» p. 266. i Ibid. p. 462.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
115
end to all further disputes. But I suppose it will puzzle Mr Rhind to find where this was ever done ; nay, which is a great unhappiness to him, by his ac- count, such a miracle in those early days had been unnecessary, because nobody then 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 the 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- poses 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. Ecclesiae. Nam et prophetare, et dae- mona excludere, et virtutes magnas in terris facere, sublimis uti- que et admirabilis res est ; non tamen regnum coeleste consequi- tur quisquis in his omnibus invenitur, nisi recti et justi itineris observatione [h. e. unitatis ecclesiae] gradiatur.
f Augustinus, Tom. ix. Tract. IJJ. in Evan. Jaan. p. 122. Ne- mo ergo vobis fabulas vendat. Et Pontius fecit miraculum, et Do- natus oravit et respondit ei Deus de ca>lo. Primo aut falluntur aut falluiit. Postremo fiic ilium monies transferre. Charitatem autem, inquit, non liabeam, nihil sum, Videamus utrum habue- rit charitatem, Crederem, si non divisisset unitatem. Nam et' contra istos, ut sic loquar, mirabiiiarios cautum me fecit Deus meus dicens ; in novissimis temporibus exsurgent pseudoprophe- ue, facientes signa et ponenta.
H 2
116
DEFENCE OF THE
" have not charity, I am nothing.' Let us see, whe-
* ther he hath not charity. I should have beheved
* it, if he had not divided the unity : For my God
* hath warned me against all such wonder-mon2;ers,
* 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 Kiiind's Proof for the Instihition of Prelacy from the Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus, is e<z'amined. From p. 74 to p. 84.
Upon this argument, I shall, I. Examine his rea- sonings, by which he introduces himself to it. II. The argument itself, and what he has advanced for mak-' ing it a good one.
I. 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 was 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 power which
* the Apostles exercised over the subordinate orders *■ of clergymen, that is, ever Priests and Deacons,*^ (and why noj over Prelates too, seeing there were then such ? Would he have us to believe, they were 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 sa ' many, that perhaps there was not a church con-
PRESBYTEKIAN 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, Jirst^ There is the . Church of Corinth, the churches of Galatia, the Churches of Philippic and all Macedonia, the Church of Thessalonica, 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- condii/f 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 Rliind 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.
118 DEFENCE OF THE
This he argues, firsts from the silence of the Scrip- ture, that there is no intimation made in all the Acts and Epistles, that they were such extraordinary offi- cers. Secondly, From the postscripts to their Epistles, which expressly call them the First Bishops, that is. Ordinary and fixed Prelates of Ephesus and Crete. Thh^dly, From the concurring testimony of the an- cients, who, with one voice, declare as the post- scripts do. Fourthly, 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 of very strong arguments I acknowledge. Let u^ examine whether he has made them good.
First, 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 should 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 v.ith 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.
• Parsenes, Sect. 10, p. 40, 41 . Sed vero munus illius (Timothei) non Fixum fuisse sed Itiiieiarlum, multa arguunt. Rogatum ilium mansisse Ephes. testatur Apostolus, 1 Tim. i. 3. Erat ergo, cum ro- garetur, itiiierarius. Arguit opus Evangelistae, 2 Tim. iv. 5 ; Ar- guunt tot illius cum S. Paulo itinera, et commune illius cum Apos- tolo nomen in inscriptionibus Epistolarum ad Thessalonicenses. similiter Tito, et quidem; soli de constituendis in Creta kictx TroXt?. Presbyteris, idem praecipit Apostolus, Tit. i. 5. Relictum ilium iuisse ait, ut ea quae deerant, corrigeret. Comitem utique Aposto- li cum relinqueretur, Et sane Comitera S. Pauli alia quoque locft.
PERSBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
119
Secondly, He argues from the postscripts to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, ' which,' saith he, p. 7'd, * 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, w-ho was as much concerned to keep the Episcopal cause right as ever Mr Rhind is likely to be. The person 1 mean is Dr Whitby. * First* ^ saith he,* * I assert, that, if by saying Timothy ' and Titus were bishops, the one of Ephesus and
* the other of Crete, we understand that they took
* upon them the churches and dioceses as their
* jioced and j9(?c?^/far charge, in which they were to
* preside for 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 tlie Epistles. But Mr Rhind is more tender-hearted. ' Though,' saith he, * they are
* no part of the canon of the Scriptures ; yet they
* are of so much authority, that the Presbyterians ' themselves have not yet dared to cancel them in
* the common Bibles.' Very pleasantly ! But then, let me ask, in the ^r5/ place, seeing they are no part of the canon, what authority can they have beyond what the reputation of the authors of them can give them ? Now, who were the authors of 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 Rhind, if he can 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.' 'idly. It is true, the Presbyterians have not dared to can-
docent, non raagis utique certo alicui loco adstrlctum quam ipse fuerit Apostolus.
• Pietace to the Epistle to Titus ;
f Preface to the, 2d Ep. to Timothy.
120 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 much if they came there by fair play. The oldest English translations have them not. I have by me, ' Rycharde Taverner^s* 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, * Written from Rome, 'when Paul
* 'was presented the second tyme 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 different 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 tlieir not cancelHng them, when they dared not do it ; the power of printing Bibles being the Prince's gift, not the church's. 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- ly monies of the ancients, who, with one voice, de-
* clare as the postscripts do. And to this,' saith he, p. 78, * the Presbyterians will find themselves
* straitened to rejoin.' No doubt. Well, where are 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 ? Hear then Dr Whitby. ' The great controversy,* saith he,* ' concerning this and the Epistle to Ti-
* Ibid, ubi supra, p. 485, Vol. II,
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 121
f^ mothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were fn- ' deed made bishops, the one of Ephesus and the
* Proconsular Asia, the other of Crete, having au- < 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^ 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 Acts xix. 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 cliarge some that they should teacli 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, tliat St Paul would
* have continued Timothy there, encroaching on their
* 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 the Ep. to Titus, p. ^mihi) 530.
122
DEFENCE OF THE
after his departure, grievous wolves should enter irr, 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 office, Acts, xx. yi.) that a person both of extraordinary character and gifts should be among them ; — which, when once the government was set- tled, and things brought into a fixed order, there would be no such occasion for. Secondli/, Paul's beseeching Timothy to abide at Ephesus is a certain argument, as we have heard from Mr Dodwell, that he was not their established bishop : for to what end should 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. Thirdlj/, The el- ders of Ephesus already ordained were bishops. So says 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 respublica caperet. But will it therefore follow that the dictatorship was a standing office? Or will the Romans making choice of such an officer in their extremity, justify or excuse Sylla or Julius CiEsar, 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 j and is un- der tutors or curators, till he is one-and-twenty, does it follow that he must always be so ?
^dly. With respect to Titus, Mr Rhind sug- gests that he was left at Crete, with a power to in- spect the quahfications of such as should be ordain^.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 123
ed, chap. i. 7. to rebuke elders as well as others, chap. ii. 15. to reject, that is, to excommunicate heretics, and all this notwitlistanding 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 J 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 ; fov, fourthly, Dr Whitby not on- ly confesses, but proves from Scripture, that he did not continue 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
124 DEFENCE OF THE
there is nothing surer tlian that there was a perfect equahty among the Bishops for the first three cen- turies, and so Mr Dodwell afSrms. There is nothing plainer from the Scripture, than that there were bi- shops at Ephesus before Timotliy was left there ; and that those whom Titus ordained in Crete were Bishops in ail that sense of the word, the New Tes- tament owns. How then Timothy and Titus could be tlie fixed and ordinary prelates of Ephesus and Crete, is beyond the power of natural understanding to conceive. If Mr llhind can solve me in this one scrupK^, or if any other of his brethren can, I shall own it as a sini^ular obligation. And therefore I (desire them to take pains on their answer, and to la- |:)our it with all due care.
ARTICLE IV.
Wherein Mr Ehixb's proof for Prelacy from the Apocalyptic Angels^ is examined. From p, 84 to p, 86.
Mr Rhind 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 ail liis 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 conr
* siderable time af\er 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
PRESBYTERIAN 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, ancj 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 peisonated by the name of Angels ; but in his Parainesis, 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- sliops in the world at that time ; and particularly as
• Cbap. xli. Sect. 2. p. 832, &c.
126
DEFENCE OF THE
to these Apocalyptic angels, though he is in a very great doubt what to make of them,* yet by no means will he allow them either to have been bishops, or indeed the fixed presbyteries of the place, but guesses them 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 whole earth.t Was Mr Rhind, then, 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, so far as he could guess, he has determined against him.
Secondly^ 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 both 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 v.xq 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- larly.
Thirdly, 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 so as to denote a collective body. Possibly my sight
* Vide Sect. 10. p. 32.
\ Parae'nes. Sect. iO p. S2. Ita fulsse necesse erat, si quldem vere Episcopi fuissent aiigeli Apocalyptici. Sed de illis senten- tlam nostram infra explieabimus, p. 39, 'iO. Si non sufFecerint, sic alios fuisse verisimillimum esset angelos ecclesiarum Apocalyp- ticos ab institutis locorura Presbyteris. Erant ergo etiam ipsi lor- tasse Hierosolymitanorum legati, sed Apostolis ipsis obnoxii — ut proinde oculis Domini septenis spiritibus responderint Angeli Apo- calyptici qui discurrebant per universani Terram. Sic fuerint etiam hi ecclesiarum prsefecti noa e loco oriundi, sed ujissi Hlero- solymis itinerarii.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 127
is Vitiated ; but then 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 himself, frankly owns, * * That by angels, according to the ' Apocalyptic style, all the agents under their pre-
* 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 Ciuistians, 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 incor})orated into a body
* more than others of that province, but that he
* had a particular regard to the number of the
* angels of the presence.' How is ail this consist- ent with their being characterised as single persons ? But let us wave human judgment, and appeal to the text.
Fourthly^ Are these angels characterised in the 2d and 3d chapters of the Revelation as single per- sons and the governors of these churches ? 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 messasje 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. * The 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 the Seven Epg. to tlie Seven Churches, p, 22, •J- Oae Priesthood, Chap, xil. Sect. 2.
128 DEFENCE OP THE
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, 11. 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. 16. 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, 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, the threatening 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 bishop ? 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 these things which thou shalt suffer.' Is it not presently added,
* Behold the devil shall cast some o^ you into prison, ' that ?/e may be tried ; and 7/e shall have tribulation
* ten days.' Is 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, tj» Iv ctvTti i' x-Xxa- xiyii,
t Augustine, Tom, X. Honiil. ii, in Apoc, Omni Ecckbiae diclt»
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 129
the whole church. Si^/y, When he saith to the angel of the Cliurch of Pergaraus, ' 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, nfiy faithful martyr, was slain among t/oz^,
* where Satan dwelleth ?' * No,' saith Augustine,*
* these things, under 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 tliese parts was in the greatest dan- ger of idolatry, or of persecution in case of not complying with it ; for in Pergamus stood the fa- mous temple of iEsculapius, whither the greatest personages went, or sent their gifts, because of the fame of his oracle. Thither Earinus, Domitian's freed- man, sent his consecrated hair, with a mirror, and a box set with jewels. t Thither the Emperor Antonius Caracalla went to be cured of his sickness by the god, and to lie in for dreams, t Thither, also, Apolionius Tyana^us, who was set up to mate our Saviour, went to be director of the Oracle, and to instruct the votaries that came there how they might obtain divine dreams from the god.§ To tliis 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 v.'as the Bishop of that place; but he was martyred in the tenth year of Domitian,
* Ubl supra — oiiini ecclcsiae (licit in uiiiiis vocubulo, quia ubiquo liabitat Satanas per corpus suum. Corpus autcni Satanae homines sunt superbi ct niali : Sicut et corpus Christi luimiles et boui.
■f ■ Dulcesque capillos
Pergameo posuit dona sacrata Deo. — Maiit. :|: Herodian, Lib. IV. Cap. v. 11. § Pliilostr. in vit. A poll. Lib. IV. Cap. iii. I
ISO DEFENCE OF THE
as the Roman Martyrology bears ; which was the very year in which, as the most common tradition carries it, John the divine was banished to Patmos, And DrFIammond, foreseeing, it seems, this difficulty, placed John's banishment in the reign of Claudius, and makes the relation of the martyrdom of Antipas, Rev. ii- 13. to be not history, but prophecy; and whereas the text reads, * Antipas my faithful martyr ' was slain,' he paraphrases it, * Antipas, for his fidelity
* and courage in preaching the gospel, will be (I fore-
* see) cruelly martyred.' And if the see was vacant at ihat time, how could the epistle be directed to the Bishop ? 4:thlij, When he writes to the Angel of the Church in 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 wliom he reproved for suffering that woman Jezabel ? No, saith Augustine.* * It vvas such (in the plural num-
* ber) as were set over the Church, who neglected
* to impose that severe discipline upon fornicators,
* and other riotous livers, which they ought.' Is the Angel of that Church characterised as a single per- son, when it is expressly said, verse 24, * But unto ' you 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 you, and the people described by the rest in Thyatira ? The only answer which the Episcopal party have for avoiding the force of this observe, is, that the word and is not to be found in some copies ; and so they 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 mid 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, Tonstall Bi- ship of Durham, found an exposition on the Apo-
* Quod autem (licit Angelo Tliyatirae ecclesiae (Habeo adversum te pauca) diclt Piaepositis Ecclesiarum : qui Luxuiiosis et foiiil- cantibus, el aliud quod libet malum agentibus severilatem disci- pUccC ecclesiastics non imponunt. Horn, 2. iu Apoc.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 131
calypse, bearing the name of St Ambrose the bishop,* \vhich lie published in the year 1554, and in his pre- face to tlie reider, he is earnest to have him beHeve 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 amongst those of St Ambrose.t And though that writer sometimes mentions the Bishop in his exposi- tion of these seven epistles, yet he not only interprets the stars by holy preacliers in the general, but also lays down X this as a general rule, that all the gover- nors of the Catliolic Church are signified by these angels, and that, because of their being messengers of the word of God to the people, seeing the word Angel 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 *to tlie pastors.' 5thlt/, 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, certainK^, 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, eitiier Bishop or Pres-
* Expositio Beat! Ambrosii Eplscopi super Apocalypsln.
-|- Edit. Coloniae Agrippinae, l66i.
j Sancti Prsedicatorcs. — Cap. 1. ad finem. Septem igitur Angelos rectoics septein Ecclesiariim del)cmu- intelligere, eo quod Anoelu* nnntii(x interpictalur. Et qui Vcrljuni dti populis annunciant, nou incoiivcnientcr angcli, id est, nnnlii vocantur. Et sicut per septem Ecclesias, una Ecclcsia Catliolica, ita per scptcm rectores septem Ecclcsiarum omnes rectores Eccle.sife Catliolica; dcsignuntur.
§ Edit, folio Lo:idini. Anno 1592. 1 2
1S2 DEFENCE OF THE
* byter, or even Lay-man, speaks frequently of Got!,
* and tells men how they may come to eternal life,
* is deservedly called the Angel of God.'* Gthbjy 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 that promise, verse 9, ' Behold I will make them of *the synagogue of Satan to come and worship before
* thy feet,' imports nothing of peculiar privilege to the Bishop, but merely signifies the effect that the preaching of the gospel should have upon these ene- iiiiies, as the fore-cited Ambrose explains it4 Lastlijy The like is to be said of the Church of Laodicea : 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 ; not any act which is not competent to all the ministers of the gospel — yea, indeed, to the people themselves ; for instance, when it is said of the Church ofEphesus, chap. ii. ver. 2. ' Thou hast tried them which say they
* arcx^postles, 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, 1 John iv. 1. ' Beloved, believe not every spirit,
* but try the spirits, whether they are of God, be- ' cause many false prophets are gone out into the
• Nam quia ctiam Angelus nuncins interpretatur, quicunqne aat Eplscopus ant Presbyter aut etiam Laicus frequenter tie Deo loquitur, et quomoilo ad vitam eeternam perveniatur annunciat, nierito Angelus Dei lUcilur. Hem. 2. id Apoc.
f Hoc ideo dictum est, ut nuUus dicat, quia ostium quod Deu* apperit Ecclesiae, in toto niundo aliquis possit vel in parte claudere. Horn. 3. Ibid.
X Id est, cum credlderint per verba tua in me, adorabunt ante Pedes tuos, deprecantus, ut per vitam seternam consequautur, Am- bros. ubi supra.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 133
« world.' Again, when the 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 llhemists upon the place, takes notice of it, that the said Jeza- bel 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 pov/er ; consequently it cannot be inferred thence that he is described there as a governor of the church. Upon the whole, then, ^Ir ilhind has been too unwary, and his forwardness has mightily outrun his judgment when he asserted, that these angels are characterised in the 2d and 3d chapters of the Revelation as single persons. 17r 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 jTeople ' 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
* Annol. in Rev. Chap. I. v. 20.
134 DEFENCE OF THE
* to leave it indiiTerently to the Bisliop 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, tliat ' 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 very judiciously saw, that the argument could not be so much as coloured without some such notion. '^dly^ 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 :
Fifthli)^ Is it true that all the authors, ancient and modern, who have commented upon the 'id and Sd chapter of the Revelation, have supposed these Angels to be single persons, and the governors of these Churches ? I 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 affect the controversy. For, though Erasmus X suspects them not to be Augustine's, yet it is agreed on all hands that they are the work of an ancient writer, which
* Vlnd. of tlie Dissert. Chap. I. Sect. 11. ")• Premonition to the Second Epistle of St John. J Prsefat. ad Lect. Non videtur Augustini, quanquam opus lectu (dignum..
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
135
sufficiently confutes Mr Rhind. And besides tliese, ifMrllhind"s memory had served him, which one might hiive expected after his telhng that he had studied the controversy with a scrupulous exactness, he might have remembered that there are many other authors, both ancient and modern, insisted on by the Presbyterians,* viz. Ambrosius Ausbertus (whom some mistake for the Ambrose whom I have cited), Primasius the Great, Haymo, Beda, Richard, Tho- mas, Fulk, Fox, and Perkins. But Mr Rhind made choice of the easiest way of doing his business : for who would undergo the drudgery of examining things that imagines his reader is to be put off with bold and blind assertion ? We have indeed very few ancient writers on the Apocalypse. It was some time before it w-as universally received as canonical, and the commentaries of such as wrote upon it, (such as Justin Martyr and Irensus) in the first three cen- turies, are now lost; and though such as wrote up- on it afterwards, when prelacy turned rampant, had interpreted according to the episcopal scheme, it could make no argument against the Presbyterians : but when the evidence of truth, notwithstanding that temptation, forced them to interpret, as we have heard them doing, it is an irreparable loss to the Episcopal cause. And for Mr Rhind to allege at random, that all authors, both ancient and mo- dern, are on the Episcopal side, without citing, nay, without so much as naming any one of them, except Beza alone — of whom just now — was to be too prodi- gal of the credit of his judgment, and is no great argument of the discretion of his brethren who mid- wifed his book into the world-
Lastlij, Has Beza said any thing upon this argu- ment that favours the Episcopal cause ? Mr Rhind brings him in with a great deal of parade, as if he were clear on the Episcopal side. But why did he not cite his words ? Why docs he give us his own commentary without Beza's text ? Why, truly, there
• Gersom Bucer, page 202. Alt. Damas. Cap. iv. p. 98, 99' Nat, Querel. Par. 2d Sect. 5. Smectymnus. Sect. 13, &c.
136
DEFENCE OF THE
was reason for it. Eeza's words are tliese : * 'To
* the Angel, that is, to the President (or Moderator)
* whom, to wit, it behoved, in the first place, to be ' admonished concerning these matters, and by him
* the rest of the colJeao^nes, and so the whole church.
* But from thence to infer the episcopal degree,
* which was afterwards brought into the Church of
* God by human inventions, is what neither can nor
* ought to be done. Nay, not that the office of ' President or Moderator should necessarily be per-
* petual, as the oligarchical tyranny (whose head is
* the Antichristian beast), which arose thence now
* makes it manifest, with the most certain ruin, not
* only of the whole church, but world also.' Judge now, good reader, of Mr Ilhind's modesty, and say, whether Beza is on the Episcopal side. If he could find testimonies of Presbyterian authors on his side, 1 am sure he is suiiiciently qualified to improve them, when lie could be so confident on a testimony that was clearly against him.
So much from the argument of the Apocalyp- tic Angels, and I hope 1 may appeal to the reader if ever he knew any more senseless or more ground- less, used by any party on any cause : For, sup- posing it were plain, even to demonstration, that these Angels were single persons, yet, where is there the least intimation, that these single per- sons had the sole power, either of ordination or jurisdiction ; or even a negative over the Presby- ters in these things ? Without this, it can be no argu- ment for the modern Episcopacy. Yctsotrue is it, that there is no intimation thereof, that Dr ilammond will not allow that there were any mere Presbyters at |-hat time, wherein he is certainly rigiit. And as
* Beza in Apocalyp. ii. 1. Angelo, id est, 5rgo250T<, quern oppor- tuit nimiruni imprimis de his rebus admoneri, ac per eum caeteros CoUeifas, totamque adeo Ecclesiani. Sed iilnc statai Episcopalis ille Gradus, postea humanitus in ecclesiam Dei invectus, certe nee potest nee debet. Imo ne perpetuum quideni istud Tr^tniroTos munus esse necessario opportuissc, sicut exoita inde Tyrrannis Oli- garchica (cujus Apex est Antichristiana bestia) certissima cum totius, non Ecclesise modo, sed etlam Orbls Feruicie nunc tandem dcclarat.
PIlEffBYTEUIAN GOVEllNMENT. 137
tliat notion quite destroys the argument from the Apocalyptic Angels, so Dr Whitby has observed,* That the same notion destroys two other arguments already adduced by Mr lihind, and ordinarily in- sisted on by the Episcopal writers, viz. That from the form of government which obtained among the Jews; and the other from the subordination of the Seventy to the Twelve. ' If,' saith he, ' the middle order ' had been wanting so long as is supposed, viz. by
* Dr Hammond, the government of the church ' would not have been formed after that (the Jewish)
* platform ; which as Epiphanius and the Jews in-
* form us, had these several offices in it. The same
* may be said of tliose who make the elders or pres-
* byterstobe answerable to the Seventy, appoint- ' ed by Christ as inferior officers under the Apostles, ' and make this an argument of inequality betwixt
* Bishops and Presbyters, established in the church
* by Christ.* Thus Dr Whitby. The Presbyterians then are obliged to Dr Hammond for easing them of three of the most noisy arguments of their ad- versaries.
ARTICLE V.
Wherein Mr Rhine's Proof of Prelacij from Testi- monies of Antiquitijy is Examined. From p. 85 to p. 111.
Having cleared our hands of the arguments from the Scripture, we proceed next to consider the testimonies from antiquity. Mr Rhind is at a great deal of pains for six pages together, to persuade the Presbyterians to appeal to the ancients ; and runs through all the common places of rhetoric to shew, how competent and unexceptionable witnesses they are. But all this is wretched affectation ; For, frst,
* Anaot. on 1 Pet«r, v. 1.
%
138 DEFENCE OF THE
the Episcopal authors themselves own, that the Pres- l)yterians hav-e the Fathers on their side. We heard before Dr Bedell justifying Medina, in owning, that Ambrose, Augustine, SeduHus, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophy- lact are on the Presbyterian side. This, then, v\ as only a stroke of Mr llhind's politics to gull his readers into a belief that the Fathers are against the Presbyterians. '2.dlij, In all cases the Presbyterians are content to be concluded by the testimony of the Fathers, or to give a good reason why they caji- not. And 1 know no class of Christians that goes farther, or gives an implicit assent to their dictates. The Fatliers, themselves, required no such thing of such as were to come after them ; and, in a thousand places, 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 dipjied ever so little into the study of tliem, 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 J 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 leathers
* many times contradict themselves and each other :* And he tells, ' how it has often made him smile, ' with a mixture of j)ity and indignation, to see what ' a great noise the Roman disputants made among
* women and children, and the meanest sort of
* peo'ple, with quotations out of fathers and councils,
* whom they pretend to be all on their side.' 1 shall be silad if this be not the character of some other folks as well as the Roman disputants. To the same purpose the incomparable Chillingworth :t ' I,
* for my part,' saith he, ' after a long, and (as I
* verily believe and hope) impartial search of the
* Preservative against Popery, Part I. Cliap ii. Sec. 3. f Prot. Rcl. a sate way, Cliap. vi. Sec. 56.
PRESBTTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 139
* 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
* pUiinly, and with my own eyes, councils against
* councils, some fathers against others, thi 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
* of another age.' — Thus he. And thus from two of the greatest men the Church of EnoJand could ever boast of, may we learn what 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 moutlis of these great men, when disputing against the Ro- manists, 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 llhind 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, Irenaius, and Tertullian. All which 1 bhall consider in order.
IGNATIUS.
The first is Ignatius, ' who,' saith he, p. 9), * was
* constituted Bit.hop 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 Ist place. It is ridiculous to aliirm that St Peter was Bishop of Antioch ; the apostolic character and office being inconsistent with the fixed charge of any particular see. 2c//y, Supposing it had not been so, yet both Chrysostom and Theodoret* affirm Igna- tius to have succeeded immediately, not to Evodius but to Peter himself. But, waving these things, I
* Chrysost de translat. S. Ignatll. Theodor. de Inimut. Dial. 1,
140
DEFBNCE OP THE
answer, Sc?/^, That the Epistles of Ignatms are so far from testifying favourably for the modern Epis- copacy, that they quite destroy it, and the principles upon which it is pretended to be built. This I hope to make good to every man's conviction, by the Jbut- following particulars.
In the 15^ 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 aware, will, at first, be thought a very surprising assertion : But I shall make it good from an unexceptionable hand, I mean Mr Dodwell.* The matter, in short, is this, the Presbyterians had, oftentimes, excepted against the Ignatian Epistles, either as not genuine, or, at least, as vitiated and cor- rupted on this head ; because they insist so much on the absolute power of the bishop, they could not believe that such rhodomontade expressions as are used on that subject were consistent with the spirit, character, or circumstances of Ignatius when he wrote his Epistles. Mr Dodwell saw the force of this objection ; and, therefore, carefully applies himself to take it off. But how does he do it f Plain- ly to tell us, that the reason why Ignatius insisted so much ' on the pov/er of the Bishop, 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.* In a word, Episcopacy was not insti- tuted, says Mr Dodwell, till the year 106. Ignatius
♦ Paraenes. Sec. 25. p. 105, 106. Ilinc etlani constat, nullam fulsse (quam cretliderunt Tgnatianaruni Epistolarum Atlversarli, nostraium latioiium neecii) atl'ectationem, immo necessarium fuisse, lit nova n^oroKx0^eiy jura enixis viiibus assererentur. — Nam prima Poteslatls illius in Eplscopoa devolutione niagis necessariiim erat ut
ignota anteaPotestas urgeretur atque stabilerelur, Nostras autem
rationes oslendunt jam nuperam fuiss« iJlara Episcoporum Potesta- tenij cum adeo illam conunendaret Ignatius,
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 141
wrote Ills Epistles in the year 1 16, says Bishop Lloyd ; 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.
2dli/y 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 ?
Sdlif, 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, 1^^, How Mr Rhind's argument holds, that the Bishops succeed the Apostles, and the Presbyters the Seventy? 2^%, 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 preacliing and dispensing the sa- craments ? Surely the Apostles had it ; how, then, can the Presbyters, their successors, want it? Sdly^ 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 ?
4^///y, The Ignalian 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 may be wholly and
142 DEFENCE OF THE
* thoroughly sanctified. * Obeying your Bishop, and
* the Presbytery, with entire affection, 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.' ^ Thus it was in the Ignatian times. But where, now, is there any such thing as this in the Church of England, which Mr Rliind has joined ? Are not the Presbyters entirely deprived of the exercise of disciphne ? Kay, are not tiie Lay-Chancellors 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 irt
* 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
* 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 llhind, 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 8t Ignatius directed his Epistles, but did
* ea:tend (to use that Saint's words.) to the utmost
* bounds of the earth ; which,' saith he, ' in my
* opinion, asserts the univLVsal exercise of the Epis-
* Ep. to the Ephes. Sect. 2. f Ibid. Sect. 20.
X Ep. to the Magnes. Sect. 6. § Ibid. Sect. 7-
jl Ep. to the 'IVal. Sect. 7- f Ibid. Sect. 13.
** Freface to Vol, ii. Hist, Ketbrm.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVEUNMENT. 143
« 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 u})on it ? And yet it is certain, first, tliat he did not use it, but a Greek word * wliich siirni- 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 tiie 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. 9;3., he had used the word appointed in citing ? Did he not de- sign to take advantage of his readers' inadvertency? But liovv 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 Ignaiian Epistles, that they quite destroy the modern Episcopacy, and the principles on which it is built, which 1 must needs still believe they do, till I have got a satisfy- ing answer to the former particulars. 1 add,
Second!//, 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 60 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 1 be not much deceived, the
w; y.ai #( iTr/a-KOTrot ot kxtcc ret yriparx opt'j-iivTt;,
f Paraeiies. Sect. 25. p. 106. Tantis-per certe urgenda erat nova ilia potcstas dum a subditis passim reciperetur, et dum illiug obsequio homines assuevissent. X ^renic. p. 309. Edit, i.
144 DEFENCE OF THE
* sense of that place is clearly mistaken too.' — I said, as to the main of the controversy, to prevent trifling in any body that shall attempt to answer this, Mr E-hind alleges on the Presbyterians, that they afiirm the Ignatian Bishop to correspond to their parish minister ; the Presbyters and Deacons to their ruling elders and deacons, p. 101. I do not know any Presbyterian author that ever wrote so widely. I do not believe ever any of them did, and want to have them named. But if any of them ever did so, I here enter my dissent from them. It is certain the Presbyterian 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 poor and of the Church's stock. The very reason of their institution, was the giving relief to the Apos- tles, who could not at once attend the word of God, and serve tables. And to this, Mr Dodwell ac- cords; * declaring, ' that the first institution of the
* office of deaconship, w^as for the distributing of ' the treasures of the Church.' But such is not the Ignatian Deacon : ' For,' saith he, t * the Deacons
* are 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 'power. 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 afiirm, 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. 336. \ Ep. to the Tral. Sect. 2. ^ Ep. to the Smjrn. Sect. 8.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 145
communicate at one altar. I affirm likewise, tliat 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 llhind has produced, proves, that there is any such hint in them. He has but two argu- ments for that purpose; and, that I may not wrong him, 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 that 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 ; i)ut whatsoever he shall approve of, that " is also well pleasing to God ;' which plainly proves, ' that though the Bisliop was invested with the chief ' power of dispensing these holy ordinances, yet ' might the Presbyters perform 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 (who, 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 the two passages produced by him from the original. * The first runs thus : — ' Let that Eucha-
* 'Ettilvn /ii/2ct)x iv^xpiTTm iiyua-Oa « uto tov iTTta-xoTTov itircc, n u a* eturii iTrirpl^n- ovk £|«t; I«-t«i x,u^ig ra Itck^kouH an /3«wT»^8<y, 8T6 iycc
K
146
DEFExXCE OF THE
* rlst be held firm, which is iinder tlie 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 I No. Neither the word preaching, nor any thing equivalent to it, is mentioned in either of them : 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? No. Presbyters are not so much as named in either of 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 could either preach, or administer the Sacraments.
I know nothing can be reponed to this, unless 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 Fatiiers have taught us : For, saith Ambrose or Flilary, the Koman deacon who wrote the com- mentaries annexed to Ambrose's works ;* ' that tlie
* Christian people miglit encrease and be multiplied,
* in the begimiiiig, it was allowed to all ))ersons, both
* to preach tlie 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 usually dispensed by lay persons; and Tertulhan 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 ergo cresceret Plebs ei multiplicaretur, omnibus inter inltia conccssum est et evangellzare, et baptizare, et Scripturas in ecclesia explanaie. Ambros^ Vol. i. Tom. 3. p. '239. In Ephcs. cap» ir.
PIIESBYTERIAN 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
* day, in which he might baptise the eunuch, neither
* did he interpose a last. 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 llhind 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 eveu 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, t it is allowed, that in case of necessity, the Deacon, the Presbyter being present, may, being ordered, give the Eucharist of the body-
* Piimum enim omnes (locebant, ot omnes baptizabant, quibus- cunque tliehus iuisstt occaslo. Nee e'lim Philipjms tcmpns qu£esivit aut tliciii quo Kniuiclium baptizaret, luqiic J<junliini interposuit. Neque Pauliis et Silas tcmpns distiilerunt quo Optionem Carceiis baptizaienl cum omnibus sui*;. Ncque Petius Diaconos habuit, aut diem quasivit quando Coriielium cum omni Domo ejus baptlzavit. Nee ip'^c, sed baplizare jussit fiatiibus qui cum illo ierant atl Cor- neliuni ab Joppe. Ambios. ubi '■upra.
f Homil. 82. in Evang. Mnttli.
% Ut Diacoiuis pisesente Piesbytero Eucliarlstlam Corporia Cliristi Populo, si neecssitas Cogat, just>U3 Eroget. Can. 3S. Ca- I'anza. Sum. Concil,
K 2
148 DEFENCE OF THE
of Christ to tbe people. And Justin Martyr * tells us, that it was usual in his days, for the Deacons to carry the Eucharist to the absents. But not the Deacons only, but even lay-persons were sometimes thus employed. Thus Eusebius tells ust 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 w^as 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
* Apol. 2. p. 97. Edit. Colonlte. 1686. f Hist. Eccles. Lib, vi. cap. 43..
niESBYTEKIAN 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 Avhere 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
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 lie has taken very great pains on this particu- lar, is in the least sufficient to vindicate tliem.
He insists on these six topics : I. That several Pathers do mention these Epistles, and cite sundry- passages from them, which are to be found in those now extant. II. 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, if 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, Irenseus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius and Theodoret. ' All
* which,' saith he, ' with many other authors, domen-
* tion these Epistles, and cite sundry passages from
* 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 the 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,! ' that
* Ignatius vJr Apostolicus et Martyr scribit Audacter. Elegit Dominus Apostolos qui super onincs Homines* Peccatores eraut* Hierom Dial. 3. con. Pelag. - f Ans. to the Animadver. ou the Dissert. Chap. iii. Sect, h
PRESCYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
151
* 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.' But this is a mere whim ; for Jerome is not testifying a- bout what Ignatius spoke, but what he wrote. This is a pretty good presumption, that the Epistles are at least mutilated. 2dlij, If the ancients' citing of him be an argument, is it not very strange that no one of them has cited these passages that are insisted on in 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 for it ? Would not one be tempted from this, to think that such passages are. foisted in? '3dlij, Some of these ex- pressions that the ancients cite, which are now found in 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 llhind, p. 95, cites from Irenaeus, * I am the wheat of God, and
* shall be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I ' may become the bread of Jesus Christ,' though it is found in Ignatius's Epistles, yet Irenaius does not say that it was written, much less that it was written in an epistle, least of all, that it was written in 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 ' canuot name an author who ever allecjeil such an in-
* terpolation before Calvin, whom all men know to ' have been a party.' And this, (he thinks) might be allowed ' a sulHcient 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. The matter is plainly this. Calvin wrote that excellent book of his Institutions in the year 1536. Therein he has occasion to defend the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, against which doctrine the Anti-trinitarians objected the authority and testimony of Ignatius.
* Quemadmodam quidam dc no"<tr!s dixit, propter Marty ilum in Deiim adjudlcatus ad Pollias. Quoulam liumentum, Ac.
152 DEFENCE OF 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 iind 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.! 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, be is a murderer of Christ ; and that if any ' keep Easter with the Jews, he is partaker with
* those who slew the Lord and his Apostles.' And in the Epistle to the Antiochians, wives are discharged to call their husbands by their own proper name. In a vv'ord, the divines of the Church of Rome cited these epistles to prove that the blessed Virgin Ma- ry v/as 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 Neeuiis illis quae sub Ignatii nomine e- ditse sunt, putidius. Quo minus tolerabilis est eorum inpudentia ui talibus larvis ad fallendum se in>truunt. Calvin, Instit. ib. T. Cap. xiii. Sect> 29. ■f Ccnsura. quorundam Script, vet.
I
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 153
tianity to the reputation of Ignatius's Epistles ? But let us here Dr Wake, Bishop of Lincoln :* ' Be- ' fore I enter upon that account which it will be
* fitting for me to give of the episles of St Ignatius,
* it will be necessary for me to observe, that there
* havebeen considerable differences in the editions of ' the Epistles of this holy man, no less than in the
* judgment of our latter critics concerning them.
* To pass by the first, and most imperfect of them,
* the best that for a long time was extant, contained
* not only a great number of epistles'^falsely ascribed
* to this author, but even those that were genuine
* so altered and corrupted, that it was hard to find
* out the true Ignatius in them. The first that be- « gan to remedy this confusion, and to restore this ' great writer to his primitive simplicity, was our
* most reverend and learned Archbishop Usher, in ^ his edition of them at Oxford, anno 1644.' Thus Dr Wake. Now, if by the judgment of the most learned of the Episcopalians, there was 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 ofl^'all modesty, 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 Ignatius's Epis- tles must stand, though the doctrine of the Trinity 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 !
III. 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, 2(1 edit. p. 30.
2
154 DEFENCE OF THE
*■ his genuine issue.' But does not Dr Wake him- self own,* 'that no one that reads (even these edi-
* tions of) them witli any care or judgment, can
* make any doubt of it, but tliat 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 tiie mistake of one letter sometimes will make ? I shall give one sii^nal instance of this, wliich is related bv 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 into
* 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 signihes the left, and that which signifies a pigeon, being near in sound to one another. Jf 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 llhind 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 Rhind never hear of the ignorance or knavery of tran- scribers ? Does he not know that the works of the Fathers were a long 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 witli the Fathers, as not only to pare their nails, that they might not be scratched by them, but even to
• Ul)i Kiipra, p. I Ubi supra, p. 58. 5Q.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 155
alter their habit and dres'?, to fit them to the modes of their own times, and make them fashionable ?* Even the Vossian Greek manuscript is not judged to be above 1 lOO years okl, that is, about JOOy ears hiterthan tlie times of Ignatius; and how corrupt the church was about the 600th year of God needs not be told. 2d, Is it not a very good argument that the Ignatiaii Epistles miglit be interpolated, when it is plain be- yond contradiction, that they actually were interpo- Lited ? What security had Bishop Usher's or Isaac Vossius's copies against the possibility of interpola- tion, any more than other co}»ies ? Why, saith Mr Ilhind, p. 98, ' considering the great simplicity of
* these pious times, it is scarce credible that the
* greatest ornaments of the Christian Church, after ' the apostles, were wicked enough to be guilty of ' so base a fraud, or weak enough to be imposed on « by those who might be thus wicked.* Is not this a powerful orator, who will needs harangue people out of matter of fact ? Let the great ornaments of the church be as far from being either wicked or weak as Mr Ilhind pleases, yet that some persons were so wicked as to be guilty of such a fraud, and others so weak as to be imposed on by it, is so far from beinijc incredible, tluit it is confessed on all hands, that not only that, but even twenty other thinirs of the like nature have been done. And all Mr Rhind's reasonings against the possibility or practicableness of interpolating Ignatius's Epibtles, labour under this one small absurdity, that it' they prove any thing, they will prove that no false writ- ing could have been palmed on the church, nor any genuine one corrupted. And whence, then, came so many s})urious ])ieces, such as Abgarus's Letter to our blessed^aviour, and our Saviour's Answer to him; which Eusebius tells us, with as much confidence as he does the story of the Jgnatian Epistles, he had faithfully translated out of the Syriac language, as
+ Sherlock's Preservative against Popery. Part. I. Chap. il. Sect. 3. p. ?♦.
156 DEFENCE OF THE
he found tliem in the archives of Edessa ? Whence came St Paul's epistles to the Laodiceans ? Whence came the letters that passed betwixt Seneca and him ? 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- sally agreed about the falsity of them. Not to speak of many others mentioned by Hottinger, Coke, Dupin, 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 w^hy 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, in some editions, some of the epistles were twice as large as in others. Notv;ithstanding 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-
* SeiTTion on Liturgy, p. l-i. f Ubi supra, first edit. p. 145. I^ Essay upon the Apostolical Constitutions. § Centura (^uorunilara. Script. Vet p. 56.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 157
ed of any of these epistles. But the world is never all at once, to be bullied out of their senses. Mas- tra3us, a Parisian doctor, published a new edition of them, and, without scruple, discarded four of 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 of them mixed, and so none of them sincere and genuine. Vedclius, in the year 1623, pubHshed an edition of the Ignatian 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 thing 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 tv/o copies of them, one in Cambridge, another in Bishop Mon- tague'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 of them, and published it at Amsterdam, 1 646. 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 Polycarp, 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 Medicean or Florentine 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.
158 D£FENCK OF THE
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 havinijj been interpolated. But, adds Mr Rhind, 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.' Pray, 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 uj)on the world — obtruded, too, in Ignatius's own days ? Does he not know that Ignatius himself m.istook 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 he,t ' 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 filse 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-f
* Ubi supra, 2<1 edit. p. 41.
•f Paraint's, Sec. 23, p. 9S. Ncmpe in Aoxirxg, Haereticos lo- ctim proUilerat. Ignatius ex. Evangelio S, Mattliai, quo ilegavisse dicebatur Christus se DcEirionium esse incorporeuni. Non satis caute distiuxit S. Martyr iiTtcr S. Mattliai Evanirclium sincerum, et quale usurpabant Ebionael jam in Asia grassantes interpolatum. Hie ergo negant HEerctici, et quidtm recte, verba ilia in Evangeli* fuisse quale prodiit a S. Mattliao.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 159
ed on by false or interpolated pieces fathered on • him ?
V. But Mr Rhind, p. 98, * would know, of his
* adversaries, what tliese 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 of
* Ecclesiastical orders and the Episcopal authority,
* are of this kind, is a mean begging of the question ;
* and so much the meaner still, that this can be ' proven from other monuments, of that age, though ' Ignatius had never written an epistle.* For an- swer, in the 1 5/ place. Has he read the authors on this controversy, with a scrupulous exactness, and knows nothing of what these interpolations are ? Yv'hy, then, I recommend him to Coke, Daiiie, Sal- masius, Blondel, Owen, the Jus Divinum Ministerii Evangelici, L'Arroque, Jameson, Scultet, Rivet: For why should 1 repeat what has been so often in- sisted on ? After all that Hammond, Pearson, Beveridge, Wake, or Dupin have advanced, in vin- dication of these Epistles, 1 am as well satisfied as 1 can be ot" any thing, that they are either counterfeit or corrupted, 'i^/y, It is true such interpolations as favoured the then or after heresies are pretty well weeded out of the new editions ; but I have already shewn what gross heresies were in the old ones. Now, I ask Mr Rhind, how they could creep in when the genuine E{)istles were scattered through Rome, Antioch, and several cities of Greece? The de})ositories, themselves, of this sacred treasure could have confrontetl these interpolated pieces with the genuine Epistles. They themselves could not be the criminals : And persons removed at such a distance could not have universally conspired to- wards such a deceit ; or, if people had been inclin- ed, they would rather have made bold with the Bible than any inferior authority. 'J his is certainly good reasoning, because it is Mr Rhind's, p. 1)9. And yet, how impossible soever it was that such in- terpolations should creep in, all the world knows,
160 DEFENCE OF THE
and confesses, that they did creep in. 3dhj, Why does Mr Rliind say, that it is a begging of the ques- tion to allege that the expressions about Episcopacy are interpolations ? It is so far frow begging, that it is a proving of the point directly. For, when the pretended Ignatius, extravagantly, ascribes that to his Bishops, (whether they be supposed parochial or diocesan, it alters not the case), which the Apostles never assumed to themselves, it is a plain evidence that the author of such expressions was a man of no judgment or conscience — consequently was not the holy martyr Ignatius. Is not this the very reason why the Church of England Divines, themselves, have rejected the old editions of these Epistles, be- cause they are so very immoderate in their exalta- tion of the Bishop ? For instance, when in the Epistle to the Trallians, in the old editions, the Bishop is said to be ' above all principality and ' power, and more excellent than all, as far as it is
* possible for man to excel.' And when, in the Epistle to the Philadelphians, all, of what sort so- ever, not only presbyters, deacons, and the whole clergy, but all the people, soldiers, princes, Caesar hiinself, are enjoined to perform obedience to the Bishop. And when, in the Epistle to the Smyrneans, the Bishop is placed betwixt God and the king, and that by way of correction of the words of Scripture,
* My son fear God (the Bishop) and the king,' does not Dr Hammond, himself,* call these immo- derate expressions ? Does he not pronounce the doctrine contained in them to be rebellious, extra- vagant, and senseless ? Does he not conclude that they were inserted by some impostor ? And, is there not as good reason why we should except against the new editions, when there is in them a great deal of such extravagant stuff yet unpurged out? Can any one read even the Usherian and Vossian edii-ions and not observe such a turgid, affected, hyperbolical style as would never, probably, have been used by
• Ans. to the Anlmadver. on the Dissert. Chap. iil. Sec. 3.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 161
one that had heard and conversed with the Apostles, the character of whose writings was sim- phcity : Is it possible one of Ignatius's spirit and character could have made that boast,* that he was
* able to know things heavenly, the orders of an- ' gels, tiieir constitutions, principalities, things vi-
* sible and invisible?' It is true Dr Hammond t has criticised, and Dr Wake translated that passage to a contrary sense ; as if he had said, ' I am not able
* to know things heavenly' . But both these doc- tors have done despite to the context, as well as forced the words ; for the very paragraph, in which the passage is, begins thus, even according to Dr Wake's translation, in his second edition : — ' Am I
' not able to write to you of heavenly things ? But _
* I fear lest I should harm you, who are yet but
* babes in Christ, (excuse me this care) ; and lest, ' perchance, being not able to receive them, ye
* should be choked with them,' Could so wise and holy a man have dropped such unguarded assertions as tliese, ' Whatsoever the Bishop approves is ac- ' ceptable to God. My soul for such as obey the
* Bishop, presbyters, and deacons.* — Is not the very foundation of Popery, viz. an implicit faith, wa^apt lip in these expressions ? 4//^///, Why did Mr Rhind say that the Episco})al authority can be proven from other monuments of that age ? Where are these monuments ? Why did he not produce them, or, at least, name them ? Had Mr Rhind considered that things were not to be taken upon his mere assertion, I am sure he had found cause to make his book at least a hundred times bigger than it is, or to leave out five hundred things he has put into it. Polycarp
was the most contemporary writer with Ignatius /
that can be named. But though he prescribes dea- J
cons and presbyters their duty, yet he does not so ^
much as once name Bishops, or any thing equiva- lent to them above the degree of presbyters j but
* Ep, to flie Trail. Sect. 5. f Viiul. of the Diiscit. Chap. iii. Sect. 3. L
162 DErEXCE OF THE
plainly supposes that tliere 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 ihe priests and deacons,
* as unto God and Christ.' *
VI. Mr Rhind asks further, page TOO, * 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 fliith 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. This being clear, where is the ne- cessity of giving eiiher the how or the wiiy 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 I 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-
* Ep. to the Philip. Sec 5, 5.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT.
163
ken up by as great men as themselves. It is true likewise, the Church of England divines got the last word : but it is as true, it was not because they won it, but because they begged it, and owed their keep- ing the field, not to the strength of their reasons, but to the earnestness of their importunity, as ap- pears from Monsieur L'Arroque's Life, prefixed to his Adversaria Sacra, from Walker's translation of L'Arroque's History of the Eucharist, and from the author of the Eulogium on Monsieur L'Arroque in the NouveUes de RepubUque de Lettres. They have been told of this before,* but it was needful to tell them over again, because they sometimes af- fect to be dull of hearing. But enough of Ignatius.
CLEMENS ROMANUS.
The next testimony he produces, is from Cle- mens Bishop of Rome, in his first epistle to the Co- rinthians, Sect. 40. in which the argumentative words are, ' For the 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 ; and the lay-man is confined with-
* in the bounds of what is commanded to lay-men.* From which he infers, p. 109, * that to the Bishop, ' Presbyters, and Deacons in the Christian 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 llhind. Now let us examine all this.
In the Jirst place, was Clemens Bishop of Rome when he wrote this epistle ? Hear Dr Wake :t * I
* conclude then,' saith he, ' that this epistle was
* written shortly after the persecution under Nero.
* between the G4.th and 70th year of Christ : and
* Jameson'^ N;ii, Qticrcl. Bovsc, Fojicstcr. f Ui)i kupia, IsL ctlil. p. ."i.
L '2
164 DEFENCE OF THE
' that, as the learned defender of this period sup-
* poses, in the vacancy of the see of Home, 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. This, 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,
In 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 Chris- 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-
* dily, 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 people of Corinth had raised a sedition against their Presbyters, 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^
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 165
' 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. ' For
* it would be our no small sin,' saith he. Sect. 44,
* should we cast off those from their bishopric who, ' without blame, and 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 Bignonius, proves this epistle of Clement to be of 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
• Quod nusquam meminit exsortls illius Eplscoporum auctorila- tis, quae Ecclesiae consuetiuline, post Marci mortem, Alexanclrise, atqueeo excmplo, alibi intioduci cepitj sed plane ut Paulus Apos- tolis ostendit, ecclcsias communi Presbytevoriim, qui iidem omnes ct Episcopi ipsi Pauloque dicuntur, consilio fuisse gubernatas.
166 DEFENCE OF THE
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 third 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 Cie nent*s testimony. Why did not Mr Rhind tell where Jerome has these words ? It was loo 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 de- 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.' — Eor 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.' ErgOy it is the same folly to pre- fer Deacons to Presbyters. The first of these pro-
• Irenic. p. 280.
+ Legimus in Esala. Fatuiis fatna loqnetur. Audio quendam in tantam erupisse vccordinm. Ut Diaconos Fresbyteris, itl est Episcopis anteleiret. Nam cum Apostolus persplcue tloceat eosdeni esse Presbyteios qiios Eplscopos, quid patitur niensarum et vidua-
rum ministei", ut supra eos se lumidiis efFeiat Quod autem pos-
tea unus electns est, qui caeteris pi seponeretur, in scliismatis reme- dium factum est.... Nam et Alexandrine a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysiuni Episcopos, Presbyteri semper ununi ex «e electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant.... Quid enim facit, exccpta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter iaon faclat,
PUESBYTEIUAN GOVERNMENT. 167
positions, viz. that Bishops and Presbyters were in the Apostles' time all one, he proves from the very same Scriptures, which the Presbyterians have ever insisted on. And though Ej)iscopacy was so far ad- vanced in his time, which had been set on foot af- ter the Apostles' days, for a remedy of schism; yet even then he declares, ' that excepting ordination, * the Bishop does nothing which the Presbyter might ' not do.* Is it then imaginable, that, after all this, Jerome, in that very same epistle, should allow Bishops to be superior to Presbyters by divine right, as the High Priest under the law was to the ordinary priests? No. It is plain, that the comparison runs, not be- tween Aaron and his sons under the law, and bi- shops and presbyters under the gospel ; but between Aaron and his sons, as one part of the comparison under the law, and the Levites under them, as the ^ther. So, under the gospel, bishops and presby- ters make one part of the comparison, answering to Aaron and his sons, in that wherein they all agree, viz. the order of priesthood ; and the other part, un- der the gospel, is that of Deacons, answering to the Levites, under the law. And this gloss upon Jerome's words, as the context necessarily requires, so the learned Stillingfleet* has expressly confirmed. And besides, Dr Hammond, as we have before observed, by denying the middle order of presbyters in the Apostles* days, has quite destroyed the argument from the Jewish priesthood. Was not, then, Mr Rhind very well advised, when he would press Je- rome into his service, in the very face of his own protestation to the contrary ; and that, too, for con- firming Clement's testimony, who never dropt so much as one syllable in favours of a bishop above a presbyter. So much for Clement j and I do not think but the reader is by this time convinced, that Mr Khind 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- •* Irenic. p. 268.
168
DEFENCE OF THE
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 touclied upon it, and therefore Mr Rhind thought it necessary he shoukl do so too. The words of the letter insisted on by Mr Rhind, p. 109, are : * There
* are Christians, who worship Se?^apis, and they are
* devoted to Serapis, who call themselves the Bishops of Christ. There, no ruler of the Synagogue, no
' CJmstian Presbyter, who does not,' &c. From this he infers, « That when Adrian was in Egypt, an7io
* Christ. 13], 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 Fresbijtej^s 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 aliairs. I have set down t the Emperor's words as he wrote them, that the reader may see this the more evidently.
IREXJr:US.
His fourth testimony, p. 110, is from Irena^us, 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.
First, Supposing Irenijeus were against us, yet his
* Enquiry into tlie New Opinions.
f AdrianMS Aug, Serviano Cos. S. j^gyptum quern mihi lau- dabas, Serviano charissime, totam didici, levem, pendulam, et ad omnia fanue nnomenta volitantem. Illi qui Serapin colunt Chris- tiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi. Qui se Christ! Episcopos di- cunt. Nemo illic archisynagogus Juda^orum nemo Samarites, no- mo Christianorum Presbyter, noii Mathematicus, &c.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. l69
judgment about traditions is of no great weight. — For, in that same Cliapter, which Mr Rhind has cited, he asserts * not only tiie pre-eminence of the Church of Home, but the necessary dependence of all other cliurches upon her. And elsewhere, t he asserts Christ to have been past the fortieth^ and near the fiflieth, year of his age, when he suffered ; and that the elders, who were with John in Asia, testified, that they had that by tradition from John himself; yea, that the Gospel itself teaches it; and he is very angry with those who think otherwise. When he stumbled so prodigiously in so plain a case, pray what credit is to be given to his traditions about the succession of Bishops, which is generally ac- knowledged by the Episcopalians themselves to be a most perplexed and uncertain piece of history ?
Secondlij, Does Irenaaus say, as Mr Rhind has translated him, that the Apostles delivered to the Bishops the same dignity of power ? No : His words are : X ' Whom also,' (viz. the Bishops), ' they left ' their successors, delivering to them their own place * of mastership ;' that is, the Apostles constituted them the supreme officers in the Church, so that they were to have none above them any more than the Apostles had. But, that they delivered either to Bishop or Presbyter, the same dignity of power, Ire- naeus never said. But,
Thirdly^ There is no need either of declining Ire- naius's testimony, or refining upon his words. Mr Rhind tells he could improve upon his testimony : And I cannot but wish he had made all the improve- ment of it he could. For that the Apostles appoint-
* Ad haiic enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem, neeesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.
f Lib. II. cap. 39> 40. — A quadragesimo aut quinquagesimo an- no declinat jam in aetatem seniorem, quam habens Dominus nos- ier docebat, sicut Evangelium et omnes seniores testantur, qui in Asia apud Joannem discipulum Domini convenerunt, idipsum tradidisse eis Joannem. — Quinquagcsimum autem annmn nondum attigit, non tamen multum a quinquagesimo anno abstitit.
\ Quos et successores relinquebant, suum ipsorum locum ma-^ gistcrii tradcntes.
170 DEFENCE OF THE
ed Bishops in the Churches, every Presbyterian owns. But that he appointed Prelates, or Diocesan Bishops, no EpiscopaHan has yet proved. If they will still iio on to expose themselves, by insisting upon the word Bishop, 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-
* byters in the Church — to those who, as we have
* shewn, have their succession from the Apostles ;
* who, together with the succession of the E})isco-
* pate, have also received the gift of the truth, ac-
* cording to the pleasure of the Father.' Thus Ire- naeus.— ' And what strange confusion,' says Stilling- lingiieet, t ' must this raise in any one's mind, that ' seeks for a succession of Episcopal power over
* Presbyters from the Apostles by the testimony of f Irenaeus, when he so plainly attributes both the suc-
* cession to Presbyters, and the Episcopacy too which
* he speaks of.* So much for Irenaeus.
TEKTULLIAN.
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 Baptismo, * 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 i\\Qjirst place, I should be glad to know where Mr llhind came by this piece of chronology. It is true, Tertullian began to flourish in the declension of the second century, viz. after the year 1^2; and wrote his book, de BapUsmo, from which Mr Bhind cites, about the year 201. t But Irenaeus's flourish-
" Qua propter eis qui in ecclesia sunt. Presbyteris obaudire oportet. His qui successionem Iiabent ab Apostolis, sicut osteu- dimus, qui cum Episcopatus successione, ciiari&ma veritatis cer- tum, secundum placitum I'atris acceperunt.
f Irenic. p. 307. % Spanheim, Hist. Eccles. p. 719.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 171
ing was well nigh blown off ere that time. * For « he died,* says Mr Dodwell, * * before the persecu-
* tion under Severus, which began in the year 202
* or 203.' It is, then, something hard to conceive, how Tertullian began to flourish at the same time with Irenaeus. But passing this:
In the second place, 1 ask, What would Mr Rhind infer from Tertullian's testimony ? Is it, that there were three distinct orders of ecclesiastical officers. Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, in the beginning of the tliird century ? Every Presbyterian owns it. Is it, that the Bishops had this paramount power of baptising, beyond the Presbyters and Deacons, by Divine right ? Tertullian himself denies it, and that in the very next words to those cited by Mr Rhind. ' It remains,' saith he, t ' for concluding this little
* matter, to advise also concerning the observation ' of giving and receiving baptism. Of giving, in-
* deed, the High Priest, who is the Bishop, has the ' right, then the Presbyters and Deacons ; yet not
* without the authority of the Bishop, ^r the ho-
* noiir of the Church ; which being safe, peace is safe,
* — otherwise even laymen have the right ; for what
* is equally received, may be equally given :' Thus Tertullian. Say, now, good reader, if JMr Rliind was not either very ill furnished of testimonies, or very well with assurance, when he insisted on this.
And thus, now, I have gone through his Antiqui- ty ; and hope that it is plain, that when he was en- tering on it, he migiU have spared his harangue, "wherein he would persuade the Presbyterians to ap- peal to the Fathers ; for I can hardly believe he has gained much by referring to these Judges. And if
* Dissert. 3. in Iren.
f Superest, ad concludendam materiolam, de observatlone quo- que dandi et accipicndi baptismum coninionefacere. Dandi qui- dem Jiabet jus summus sacerdos, qui et Episcopus. Deiiinc Presbyteii et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, ])rop- ter Ecclesiae bonorem, quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex aequo accipitur, ex aequo dari po- test.
172 DEFENCE OF THE
his own conscience was satisfied witli these testi- monies he has produced, I must needs say it is no ill-natured one.
AUTICLE VL
Wherein Mr Rhind's Argument for Prelacij, frovi the impossihilitij of its obtaining so early ^ and uni- versally, if it had not been of Divine Institution^ is examined. From p. Ill to p. 119,
There can be nothing more ridiculous, than to dispute against the possibility of a matter of fact. I'i 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 j 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 1, 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 w^arrant for it, contained in the Scriptures ? Why, then, will he dispute against the possibihty 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.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 173
Thcit a change of the government of the church, by a parity of pastors into a government by Prelacy, had been morally impossible, he argues, I. From the piety and zeal of the primitive times. II. From the universal spread of Episcopacy. III. From the vio'ilance of the Governors of the Church. IV.
o
From the unparalleledness of the case. V. From the non-opposition made to the change, and the want of any insinuation that ever the church was govern- ed according to the Presbyterian model. Of these in order.
I. He argues, p. Ill, 112, from the piety and zeal of the primitive times. * If the Presbyterian
* had been the divine form of government, it
* could never once have entered into the thoughts
* of men, who had shared in or been subject to this ' form of government, to attempt or allow its change. ' Would these primitive persons, who were bishops
* in the first ages, have usurped an anti-scriptural au-
* thority ? What could have tempted them to it ?
* Not the love of riches, they forsook all for the
* love of Christ. Not ambition, for they knew their ' promotion rendered them more obnoxious to their ' persecutors. Suppose they had been actuated either
* by worldliness or ambition, yet would the Presby-
* ters and Deacons have suffered such an encroach-
* ment to be made upon their divine right ? Or ' would the people have submitted to such an usur-
* pation ?' To this purpose he. For answer. It cannot be denied, that the zeal and piety of the pri- mitive times was much greater than of ours : But why would he impose upon people by a chimerical representation of these times, contrary to the faith of all history ? Men still were, and always will be men ; that is, very corrupt, how holy soever the religion is which they profess. The churchmen are men too ; and, even in the primitive times, gave many and very scandalous examples, and were the greatest cause of the corruption of Christians, and sometimes of their persecution too. What a
174 DEFENCE OP THE
complaint does Eusebius * make of the wickedness of Christians in general, and of churchmen in particular ? * Bishops,' saith he, * rushed (Hke 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 in 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 jonly 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 universal depravation in the clergy as well as the laity. « That the priests had no devotion, 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. iii. 18. « ma7i2/ walk, of whom
* I told you often, and now tell you, even weeping,
* that they are the enemies of the cross of Cin'ist ;
* whose God is their belly, who mind earthly things.*
» Hist. Eccles. Lib. VIII. Cup. i.
•^ Noil in Sacerdotibus lleiigio devota, non In Ministris fides inlegra, non in operlbns midcricordia, uon in nioribus disciplina, &c. Cyprian de Lapsis.
\ Advt'iJiua Luciferian.
mESBYTEllIAN GOVERNMENT. 175
And chap. ii. 21. * all seek their own, not the things * which are Jesus Christ's.' Even in those early times, and while the Chiucii was under persecution, a Dio- trephes could aspire to the pre-eminence, 3 John, ix. And even the people's liberahty 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 lucres sake, I Peter v. 2. 1 Tim. iii. 3. Where then was the impossibility of a change, even upon the principles of and)ition and covetousness ? Might not one, at Mr Rhind's rate of reasoning, prove, that it was 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 * makes mention of them as undisputed officers in his time ; 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 llh.ind 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. lie argues, p. 112, from the universal spread of Episcopacy. Though such a change might have iiappened in a corner, yet, if Prelacy had not been of divine institution, how could it have ob- tained universally ? Which yet it did : ' For,* saith he, p. 117, * it was fully established over all
* Ep. 24.
176 DEFENCE OF THE
* the earth, without any opposition or noise, a do- ' zen of years or so after the seahng 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 third cen- tury ; yet we had no such thing as prelacy till near the middle of the fifth, that Palladius brouglit it hither from Rome ; as Bede, Fordun, John Major, Hector Bocthius, Buchanan and Craig, with others, do testify.
III. 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-
Ibld. UbI supra. + Sorm. <le Lapsis, Sect. 20.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 177
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
* the flesh,' &c. and he is so brisk on that head, that he affirms « that none who minds he is a Christian of
* 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- ple on which it was built, false. But can Mr Rhind name the person that remonstrated against the intro- ducing it ? Can he name any Church that refused it ? Can he tell the century in which it began ? No, nothing of all this is possible. Where is now the vigilance of the Church governors ? If it could not secure in one thing, how shall it do in another ?
IV. He argues, p. IIC, from the unparalleledness of the case, ' that the like never happened in the
* government of any other society, whether of for-
* mer or latter times. For instance, the establish-
* ment of the consular dignity, upon the expulsion ' of their kings by the Romans, and the change of
* the republican into a monarchical form, occasion-
* ed a vast expense of treasure and blood. And in ' the days of our King Charles I. the monarchy was ' not destroyed, nor the common-wealth established, ' till after a considerable resistance.' From all which he infers, thatsuch an insensible change in the govern- inentof the Church ought not to be supposed. This reasoning is built upon grounds so notoriously false, that it scarce deserves the name of a poor piece of 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. For
* Vide Ep. 106. Lib. I. contra Julianum. Lib. I, De Peccat. merit, et rcmissione contra Pilagianum.
■f Traite de la Communion soiis Lcs Deux Especes, p. 81. &c.
M
178 DEFENCE OF THE
the body spiritual, and civil too, is like the body na- tural J 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 others, which grow so insensibly, and by such slow de- grees, that none can tell when the first 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 1640, 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 theretbre ascribe them to God ? According to Mr llhind'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 their reasonings against the Church of Rome, quite
• Lib. IV. Cap. v. De Notis Ecclesiae.
f On Bellanuine's Second Note of the Church.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 179
destroy tlieir reasonings against the Presbyterians- nay, are indeed the very reverse of them. This might be sufficient to take off his next argument, yet, ex suptrabundantiy 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 Presby- terian model. Thus : * When Antichristian Prelacy
* is supposed to be universally established upon the
* ruins objure 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 suc-
* ceeding centuries pretend it did obtain, except
* Aerius and St Jerome, in the fourth. The 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
* many accounts.' Thus he, p. 113, 114. For An- swer.
First, Does not Mr Rhind know how insufficient a negative argument in this case is ? Does he not know how few monuments we have of these times ? Or has he himself recovered them ? Does he not know how ill furnished even Eusebius himself was, with documents, when he wrote his history, and what broken scraps he went on ? ]t 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 68, for the space of 2S years, that is, till the year 96, we have either no history to give us light, or what is worse than none, a parcel of fa- bulous le^endarv stories. The learned Jesuit Peta-
M 2
180
DEFENCE OF THE
vius*, speaking of that period, delivers himself thus :
* The Christian affairs of this period stand in a faio't
* light, rather through scarcity of writers than mat- ' ter. For it is not credible, but that the Apostles
* and Disciples of Christ, 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 DodwelPs account, Episcopacy was set up, that is, about the year 106, or somewhat sooner, the Christians are represented as faint and languishing in their profession, and inclined to apos- tatise. The author of the younger Pliny's life, pre- fixed to his Epistles,! observes, p. 33, that he wrote his letter to Trajan, concerning the Christians, be- twixt the month of September 303, 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 itself through cities, villages and country, yet he was of the mind, that a stop might be put to it. And as evi-
ence of this, he tells the Emperor, that the temples of the heathen gods, which were formerly almost de- solate, now began to be frequented, and that sacrifices hitherto neglected, were coming from all hands ; and that the return of the Christiansto Paganism might be yet greater, if they were pardoned for what was pastt 2dlj/, Is there any improbability in conceiving, that
* Chrlstianae res illius temporis baud magna In Luce versantur. Scriptorum raagis Inopia, quam quia mandaii quod posset Literls extaret nihil. Nam nequc parva, neque scitu Indigna credibile est Apostolos, ac CliiistI Idiscipulos toto orbe gessisse. Sed pleiaque fabulls et incertis Nanationlbus aspersa sunt. Petav. Ration. Temp. par. 10, Tom. post Lib, V. Cap. v,
t Edit, Oxon. 1703,
t Neque enim clvltates tantum, sed vicos etiam atque agros superstitionis istlus Gontagio pervagata est, qinc videtur sisti et corrigl posse. Certe satis constat, prope jam desolata templa caepisse celebrarl, ct sacra solennia din intermissa repetl : passim- que venire victlmas, quaruni adhuc rarissimus emptor Invenlebatur. Ex quo facile est opinarl, quae turba hominum cmcndarl possit, sl »it penitentiae locus. Plln, Lib. X. Ep, 97.
i^
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 181
testimonies given against a government which after- wards obtained universally, might be neglected and lost, perhaps industriously smothered and destroyed ? It is certain that there were passages foisted into books, in favours of episcopacy, as we have already proved in the case of the Ignatian Epistles, and as is confessed, as. to the old editions of them, even by Episcopalians themselves. And these that could find in their heart to foist in passages for themselves, would make no bones of razingout such as might be a- gainst them. 3f^/?/,What though we had not the con- temporaries who testified against the change, or at least insinuate that parity of pastors did at first ob- tain ; may not those that lived shortly after do as well, especially when it was against their interest to give any such testimony ? But indeed we need not run to this. The Fathers of all ages, (so far as their testimony is worth the regarding) have given as ample testimony in favours of Presbytery as heart could wish ; whereof it will not be amiss to give some instances.
TESTIMONIES FOR PRESBYTERY FROM ANTIQUITY.
Clemens Romanus, Af27i. Chr. QQ.
The epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is the earliest, and perhaps the purest piece of antiquity extant. We have already heard Grotius observing, and Stillingfleet justifying him in his observe, that it is written on the Presbyterian scheme. And I need not add to what I have already advanced, to shew that father to be on our side : Only, it is no unpleasant diversion to behold the episcopal scuffle about him. By Mr Dodwell's calculation, there was no bishop (in the episcopal sense) in the world at the time of the writing of the Epistle, save James, sitting Pope at Jerusalem. All were Presbyters. No wonder, then, that Clement was silent of bishops above presbyters. * No,' saith Dr Hammond,* ' Cle-
* Vind. of the Disjert, Chap, iii, Sect. 1.
182
JDErENCE OF THE
* merit'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 of
* 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 nothing : * Clement,' saith he, * by deacons means ' presbyters.' I am sure, however decent it may be, yet it is pretty difficult for one to be witness tq this skirmish and keep his gravity.
Ignatius, Ann, Chr, 116.
Ignatius, who wrote his epistles, as Dr Wake tes-r tifies, t An. 116, is the first who distinguishes be- 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 X Salmasius mightily for say- ing, ' that the Ignatian Epistles were written when ' Episcopacy, properly so called, came into the
* Ciiurch ; 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 accus-
* 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.
PoLYCARp, Ann. Chr. 117.
Polycarp, who wrote his Epistle to the Philipplans immediately after Ignatius, as DrWake § would have us believe, though he had the fairest occasion for
* Hist, of the Rights of Princes, p. 6, f Ubi supra, 2d edit. p. 50. X Ubi supra, Chap. iii. Sect. 4. $ Ubi supra, p. 20,
PIlESBTTERIA^f GOVERNMENT.
183
it, yet, as I observed before, makes not the least mention of two orders of pastors, but of priests and deacons only. And Dr Hammond * himself can find no other way to shift the force of this, but by turning these priests or presbyters into bishops, and is content to drop the presbyters to save the bishops, who yet, without presbyter to back them, can make but a very whiggish figure.
Justin Martyr, Jn?i, Chr. 150.
Justin Martyr, in his Apology for the Christians, relates, that in every one of their assemblies there was one whom he calls president, who preached, prayed, consecrated the eucharistical elements which by the deacons were distributed to those that were present, and sent to those that were absent, t But that this president, whereof there was one in each Christian assembly, was under the jurisdiction of another superior to himself; or that he had any others, except the deacons, inferior to himself, Justin gives not so much as the least hint from the one end of his works to the other.
Iren^us, Ann. Chr, 180.
IrenaDUS, as we have heard the learned Stilling- fleet already confessing, attributes both the apos- tolic succession and the episcopate to the presbyters ; and most expressly makes them both one order.i
* It is necessary,' saith he, ' to withdraw from all
* such wicked presbyters, but to cleave to such ' wlio, as we have said before, both keep the doc-
* trine of the apostles, and sound speech with their
* presbyterial order, and also shew an inoffensive
* conversation to the information and correction of ' the rest. — Such Presbyters does the Church bring
* up, concerning whom the Prophet also says, * I " will give thy princes in peace, and thy bishops in " righteousness.* And concerning whom the Lord
* Ubi supra, Cliap. iii. Sect. 2, f Apoll. 2d edit. Gr«c. Lat. Colon. 1C86. p. 97. + Lib. IV. cap, xHy.
184
DEFENCE OF THE
* said, * who is tliat faithful and wise steward wliom " the Master sets over his household." It is plain, then, that Irenaaus makes his presbyters bishops, and bishops and presbyters to be one and the same order ; and, by necessary consequence, presbyters must needs have all the same powers with bishops, which is the main thing contended for. In a M'ord, though bishop and presbyter were distinguished in Irenseus'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.
Terttjllian, 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 he.
Clemens Alexandrinus, Ann. 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, who, treading
* in the steps of the Apostles, live in the perfection
* of evangelic righteousness ; for these, the Apostle ' writes, shall be taken up into the clouds, and there, « first, as deacons, attend, and then, according to
* Apolog. Cap. xxxix. t Stromat. Lib. VI. p. 481.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERN3IENT. 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/ Which pas- sage, as Sir Peter King has most judiciously ob- served,* proves, that in the judgment of this fa. ther, there were but two ecclesiastical orders : the inferior, that of deacons, who never sat at the ec- clesijistical conventions, but like servants stood, as the saints, v/hen caught up in the clouds at the last day, shall stand and wait on Christ's judgment-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 their glory per- fected, in being placed on the celestial thrones of that sublime Presbytery, where they shall be forever blessed and happy. In a word, as there are but two processes of the saint's glorification, viz. standing before the judgment-seat, and being seated on a throne of glory, beyond which there is no higher dignity : so Clemens makes but two orders of churcii officers — deacons to attend and serve, and Presby- ters to sit and judge.
Origen, Ann. Chr. 226.
Origen does indeed distinguish betwixt Bishops and Presbyters. But no where can I find him found- ing the distinction on divine institution. But I frequently find him making most horrid representa- tions of the pomp and pride and prodigality of the bishops, even in those times of persecution. Thus, 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 tlie Constitution of the Primitive Church, p. 72. t In Matth. Tract. 12,
186 DEFENCE OF THE
recommendation, are such that we seem to ex- ceed the pride even of the wicked princes of the world ; 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 (that is, the bishops) of the Christian people have no affability, or allow access to them- selves. And the Apostle indeed charges even mas- ters concerning their servants, saying, ' Masters ' 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 intolerable, 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 seem to have sorae chiefty in the church act
* the lords over their brethren, nor exercise power
* over them.'*
Gregorius Thaumaturgus, Ann. Chr. 233.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, as Dr Burnet,t from his life, written by Gregory Nyssen, relates his storyi ' being much set on the study of philosophy, 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 tos autem qui estls mel, non erunt litec. Ne forte qui ▼itlentur hahere aliqneni in ecclcsia principatiim, dominentur I'ra- trihus propriis, vel potestatcm in eos exerceant. Origen Tract. 12. in Mattli' Lat. (icnebrard. Parisiis. l604.
\ Hist, of the Right* of Princes, p. 9*
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 187
* 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 autlior.' 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. Secondly^ 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, I 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 Ciirist himself, when he ^ constituted Peter pastor of his own Church, after ' himself. For he saith, — ' Peter lovest thou me ^* more than these — feed my sheep.* And to all
* pastors and doctors, that were to come after, he ^ gave an equal power. And it is a sign of this, ' that they all, in like manner, bind and loose as he ^ did/ Thus he.
Aerius, Ann. Chr. 371.
Aerius is confessed to have been Presbyterian. But, saith Mr Rhind, * he was an infamous heretic*
* Cypr. Isot. f The ancient Bishops considered.
\ Coustitut. Monastic, Cap. xxii.
188 ■ DEFENCE OF THE
Be it so, yet not a greater one than Tertullian, whom, yet, Mr Khind cited in favours of episco- pacy. For, besides his MontanigYn, some of the learn edest doctors, in the present Roman Church, have taken a great deal of pains, saith Dr Symon Patrick,* to make the world beheve that Tertullian, and a number of other ancient Fathers, were infect- ed with the Arian heresy. But who says that Aerius was a heretic ? Mr Ilhind answers, it was Epipha- nius, Heres. LXXV. But who knows not that Epiphanius's testimony is of very small weight? Is it not his own character that his learning was above his judgment, but his invention above them both ? Was there ever a more pitiful piece written than his book about heresies ? Was there ever any thing weaker than what he has advanced against Aerius, even upon the point of episcopacy ? Do not the Episcopal writers,! themselves, own, that he has spoken nonsense on that head ? Must not every Protestant own that Aerius was a better man than himself, and more orthodox in the faith, when he condemned prayers for the dead, which Epiphanius undertakes to justify against him. Is it not known that a great 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 Ilhind then ought to have been a little more modest in his character of Aerius, till he had discoursed the matter more fully.
Ambrose, An?i. CJir. 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 Bellarmine's 2(1 Note of the Church.
f Dr Iteignold's Letter to Sir Francis KnoUes, Bellarmine, Tom, J. Contra. 5. Lib. I. Cap. xv.
;[: Tamen postquam omnibus locis ecclesioe sunt constitutse, et
officia ortlinata : Aliter composita res est, quam caeperat, Ideo
non per omnia conveniunt Scriptu'Apostoli ordiuationi quae nunc ia
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 189
* all places, and offices ordained, matters were < settled otherwise than they were in the begin-
* ning. And thence it is that the Apostles' writ-
* ings do not, in all things, agree to the present
* constitution of the Churcli, because they were
* written under tiie 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 da}^, ' 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 that 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.
Chrysostom, A?i7i, 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 tliem is committed both the instruction and the ' presidency of the Church : And whatever he
* said of Bishops agrees also to Presbyters. In or-
ecclesla est, r^uia Iicec inter ipsa Piiniordia sunt sciipta. Nam et Timotlujuni Pixshyterum a se cieatum Episcopum vocat, quia pri- niuni Prcsbyteri Kpiscopi appellebantur. Ut recedente uno sequens ei snccederet. Dcnique apud ^gyptuni Presbyleri consignant, si pra;sens non sit Episcopus. Sed quia Caiperunt sequentes Prcsby- teri indigni inveniri ad primatus teneiidos j imniutata est ratio, prospiciente concilio: Ut non ordo, sed nieritum crearet Episcopum, nmlloium Sacredotum judicio constitutum, ue indignus teniere usur- paret et esset nuiltis scandalum. Ambros. in Epii. As.
* Irenic. p. i513. \ In prior Ep. ad Tim. Honi. xi.
190 DEPBNCE OF THE
« dination alone they have gone beyond, and, in
* this only they seem to defraud * the Presbyters.* Thus he, * And,' saith Willet,t « the distinction
* of Bishops and Presbyters, as it is now received,
* cannot be directly proved out of Scripture : And « of this judgment, Bishop Jewell against Harding
* sheweth Chrysostom to have been.' So that here we have two Church of England divines owning Chrysostom to be on our side.
Augustine, Ann. Chr. 420.
Augustine, in his epistle to Jerome, disclaims the Divine institution of Prelacy, and founds it upon Ecclesiastic use. * Although,' saith hct * according
* to the words of honour, which use has now made
* fashionable in the Church, the Episcopate is great- « er than the Presbyterate :' Yet in many things is Augustine inferior to Jerome. That this testimony is not strained, I appeal to Bishop Jewell's declara- tion. In St Jerome's time,' saith he,§ ' there were
* Metropolitans, Archbishops, Archdeacons, and
* others, but Christ appointed not these distinc-
* tions of orders from the beginning. This is the
* thing which we defend. St Jerome saith, * Let ** Bishops understand that they are in authority over ** priests more by custom than by order of God's ** truth.' And Augustine declares * That, the office ** of a Bishop is above the office of a priest, not by " authority of the Scripture, but after the names of ** honour which the custom of the Church hath now " obtained." Thus Bishop Jewell.
Thkodoret, Jnn. Chr. 430.
Theodoret, in like manner, saith, il ' the apos-
* ties call a Presbyter a Bishop, as we shewed
* Vide 1 Thess. C, iv. v. 6. in the Greek, and compare it witli Chrysostom's. f ^ynops. Faplb. Coiurov. V. Quest, iii. p. 27S.
t Quanquani cnim secundum lionorum vocabula, qu£E jam eccle- siae usus obtinuii. Episcopatus Prcsbyterio major sit : Tameu in multis Rebus Au^ustinus Hieronymo minor est Aug. Ep. 19.
$ Apolo^r. Part. ii. C, iii. Div. 5, |1 In prior Ep. ad Tiin. C. iii.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 191
* when we exponed the Epistle to the Phih'ppians, « which may be also learned from this place ; for,
* after the precepts proper to Bishops, he describes
* the things that agree to deacons : But, as I said, of
* old they called the same men both Bishops and
* Presbyters.* Thus Theodoret.
Primasius, Anno Chr. 440-
Primasius, who is said by some to have been Augustine's disciple, puts the question, * why the
* Apostle leaps from the duties of bishops to the
* duties of deacons, without any mention of pres-
* byters ?' and answers plainly, as before, ' that
* bishops and presbyters are the same degree. *
Sedulils, Anno 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 could not be true of dio- cesan bishops. And for proof and instance he adduces the elders of Ephestis, Acts xx. who, dwell- ing all in one city, though they are called elders or presbyters, in the 17th verse, are yet called bishops in the '28th 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 it } t whatever Spottiswood hath said to the contrary.
Concilium IIispalense II. Anno Chr, 619.
The second Council of Seville plainlydeclares, 'That ' though there are many functions of the ministry,
* common to the presbyters with the bishops, yet
* by the modern and ecclesiastical rules, there are some
* In 1 Tim. lii.
f See Daliymple's Collect, c. Iv. 5. Scdulil Poem. Piefat. Dupiu, Cent. v. p, 50.
192 DEFENCE OF THE
' functions denied to them, such as the ordination
* of presbyters.'* That council, we see, does not insist upon divine right, but upon ecclesiastical rules, and owns the appropriation of ordination to the bishop to be a modern practice.
Theophi'la€t, Anno Chr. 880.
I might also give the testimony of Theophylact, who is said by some to have flourished about the year 880, but placed by Baronius in the year 1071. But his testimony being the same with that of Chrysostom, whose echo Stillingfleet calls him, I need not repeat his words.
Oecumenius, Anno Chr, 900.
Oecumenius, said by some to have lived in the eighth, by some in the ninth, and by others put off till the eleventh century^ upon Acts xx. 17, thus 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 Epistle to Titus, and fi'pm the Epistle to the Philip- pians, and from the fifst Epistle to Timothy. From this place, therefore, of the Acts,^we may arrive at the certainty of this matter : For thus it is written, ' From Miletus he sent and called the elders of the
* church.' It is not said, the bishops ; and yet after- 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- wards called bishops. And from the Epistle to the Philippians. ' To all that are at Phhipi with the
* bishops and deacons.' And, as I believe, the same may be gathered from the First Epistle to Timothy. * If any man desire the office of a
^ * Caranz. Summ. Concil. HIspal. Can. 7 p. [niilii] 269, qimm- vis cum Episcopis pluiima illis Ministerlorum communis sit clispen- satio, qusedani Novellis et EcclesiasUcis regulis sibi piohibita lint, sicut Presbyteronim consecratio.
nove- ratio.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 193
« bishop, he desires 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 already 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
* Decret. ima pars Dist. 60. c. 4. nullus in Epis. Sacros autetn ovdines dicinms Diaconatuni et Presbj-teratum. Hos siquidein solos Primitiva legitur habuisse Ecclesia.
t Comraent, in Tit.
N
194
Dr.l'LSCE OF THE
' the Apostle, saying, ' tlmt llioii mavest ordain eld- *' ers ill every city as I have appointed thee.' Who,
* discoursing in what follows, what sort of presbyter
* ought to be ordained, says this, ' if any one be " blameless, the husband of one wife,* &c. after-
* wards adds, • for a Bishop must be blameless as *' the steward of God.* A Presbyter is therefore the
* same with a Bishop. And before that, by the
* deviPs instinct, there were parties in religion, ' and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I
* of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were go-
* verned by tlie common council of Presbyters. But ' after that, every one began to think that those
* whom he iiad baptised were his own, not Christ's.
* It vv'as decreed in the whole world, that one chosen
* from among the Presbyters should be set above the ' rest, to whom all care of the church should belong,
* and that the seeds of schisms might be taken away.
* If any one think that this is our judgment, and not
* the judgment of the Scriptures, that a Bishop and
* Presbyter are one ; and that the one is a name of
* age, the otlier of ofHce, let him read again the
* words of the Apostle to the Philippians, saying, *' Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, *' to all the saints in Jesus Christ that are at Philippi, *' with the Bishops and Deacons, grace to you and ** peace,* and so on. Philippi is one city of Ma- ' cedonia ; and surely in one city there could
* not be a })huality of such as are called Bishops.
* But because at that time they called the same
* persons bishops and presbyters, therefore he spoke
* indiiferenLly of bisho})s as of presbyters. This ' may yet seem doubtful to some, unless it be
* proven by another testimony. In the Acts of the
* Apostles it is written, that when the apostle had
* come to Ivliletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called
* the presb} ters of that same church ; to wliom af-
* terward, among other things, he said, * Take heed " to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the ** Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed the " Church of the Lord, which he hath purchased
PrvESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 195
" 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 vvrites 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, and 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 ought 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 things to except against Jerome's testimony, whom therefore I reserved to the last, putting him out of the due order of time, that I might consider these exceptions without interrupting the list.
1. He excepts, p. 114, *that Jerome lived too * late to testify concerning matters of fact that hap-
N 2
193 DEFENCE OF THE
* pened about tlie beginning of the second century.' Now, Jerome was born Anno Chr. 329. Did he hve too late to testify of wliat happened within less than 200 years before his birth ? If so, the testi- mony of most 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 singuhris, (ibid. J It is true, if a score or more be the same thing with one, then Jerome is testis singularis. But when we have found so many of the Fathers con- curring with him, I need not tell how false that ex- ception is.
3. He excepts, (ibid. J * that Jerome destroys the
* credit of his own testimony, by contradicting him-
* self in this very point. — In Epist. ad Heliodor. and
* Nepotian, and in Comment, in Psal. xlv. ver. 16.' The very truth is, thei'e 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 particular words of them wherein he thinks Jerome has contradicted himself. For instance, in the Epist. to Heliodor, he 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 hcjt * produced by a learned writer out of Je-
* rome, for the superiority of bishops above pres-
• Absit lit de his quicqiiam sinistrum loqiiar, qui Apostollco gradui succedentes Christ! corpus sacio ore con&ciunt. — Milii ante Presbyterum sedcre uon licet \ Illi, si peccavero, lieet tradere nie Satanae.
f Irenic.p , 277.
rRESBYTEIJIAN 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, f ibid. J * 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, whicii, 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 ? 1 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, IS. 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 1 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 j 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-
198 DEFENCE OF THE
* shop, SO afterwards one Bishop was set over the ' rest ; and so that custom begot the Pope with his
* monarchy, and, by Httle and Httle, brought them
* into the church.' Thus he ; * and it is certain that schisms were never so frequent as after Episco- pacy prevailed j and Bishops tliemselves 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, I 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 the corruption of hu- man nature, it had been next to a miracle if it had rot obtained. For is there any thing to which man is more violently addicted than tlie thwarting God's institutions ? Did not this humour begin to work even in the Paradisaical state ? What a fine speech could 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 ail the solemni-
* ties of majesty and circumstances of terror ; there-
* in he had expressly inhibited them to make unto
* themselves any graven imnge : they had in the
* most solemn manner stipulated obedience. Would
* they now, after all this, within forty days too, so
* impiously oppose God, so perfidiously violate their
* Sed ipso morbo deterius pene Rcmedium fult ', nam ut primo unus Presbyter reliquis piaelatus est, efc factus Episcopiis : Ita postea unus Episcopus reliquis est praelatus. Sic ista tonsuetudo papam cum sua monarchia peperit, et Paulatira in Ecclesiara iij- vexit. De Regim. Eccles. p. 54-0. ' i'
rnESBYTElJIAN GOVEIINMENT. 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 Cttlf 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 I^^gypt :* and without any further act for conformity, the people got up early next morning, and offered up ;th.eir oxen to the calf, the god and the sacri.'ice 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. '^Jliere is nothing men in all ages have 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
200 DEFENCE or THE
pretext of remedying schisms ; and the rest, either through want of" thought or courage, have been gulled into a compliance, or blinded possibly with the hopes, that the dignity might one day fall to their own share. But enough of this.
Sect. VI,
Wherein Mr Rhino's Reasonings against the Presbytaian Ruling-Elders and Deacons^ are examined, from j). 1 02 to p. 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, wfc 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 Vreshy* terian Ruling-Elders are ej^amined.
1. He objects that the Presbyterian ruling-elder is an officer of Calvin's institution, p. 102. 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.,Damasc. p. 695.
PIIESBYTEUIAN GOVEIIXMENT. 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 ruHng-elders may be, yet it is not of Cal- vin's institution.
2. He objects, f ibid. J * 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 bounds 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 especiallij makes the diflTerence. If I
* should say, that all those who study at the Uni- ' versity are worthy of double honour, especially
* 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-
202 DEFENCE OF THE
* tors and doctors are distinguislied from those who ' only governed : Rom. xii. 8. And concerning
* whom we read in Ambrose on 1 Tim. v.' Thus that great light and patron of the Church of Eng- land.* But what says Mr Rhind to it ? Not one syllable. He owns that Presbyterians found upon texts of Scripture, but is so wise as not to name them, far 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 see into what various forms the Episcopal writers twist themselves, to avoid the force of the text last cited. It has but fourteen 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- :venting new ones. And had Mr Rhind told us which of them he pitched on,- I do not believe it would be any hard matter to discuss that too, uur less it be one of his own, which the world never yet heard of; 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 had recourse to the popular art o£ declaiming a- gainst the ignorance or disingenuity of the Presby- terians. And every body must own that this was both more easy and innocent than if he had 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 Episcopal writers themselves hav- ing proclaimed it ignorance to take the said text in any other than the Presbyterian sense. ' Art thou ' so ignorant,' saith the forecited \Vhittaker,t to
* Apud. Didoclav. p. 681. Ex Slieervocllo.
•)• Jta ignarus es, ut esse in Cliristi ecclesia Fresbyteros nescias qui gubernatloni Lantum, non verbi aut sacramentorum adminis- tr»tioni operam darent.
PRESBYTEniAN GOVERNMENT. 203
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. 10:3, 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 thins: he had said before to the contrarv. 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 jylebs ; he has proved by very many authorities. Episcopal, too, 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 V'liitlaker, 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. \st. Such as govern- ed in the synagogue. And, '2.dhj^ 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 w^or- ^ thy of the chiefest reward : accordingly, the Apostle, reckoning up the offices God had appoint"
* Cypr. Isot. p. 540.
s
204 DEFENCE OF THE
* ed in the church, places teachers before govern-
* ments,' 1 Cor. xii.
5. 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 are 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 ; 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^. 1 Hist. Council of Trent, p. 555.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 205
' be of a contrary opinion. And the famous canon-
* ists, Hostiensis, Joannes Andreas, Abbas, and < others, do affirm, that the Pope may ordain 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 if
* the ordainer had used these words only, or others
* equivalent, because they were instituted by the
* church afterwards to be observed, 'idly. That Bishops do not pretend to the sole power of ordina- tion is shamelessly false. We have given testimony before, p. Q5^ that they not only pretend to it, but practise it. And after that heap of proofs which Mr Jameson has brought in his Cyprianus 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 join with the Bishop in acts of ordination, it is merely as witnesses or consenters, not as having the least share of power. This, Mr Drury has most roundly asserted in 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 affijction. 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.' Qdly, That the solemnity used in the designation of the ruling el- ders to their office, is contrary to Presbyterian prin- ciples, Mr Ilhind 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 for the office. And, as this is their constant practice, so they have
2
206 DEFENCE OF THE
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, the bishop's putting men into deacon's or priest's orders privately in his own chamber, which was the constant practice in the late Episcopal times, not oniy chokes rea^.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 ' chusing worthy priests, or of rejecting such as are
* unworthy.'
6. He objects, p. 105, that the Scriptural Pres- byters were to continue ad vitam ant culpam. I an- swer, so are the Presbyterian elders. Por, 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 honourably 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 Scriptural 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 their trades.' The answer is plain. The same scripture which founds their ofiice, 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 settled no fund for that purpose, and that, 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 Eligendl dignos Sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi. Ep. 67.
PRESBYTERIAN 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 from their employments by their office. But this only speaks forth their generous temper, in that they prefer the public service of the church to their private interest. Nor are they likely to be loser* thereby : For, God will not be unmindful, nor for- get their work and labour of love.
8. He argues, (ibid.^ * were there any foun-
* dation for such an otfice 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 right in the Homilies and Commentaries of
* the Fathers.' For answer, I shall read, to Mr Rhind, a homily from the commentaries of one of the Fa- thers. * Age,' saith the forecited Ambrose or Hi- lary, + ' is honourable among all nations ; whence ' first 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, I know not, if it be not
* through the sloth, or rather pride, of the Doctors,
* whilst they alone will seem to be something.' Thus he. I think it is tolerably clear from this testimony, that there vv^ere 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 Diacono ordinatur Presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem, sacerdotio esse niajorem. Kp. ad
f Nam apud omncs utique gentes honorabilis est senectus, un- de et Synagoga et postca ecclesia scniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia. Quod, qua negligentia obso- leverit, nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia aut magis supcrbia, duni soli volunt aliquid videri. Comment, in 1 Tim. v. 1.
208 DEFENCE OF THE
the prelatic spirit of ambition, which has been the mother of so many mischiefs to the Church. It is, therefore, no wonder that we do not find the names of the Riding- Elders in the acts of the General or Provincial Councils, when the Doctors were of such an usurpino- 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 Constantine 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 officers, 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
* Helius Episcopus HadrianopoHtanus definiens subscripsi per Romanum Episcopum Myionum, eo quod nesciam literas. Ca- jumus Episcopus Pliaenicensis detiniens subscripsi per coepisco- pum meum Dionysium, propterea quod literas ignorem. Concil. Ephes. 2. in Act. i. Clialced. Cone, in Arab. Tom. i. p. 830. Cone. Ephes. i. Patricias Presbyter de vico paradoxilo, manu utens iTiaximi compresbyteri, ob hoc, quod literas ignorarem. Zenon chorcpiscopus — manum accomodavi pro eo ego FJavius Palla- dius, ob hoc quod presens dixerit literas se ignorare, in Act. 1. Con. Chalced. in Crab. p. 8l6. vide plura apud Clarkson, Disc, concerning Liturgies, p. 196.
f De Concil. Lib. i. cap. 15.
pi:cLi?VTEiii.\x govi:::n.ment.
209
at Jerusalem, Acts xv. both the Apostles and Eld- ers ; yea, and the whole Church, v. 22. were Mem- bers ;' and tlie acts and decrees thereof passed, not only by their advice, but with tlieir suffrage.
Thus, now, we have seen that the lluhng Elders are of Divine institution ; that tliey obtained in tlie Primitive Church ; that they fell into desuetude through the pride of the Bishops; and that, in tlie best constituted ciiurches in the world, they were revived again upon tiie first dawning of the liefor. mation.
And indeed the wisdom of our Lord, and his care of his Ciuuch, is very much seen in the institution. For, as he lias 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 tiiey be such as become the Gospel. Be- sides, by this constitution, the discipHne is the more willingly submitted to by the people, being exercised by persons chosen from among themselves, appoint- ed to re()resent 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 tliis a little from the constitution of the civil govern- ment : Princes ordinarily live in state ; see nothing but coaclies 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 ])ressures and calamities their people may be groaning uniler : And were the legislature solely in their hands, they could hardly escape being bhuneil for every thing the people n)ight think a grievance. But now, when a Puiliamenl meets once a-year, the Prince gets the condition of the people in the most remote corners of the kingdom represented ; and the people cannot but besatisried,when they consider they
o
210 DEFENCE OF THE
are governed by no other laws, nor burdened with other taxes, than what were asked and enacted with their own consent ; or, wliich is the same thing, by representatives of their own choosing. Just so; mi- nisters, through their retired course of life, are or- dinarily very much strangers to the way of the world, and are ready to measure the world by the abstract notions they have gathered out of books, or from their own solitary musings, which do not always suit with the practical part of life. Hence it comes to pass, that, till age and experience have mellowed them, they are apt to have too much keenness on their spirits, and to express too much rigour in their actings. But Ruling Elders are more conversant in the world, know better what the times will bear, and what allowances are necessary to be made in this or that case. Now, when the people (in the case of scandals), see themselves judged by such persons, and that there is no other discipline exer- cised on 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 strange that the Episco- pal writers should inveigh against officers, whose pro- vince it is only to govern, not to preach, I mean by them.selves, seeing they have loudly proclaimed to the world, that they look upon their Bishops on- ly as such. Thus, Dr South,* in his Sermon, preach- ed at the consecration of the Bishop of Rochester^ upon Titus, ii. verse ult, — * These things, speak and
* exhort,' in a flat contradiction to the text, says, ' That a 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 if he have it not, it is not much to be desired.* And if any of their Bishops do make conscience of constant preaching, as some of them have done, it is reckoned a labour of love, as not having a care of souls. Thus, the Bishop of Sarum, in his Funeral
* Vol. I. p. 209, &c.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 211
Sermon on Dr Tillotson, 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- bour in the word and doctrine. And I wonder how Episcopal Ruling Elders can be lawful, and Presby- terian Ruling Elders not so. But enough of this.
ARTICLE II.
Wherein 3/r R hind's Reasonings against the PreS' byterian Deacons, are examined. P. 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 of 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 not
* reason that we should leave the word of God, 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-
0 2
212 DrFKXCE oy the
ty ? Is he not expressly called an Evangelist, Acts, xxi. 8. And shall we think he took up the office at his own hand, without being ordained to it, because ■we do not read of his ordination ? Or does he think that Evangelists had not power to baptize ? ' But,' adds he, ' we find Peter and John commissioned by
* the Apostles to confirm the Samaritans, which of*- ' fice Philip could have discharged, had he been an'
* Evangelist.' I answer: He could not. For the confirmation that is there meant, is the giving of the Holy Ghost in his extraordinary c//flm/?Zf//^, as is- evident from the whole history — and this none but the Apostles could give ; nor is there one instance, either in the Scripture or Church history, where ever any but the Apostles either did or could give it. But Mr Rhind has strongly imagined, that the present usage among the Prelatists is according to the New Testament practice ; whereas, indeed, Epis- copal confirmation is a thing unheard-of in the Scrip- ture, and so is a baptizing Deacon. Nor can I look upon baptism, administered by an Episcopal Deacon, any otherwise than as if it had been administered by a Webster or cobbler Ruling Elder or Deacon among the Presbyterians. I am sure there is not the least countenance for it in the Scripture. I am sure the very design of the Deacon's office declares that bap- tizing is no part of it. I am sure, likewise, the Pres- byterian Deacon is the only Deacon by Scripture warrant, wlien the word is taken as signifying an of- ficer inferior to a Presbyter.
2. He objects, * that the ancient Deacons did
* constitute one of the ordinary and perpetual or-
* ders of ecclesiastics, whereas the Presbyterian
* Deacons are only in a few of the larger towns,
* there being none sucli in any other part of the na-
* tion.' It is answered : They are in every congre- gation where they can be had ; and, to my cer- tain knowledge, in the lesser as well as larger towns ; yea, in many country congregations. And every minister is posed upon it by the Presbytery twice a- year, whether his session be constituted with deacons
PnEGBYTEIlIAN GCYZriN-MENT. 213
as 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 believe * 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, wotdd 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 stuff. So much for the Presby- terian Deacons.
The 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, nor 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 OP THE
first obtain. Consequently Mr Rhintl, in separat- ing from it, (the same is to be said of all others in his case,) is become a schismatic. Consequently, Episcopal ordination is so far from being necessary, that it is without, and therefore contrary to Divine institution.
And now to conclude. I cannot but look upon it as one of the nicest turns I ever heard was given to a cause, that our Scotch Episcopalians, who, the other day, while they were in possession, were glad to find a few colours, and watery ones they were, God wot, to prove Episcopacy lawful ; and would have been heartily well content, if people would have acquiesced in it as tolerable ; that they, I say, should, now when they had lost all, set up for 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 ridicula et nimisjocosa.
It is much such another trick as the church of Rome serves the Protestants : When she finds her religion ahnost one continued scab of errors and cor- ruptions, she puts on a brazen impudence, and will needs have them to dispute her infallibility. I must then advise our Episcopal writers to be so modest, as not to grasp at all ; but to content themselves, as their fathers did before them, with essays to prove the lawfulness of Episcopacy, without insisting on the necessity of it. And, as for others, besides the clergy, who are become disciples to this new hypo- thesis, I cannot but seriously exhort them to con- sider the horrid un charitableness, and bloody cruel- ty of it, no where to be paralleled, except amongst the most bigotted Papists. I crave leave, then, to address you in a few words.
I hope, gentlemen, you know that there are other churches in the world, besides the Presby- terians in Scotland, which neither believe the neces- sity of Bishops, nor maintain union with them : There are our brethren dissenters in England and
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 215
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 iheir 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, of 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 Pra^positi, over which is the cccle-
• Irenic. p. 411.
21,
r.EFENCr OF TITE
* siastical consistory. — And so they liave their Prae-
* positors in Werteravv, Hessen and Aniialt. And in
* Transylvania, Polonia and Bohemia, they have ' their Seniores. All 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 in- different quarters against their landing.
Yet further, even in Denmark, Norway and Swe- den, though there are a few that have the name of Bishops, yet they are vevy far from being looked on as the centre of union, or mystical Fligh Priests, or th?^ visible representatives of God and Christ, by whom, alone, people can have union with the Divine persons, v^'hich is your scheme. No, they have no such whimsies amo'ig them ; on the contrary, writers speak most diminutively of tiieir 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- ' perior 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. There are also four
* in Norway. These have no temporalities, keep no
* ecclesiastical courts, have no cathedrals with Pre-
* bends. Canons, Deacons, Sub-Deacons, &c. but
* are only primi 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. ' The Archbish-
* ops and Bishops of this kingdom,' saith the fore- cited author of the present state of Europe, p, 147,
* Vide Chytraeura Saxon, p. 431,
niESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 217
* retain little more than the name, and a bare pri- ' mary sort of superiority over other superintendents,
* the estabiishinj^ of" the Lutiieran religion having de-
* prived them of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which
* they exercised before the reformation.' Thus he. And to the same purpose, Stillingfleet, * concerning both these kingdoms. ' In Sweden,' saith he, ' there
* is one Archbishop and seven Bishops, and so in
* 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, or necessity of thern, 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.
1 foresee what reply you will make to all this, viz. that the uncharitableiiess 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
* Irenic. ubi supra
218 DEFENCE OF THE
SO many, that Is what you cannot Iielp, — 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, 1 apprehend to be your case ; for, pray, whence all this height ; — on what is all this as- suming in your own case founded ? Mr llhind, 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
2
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 219
that your prelacy is not to be found there, and tliat 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 business of ordina- tion which you so much insist on, he not only sup- poses* that Presbyters migiit chuse their Bishop, — might use all the 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 ' in the making of Bishops.' Now, if the Presbyters have power of ordaining Bishops, is it not strange that they should want the power of ordaining 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 of ar- guing, viz. — That, as though a Prince is inaugurated by his 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, 2^/3/, That every Bishop is a monarch in his own diocese, for which there is just as much to be said as there is for the French King's being universal monarch of the world, or the Pope of the Catho- lic Church. Such things ought to be proved, not presumed ; so much the rather, that in fact, we find the Presbyters of the Church of England, even the High-Church Presbyters,have disowned that princi])le. 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.
220 DEFENCE OF THE
selves in opposition to tiieir superiors : and would needs have their metropoHtan and bishops to be ac- countable 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 Dodwel- lian scheme at once, and loudly proclaimed to the world that they did not believe their bishops to be absolute 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 constructions 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 in the upper house go into it .? No. Notwithstand- ing 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 England 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 find 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 it is certain, that, at the reformation, prelacy was set up in England on a far different footing from that of divine right. For in King Henry the VllL's reign, anno 1539, ' The bishops,' saith Dr Burnet,* ' took
* Hist. Reform. Abridg. Vol. I. p. 228.
PRESBYTEllIAN GOVERNMENT. ^21
* out commissions from the king, by which t-iey ac- « knovvledged that all jurisdiction, civil anl eccle-
* siastical, flowed from the king, and that th >y ex-
* ercised it only at the king's courtesy, an J t'lat as
* they had it of his bounty, so they would be ready
* to deliver it up at his pleasure ; and therefore tiie
* king did empower them, in liis 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 the matter mended by King Edward VL,
* 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 bisliopricks 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
* cut 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 ministers only.
Upon this footing w^as 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 appear 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 I hope it will be no hard matter to deal with you. It is true, your late
• Ubi supra, Vol. II. p. 4-. f Hist. Edw. VI. p. 51.
222 DEFENCE OF THE
writers will needs persuadp 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 th« office and cha-
* Irenic. p. 276.
PRESBYTERIAN GOVERNMENT. 223
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 Presbyterian 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 SFXOND REASON FOR SEPARAT- ING FROM THE PRESBYTERIAN PARTY, VIZ. THAT THEIR ARTICLES OF FAITH ARE FUNDAMENTALLY FALSI': 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 tliese doctrines ; and, se- condly, prove that they arc the doctrines of the whole Christian church.
224 DEFENCE OF THE
Sect. III.
WJierein Mr Rhind's Objections against tJie'Presbyterian Arti- cles of Faith, are cofisidered,
OF THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL.
In thej^r.9^ place, Mr Rhine! 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 whatsoevercomes to pass.' One would think the truth of such a doctrine was beyond debate. For, doth not the infinite perfection of the divine nature, and the dependence of the creature upon God, in its actions as well as being, argue sucli 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 earthjOrlaid 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.
Immortnli cevo snmma cum pace fruntur Semota a noslris Rebus icjunctague longe.
Or doth he think him such a one as himself, to take his 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 pas3
* 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 blas-
* phemous, and destroys the essential distinction be-
I-KESBYTERIAN FAITH.
225
« twixtgood and evil, ail 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 tlie blame upon God.' This is the full sum 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 the 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 contingenc}'' of se-
* cond causes taken away but rather established.' It 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 a sense, as to admit of these consequen- ces.
II. Cannot Mr Rhind conceive, that it is very possible 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- rule 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. I am very sure that Shimei sinned grievously in curs- ing David, and yet I am as sure that the Lord said unto him. Curse David.t I am sure it was with wick- ed hands tliat Herod, Pontius Pilate and the people of the Jews took and crucified and slew the Son of God.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 what God's hand and counsel determined before to be done.§ Are the expressions in the Presby-
* Chap. iii. Sect. 1. f 2 Sara. xvi. 10. % Acts, ii. 23. § Acts, iv. 37. 28.
P
226 DEFENci: or the
terian Catechism harder than these of the Scripture ? And must not Presbyterians teach as the Scriptures do, because Mr llhind will needs harangue a little against them ?
HI. How does the decree of God excuse the sin- ner ? Does not Mr llhind know, that it is not the decree, but the precept, tiiatis 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 should be betrayed, and betrayed by Judas too. ' The ' son of man goethas it was determined;' tyet this de- cree 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 llhind affirms, p. 130, * that it is nonsensical and blas- ' phemous to suppose that God's secret and reveal-
* ed win arenotone, he contradicts express Scripture,
* and thereby makes him-^elf 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 very
* Deut. xxix, 29. f Luke, xxii. U2.
PIIESBYTEHIAX FAITH. 227
considerable liiiToience, that generally the objec- tions against the Presbyterian doctrine arise from pretended reason, whereas the objections against the Arminian 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, an- swer all the difficulties and objections that may be brouf^ht aii^ainst 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 decree^ 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 })atiencer, or keep my- self from revenge, if I do not believe that, thongli God is absolutely free of their sin, yet he uses theai 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
P 2
228 DEFENCE OF THE
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 unto
* good.' Gen. 1. 20. — It was upon this that David quieted his spirit, * and was dumb, not opening his ' mouth, because the Lord had done it.' Psalm xxxix. 9: And what God does in lime without sin, mioht he not trom 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 1 not drink it ?' John xviii. II. 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, * * wounds,
* 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
* counsel aiad 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 ordaine'd 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 parum est, debuit fieri. Decernuntur ista, non accidunt, Senec. Ep» 96.
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 229
* ture, and is perniciously influential upon Christian « life,' p. 122 — 135. It is against my will that I engage in this mysterious controversy, in which every man ouglit 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 arid 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 Plam- 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 Khind 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.'
II. 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
DEFEXCE OF THE
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 field again), the Apostle Paul both foresaw it and silenced it, Kom. 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- dom 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 communicate the knowledge of himself to them,
PUESBYTEEIAX FAITH.
231
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, and 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 judgments ' 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. Firsts Not against his holiness. He has given men holy laws, lie 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 f first given unto him, and it shall be recompensed t* 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, upon which liis justice can no more be quarrelled, than for his giving the means of grace to Christians, which he has denied to Pagans. Plainly, be created our first parents perfect and upright, he gave them a power to stand, he did not force them to fall ; yet he permitted them to do so through the freedom of then- own will, to which they were left. By their 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. ^\\ when God found all mankind in this condition, and from all eternity foresaw that, by his permission, ti^ey would throw themselves into itj where is the injus*
* Set Bp. Burnet on the xxxlx. Art. p. 154.
232 DEFENCE OF THE
lice in chasing some of them as vessels of mercy ; and passing by others, leaving them to inherit the choice which their first parents or themselves, or both, had made for them, and then reprobating them to damnation for their sins ? Where 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 objection 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. Tliirdlijy Not against his sincerity. For, why may not God require obedience from the eleci, when his very requiring it is one of the means by which he de- termines them to it. AVhy 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 Uhind does, p. 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 said Presbyterian doctrine is no way contrary to the design of revelation, nor to any
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 233
one testimony of Scripture. 1st, It is no way contrary to the design of revelation : And Mr Rhind's medium, for proving that it is, discovers either a most vicious mind, or a most prodigious igno- rance of the controversy. * According to this doc-
* trine,' saith he, p. 130, •• 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- poseth God to admit to heaven, and dispatch to hell, without respect either to faith and obedience on the one hand, or infidelity and impenitence on 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. ' 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 Tbess. ii, 13. f Rom. ix. 19. Psal. xxxlli. 11.
234 DEFENCE OF THE
is a thing inconsistent with the pprfection of his na- ture. The other Scripture is Mark xvi. 16. * He ' that beheveth and is baptised shall be saved, but
* he that beheveth not shall 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 betw^ixt 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 these two scriptures he adds, p. 131, an argument, which is this : ' All to whom the gospel is preached areoblig-
* 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 lor all to ' whom the gospel is revealed ; and if so, then the
* doctiine, winch 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 as 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 v.ilhout warrant and evidence. The foundation, then, of his argu- ment being false, the whole frame of it must needs fall to the ground.
V. I add, that this doctrine has no pernicious in- fluence on the Christian life, when it is improved as it ought to be. Mr llhind expressly asserts, p. 132, that it has, as running j)e()ple into the most sinful security, or into the height of despair, be- yond the capacity of a Calvinist cauist to give
TRESBYTERIAN FAITH. £35
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 Cluist, to have conti-
* nually before their eyes the sentence of God*s Pre-
* destination, is a most dangerous downfall, where-
* by the devil doth thrust them eitiier into despe-
* ration, or into wretchlessness of most unclean
* 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 tlieir love towards « God.' Thus far the Church of England. Be- sides, it is plain, from the nature of the thing, that the said doctrine teaclies one to think meanly of himself, and to ascribe the honour of all to God, which lays in him a deep foundation for humility ; 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 con- 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 wiiat 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 man
• Bp, Burnet, ubi supia, p. 1 66.
236 DEFENCE OF THE
believe both these ; I mean, both the Scriptures and Mr 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 GRACE.
In the third place, the next Presbyterian doc-. trine which Mr Rhind attacks, is that concerning the efficacy 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 eifectually 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 offisred to my under- standing ? Is it not very possible for 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 theSpirit of God do act thus, considering how deeply
* Confess, of Faith, Chap. x. Sect. 1.
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 237
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.
First, 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 can ' that, in propriety of speech, be called my act,
* which was never elicited by me ?' Very strong ! 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 ! Was this to argue ?
SecorulJij, ' It is,' saith he, p. 136, * destructive
* of Christian life, in that it excuses the greatest
* villaiiies under pretence of exalting the free grace
* of God, and discourages all tlie 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. Air Rhind has acted the debauchee, fur- nishing him with arguments, formed, as he imagines, upon the Presbyterian hypothesis. 1 shall crave leave
238 DSFEXCE OF THE
to act the Calvinist 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 Calvinist 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.
Cah. 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 strength 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.
Calv. 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 ; yet
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 259
Iiave not only the colour, but matter too, of virtue ; and make one that he is not far from the kingdom of God ; were not this better, I say, than that you 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 vvithout 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 sup})ose 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 its 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
240 DEFENCE OF THE
ruins of lust in the old adulterer; his weak limbs, and 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 that, 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.
Del). But I am uncertain whether I be one of the elect or reprobate. Ibid.
Calv. No wonder truly, seeing you still continue in your debaucheries : for, the sanctification of the spirit, and the 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 them.
Deb. But my 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 be none of the elect, I am not to expect it ; there- fore, 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 the pleasures of sin, which I may so freely enjoy ? Ibid.
Calv. Pray, Sir, does either reason or Scripture dictate such a conduct to you ? Or are these ration- al inferences from the doctrines of election and grace which you have been taught ? Is it not necessary in all sciences to begin at what is most easy and ob- vious, and thence to come to the knowledge and
2
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 241
certainty of what is more difficult ? Are you not sen- sible that (besides all the other flaws in your reason- ing, such as, the uselessness of an abstinence from sin, which I have already discoursed), you begin at the wrong end ? Whether you are of the elect or not is a secret with God ; not otherwise to be dis- covered by you, but by the fruit of it, I mean hoH- nessin heart and life. This God has enjoined in his revealed will ; and, therefore, it is your duty to study and endeavour it, without fear of any latent decree lying against you ; and if you attain to it, you may then most certainly infer trom it both your election and salvation. But you will needs invert God's order : you must needs first know his secret will, before you apply yourself to obey his revealed will ; whereas, he has enjoined you to obey his re- vealed will, and thence to gather his secret will con- cerning yourself. For shame, Sir, make better use of your reason. Apply yourself to your duty which you are sure you ought to do; and do not expect to be saved in the neglect of it upon the account of your election — when God has e::pressly said that he has chosen us that we should be holy. Neither be discouraged from it with the apprehension of your reprobation ; seeing you own yourself to be uncer- tain of it : for who would baulk certain duty for un- certain danger ? No rational man would reason so weakly about his temporal affairs.
Deb. But, Sir, whether I be of the elect or repro- bate, there is no doing of my duty, should I never so much endeavour it, without grace ; and, therefore, whether I will or not, I must continue as I am until it shall please God to determine me by his irresist- ible power. Ibid.
Calv. How, Sir ! May not ye do more than ye do ? Have not I shewn you how far you may go upon strength of nature or common grace ? What neces- sity then are you under to continue as you are ? Be- sides, if together with other means, you would pray to God for effectual grace, you should certainly ob- tain it J if you do not, you arc inexcusable.
Q
242 DEFENCE OF THE
Deh. Oh, Sir, what an idle exhortation is that? For, tell me, I beseech you, is it not the prayer of faith which only prevaileth with God ? Ibid,
Calv. Right. It is so.
Deb. And is not faith the effect of his irresistible grace ? Ibid.
Calv. True. Of his insuperable grace it is : For, as for these terms of resistible and irresistible^ they were first contrived or occasioned by the Arminians in this controversy.
Deb. Well, then, if my prayer be acceptable, I have this grace, and it is needless to pray for what I have already. P. 138.
Calv. That is a false inference : For faith, and every other grace, is both preserved and increased by prayer, and other means to be used by us ; though it is indeed needless to pray for the first gift of faith, after I am sure that I have it, which I suppose you are hot.
Deb. Well, then, if my prayer be not acceptable, why should I pray for what I am not to obtain ? Ibid.
Calv. Poor sophistry. God commands you to pray, and that command makes it your duty ; and it is while people are in the way of their duty, that God ordinarily comes with his free grace ; whereas the neglect of it renders them certainly inexcusable. Up, then, and be doing. Break off your course of de- bauchery, which you are under no other necessity of continuing in, but what the habit of it has brought upon you ; and ply prayer with all your might, which you see you are obliged to do by virtue of God's authority j and assure yourself, that God will not condemn you for what you cannot^ but for what you mil not do. Observe these tilings, I say ; and I hope shortly to have a good account of you. And I hear- tily pray God it may be so. Adieu !
Thus I have allowed tlie Debauchee to argue with all the strength Mr Ilhind could furnish him with from the Presbyterian scheme. And upon the same
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 243
Bclieme I have answered him ; and I refer it to the reader, whether, if corruption do not prevail over principle, the Debauchee is not obliged, even by the Presbyterian principles, to mend his former lewd life, and in a hopeful way to make a good Christian (if he will be true to his principles), in spite of all his objections. Therefore, which was the thing to be proved, the Presbyterian doctrine concerning the efficacy of grace, is not destructive of Chris- tian Ijfe. And I have taken this pains, and been so large on this subject, that I might convince all Debauchees on the Presbyterian side, who yet, I hope, are not more numerous than those on the other, that their lewdness is not owing to their prin- ciples, but to their own vicious inclinations. And I pray God may bless what I have advanced for the re- claiming them.
OF THE DOCTRINE OF PERSEVERANCE.
In \hQ fourth place, The last Presbyterian doc- trine which Mr Rhind impugns, is that of perse- verance— that the saints cannot fall away totally, nor finally, from the estate of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and will be eternally saved.
Now, too sad experience teaches, that even the saints may, through the temptations of Satan, and the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their pre- servation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time con- tinue therein ; whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and tlieir consciences wound- ed ; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. All this the Presbyte- rians acknowledge. * But that they should totally and finally fall away, the immutability of the de- cree of election flowing from the free and unchango*
* Confess, of Faith, Chap. xvii. Sect. 5. (l2
244 DEFUNCE OF THE
able love of God the flither ; the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them j and the nature of the covenant of grace, will not suf- fer us to believe.
But Mr Rhind is of a contrary mind, and endea- vours to disprove this doctrine from four arguments. P. 138-148.
I. * The exhortations to perseverance,' saith he,
* the encouragements promised upon it, and the se-
* vere threatenings in case of apostacy, do evident- ^ ly suppose the possibility of a fall.' I deny it ; they are only means appointed by God for their per. severance j and do in their own nature contribute to that end. * That cannot be,' saith Mr Rhind ; ' for that v/ere to contradict the Confession of Faith, ' which says, ' That the perseverance of the saints *' does not depend upon their own free will." Strong- ly argued ! Their perseverance does not depend up- on their own free will ; ergo, exhortations, encou- ragements, and threatenings, cannot contribute to determine and fix their will ! Our daily bread comes from God ; ergo, He cannot require our daily la- bour for gaining it ! God has infallibly promised, that the saints shall persevere ; ergo, he must not use rational means to make them do so ! Mr Rhind, it seems, must be incurably gone in the Logics.
II. He argues from a text of Scripture, viz. Heb. vi. 5, 6. ' It is impossible for those who were ' once enlightened, and have tasted of the heaven- ^ ly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy ' Ghost, and of the powers of the world to come,
* it" they shall fall away, to renew them again unto ' repentance.* ' These,' he alleges, p. 140, * are
* epithets so peculiar to the truly faithful, that he ' challenges us to shew where any of them, much
* less all together, are applied to any other in the ' Scriptures, and yet such might fall away.' A fair challenge. But then, very unhappily, there is not one of these epithets peculiar to the truly faithful. Not one of them but what is found to be applied to
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 245
wicked men or hypocrites ; yea, sometimes, they are all applied together to such. Plainly, the mean- ing of the text is, that such as have been convinced of the truth of the Christian religion, and have made public profession thereof by baptism, both which are included in the term enlightened ; and thereup- on have tasted of the heavenly gift ; that is, have not only been affected with a temporary joy, as peo- ple naturally are upon changes ; but also, which was very frequent in the Apostolic times, have been blessed with the extraordinary charismata^ miracles, tongues, gifts of healing, and the like, expressed in the text, by being made ' partakers of the Holy ' Ghost, and of the powers of the world to come j' if, saith the Apostle, such persons thus privileged shall afterwards apostatize to Paganism, their apos- tacy so hardens them, and lays waste their con- science in so dreadful a manner, that it is impossi- ble for them to return again by repentance ; nor ought they, as some say, be re-admitted to the peace of the Church. This is the sense of the text j but where is there any thing here peculiar to the truly faithful, any thing which notoriously wicked men or hypocrites have not been privileged with ? ' Balaam was enlightened ; he was the man whose
* eyes were open, and who had a vision of the Al- ' mighty.' Numb, xxxiv. 3, 4. Simon Magus * be- ' lieved, and was baptized.' Acts, viii. 13. The stoney-ground hearers * received the word with joy,
* and yet they had no root in themselves, and there-
* fore endured but for a while.' Matth. xiii. 20, 21. And many will say to our Lord at the last day, ' Have
* we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name ' cast out devils ? and in thy name done many won-
* derful works ?' To whom our Lord, notwithstand- ing, will profess, not only that * He does not know
* them,' but, that ' He never knew them.'
\\\. He argues from exam[)lc, viz. the glorious angels who became incorrigible devils ; the inno- cent Adam, who became a child of wrath ; David, who was deliberately guilty of adultery and murder ;
246 DEFENCE OF THE
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 its 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.
First, 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 into the kingdom 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, First, 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. Secondlij, Is every one who is liable to damnation fallen from a^state of grace ? Why, then, the most righteous man on earth falls from a .state of grace every day : For he sinneth every day, and the least sin makes him liable to damnation,unless
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH.
247
Mr Rhind will distinguish sins into venial and mor- tal. He has another proof against David, viz. * That
* having by his adultery become one with a harlot,
* he must at that time have been disjoined from
* Christ according to the Apostle's doctrine, 1. Cor. « vi. 15. ' know ye not that your bodies are the " members of Christ ?" But God is represented in Scripture as bearing the bowels of a father towards his people. Now, a father may have oft times cause to be angry with his son, and not only to frown upon him, but to chasten him. But to renounce the rela- tion of a father, and disinherit him, is the last thing he will do. So in this case, the thing that David had done displeased the Lord ; yet as God had a reserve of kindness for him, as appeared in the issue, so it is plain that David did not totally renounce God : And therefore, in his penitential psalm on that oc- casion, though he prayed indeed that God would re- store unto him the joy of his salvation, which in- timates that he was under the frownings of his coun- tenance, and tokens of his wrath, yet he does notpray that God would restore his Holy Spirit unto him, but that he would not take it from him, which is at once an acknowledgment of his justice, that he might do it ; and yet of his goodness, that he had not done it.
As for Solomon, Mr Rhind aggravates his crimes at a mighty rate, and in the burlesque style ; and in- deed they were very great ; yet it does not become him, nor any man else, to be harder upon him than the Spirit of God in the Scriptures has been. The Scripture indeed says,* * that his heart wasnotper-
* feet with the Lord his God, and that he went not ' fully after the Lord :' But no where does it in- sinuate that ever he fell quite off from him. Mr Rhind urges, ' that the j)lainest philosophy teacheth,
* that two contrary habits cannot lodge at once in ' the same subject •,' and it is very true, that in the most intense degree they cannot : But all the piiilosophy that ever was heard of, teacheth, and ex-
* I Kings, xi. 4-. 6.
248 DEFENCE OF THE
perience convincetli, that in more remiss degrees they may ; and that this was Solomon's case, the forecited soft expressions of the Scripture allow us to believe.
As for Hymeneus and Alexander, the Apostle in- deed says, 1. 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, Isty * 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. 2dii/, Saith he, ' why should they be delivered unto
* Satan for renouncing the faith, if it was not that
* genuine grace, when without tliis (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 ? 3dli/t 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 ? 4thl^, He excepts, upon the 5th and 6th verses, where it is said,
2^^'*'^'--^ ' 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 ^<^7oxn<i-ciVTii, which is rendered srverV' edjrom, properly signifies not to 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
^'"^
PUESBYTEUIAN FAITH. 249
went out of the way to a divinity made up of emp- ty words. Thus even Dr Hammond expounds it. But what relation hath this either to falhng or not falling from grace.
IV. He argues from the nature of the thing. 'If,' saith he, p. 146, ' the truly gracious not only may
* be, but actually are guilty of very heinous sins,
* which cannot be denied ; then either these sins
* are offensive to God or they are not.' I answer they are oft'ensive, and thereby God's displeasure is incurred, and his holy spirit grieved, as we have al- ready heard from the Confession of Faith ; and there- fore Mr Rhind shews what a wretchedly abandoned creature he is, when he represents us as teaching, ' that the most horrid impieties are not such when
* committed by the saints.' But what would he infer from this, * that the sins of the saints are ofFcn-
* sive to God?' * Why,' saith he, ' if he be angry
* with men because of them, they cannot at the ' same time be in his favour ; and if they have lost ' his favour, they have fallen from his grace.' Mon- strous nonsense 1 A father cannot frown upon or correct his son out of love ! He cannot be angry with him unless he disown him ! A prince cannot be displeased with his subjects, but he must instant- ly denounce them rebels ! This is such weak stuif, that I doubt if it can be paralleled.
Thus now, I have gone through the doctrine of the decrees, with its dependencies, impugned by Mr Ilhind ; and though I acknowledge these doctrines are such, as that one cannot have full and adequate notions of them, the largest mind being too narrow to comprehend them, the most penetrating wit to sound all their depths, and the most indefatigable study to conquer all the difficulties that may be charged upon them any other way, than by submit- ting our judgments to the revelation of God ; yet I hope 1 have made it evident, that they are so far from being false, that they are, indeed, the very doc- trines of the Gospel, and most consistent with a Christian life. But the writers of Mr llhind's stamp,
250 DEFENCE OF THE
form to themselves an imaginary scheme of chimeri- cal notions, and having christened them Presbyterian- ism, they fall a disputing against them ; and when they have demohshed the brat of their own brains, they crow over the conquest, 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 -puhlicjbnmdas, 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 begin at that question, — Am I elected ? But at these. Do I believe, — do I repent, — have T 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 J for we do not think, that in the militant church, the words elect, 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 cle congruo or condigno, yet we assure them, upon God's promise, 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 damnation, — and that it is presumption to conclude themselves elected, when they feel not the gospel
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 251
evidences thereof, telling them, in the words of the Apostle, that God hath chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth ; and to bring home the title of Elect to them- selves, otherwise than upon these evidences, we dare not teach them.
I hope there is nothing in all this, but what is both agreeable to the Scripture, and tends to promote holiness. Here, then, I might put an end to this subject ; but there is something further to be done for humbhng the pride of these gentlemen, who are so full of themselves upon Mr Rhind's scheme.
Sect. II.
WJm-ein is proved, that the Presbyterian Article'^ ofFaith^ im- ptigned hy Mr Rhind, are the same 'with those of the voJioU Christian Church.
For making this good I assert,— I. That these doc- trines are the doctrines of the whole foreign churches' that go by the name of reformed^ and that in the judgment of the highest and most learned Episcopa- lians, neither in tiiese, nor, indeed, in anything elsei relating to doctrine, do they maintain any thing that is fundamentally false. II. That these doctrines are the doctrines of those of the Episcopal commu- nion in Scotland. III. That they are the doctrines of the Church of England. IV. To complete all, that the Catholic Church of Christ hath declared these doctrines to be the orthodox faith, and that such as oppose them are worthy of an anathema. If I shall prove all these things, and that from uncontested documents, which I am tolerably sure of doing, J hope it will follow, that these doctrines can be no just ground of separation from the Presbyterians ; and that such as do separate on the account of them, cannot claim communion with any Church in the world. Let us try it then.
I. I say that these doctrines are the doctrines of the v/l.ole foreign churches, which go by the name
^52 DEFENCE OF THE
of Reformed. For proving this, I need not appeal to this or the other particular divine. No : I refer the reader to the Syntagma Cojifessiomim, 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 thing 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 Para^ncsis ad EcVteros, in order to recommend Episco- pacy to the foreign churches, by shewing how much it would conduce to the good 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- ' cinianiziug 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 fundamen- ' 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 Dodvveli. 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 sane video cur, id si fieret, cum omnibus, saltem Re- formatis Ecclesiis, commercium illud haberi non possit. Nee enim dignos eo nomine puto Socinianos, nee qui Socinianis favent Arminianos. In reliquis fundamentalia dogmata nulla video in quibus discrepent, quas quidem pcrspicue tradantur in scripturis: Haec enim sola fundamentalia appellari posse, convenlunt saltem Reformat!. Nee debent alia dogmata obstare quo minus cum Ecclesiis aliis communio servetur, preterquam fundamentalia.— Parwnes. Sect. 5-1-. p. 24'1.
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. 253
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 of Heaven more free of Socinianism, or that favours Socinianizing Arminians less than they. I hope, then, the first point is fairly gained.
II. These doctrines, which Mr Rhind has quar- relled, 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 of Faith formed by them, and that was in the Assembly at Aberdeen, anno 1616, in which Archbishop Spottis- wood presided. Now, hear some articles of it.
* This glorious God, from all eternity, out of his wisdom and i)]finite knowledge, decreed all things that were after to be done.
* This God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to tlie good pleasure of his will, for the praise of the 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 believe, 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 kccped to
256 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, Sdli/, That that allegeance is even impudently false. For, Jirst, 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^ By the xxxvith Canon, 1603, all Bishops are discharged to 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 anhno. Is it possible that articles can be agreeable to the word of God, and yet at the same time fundamentally false and pernicious : Is it possible one can subscribe them as agreeable to the v/ord d'lQ.Q^i ex anhno 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 wliereof he hath the cure, in common prayer time, with declaration of his assent thereunto j 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 ; the Arminians may subscribe them with a ' good conscience, and without anycquivocation.' * But this defence is yet worse than the former, if worse could be. For, Jirst, Can there be a greater
* Sec Burnet's Expos, p. 8.
PHESBYTEJIIAN FAITH. 257
scandal upon a churcli than to represent her articles of religion as a nose-of-vvax, that may be twisted either to this or the quite contrary side ? Is it pos- sible to elicit sound and orthodox doctrir.e, and doctrine fundamentally false and pernicious, out of the same words ? * Doth the same fountain send * forth sweet waters and bitter ?' 2dljj, Dr Sache- verell most justly reckons them * false brethren who expound any of these articles of faith in such a loose and vagrant way as may suit them as well to a Mahometan's as a Christian's creed. S^/y, The Calvinistic sense (as it is commonly called), was the only sense designed in these articles : For, the framers of them were Calvinists themselves ; t and therefore it is never to be thought they would frame them so as to be capable of any other meaning. For, pray what could be the use or effect of an ac- knowledgment of, or subscription to them, on that supposition ? 4th/i/, The Church of England has loudly proclaimed to the worhl, that she owns these articles only in the Calvinistic sense : And till Laud, the British Herostratus, began to set the nations on fire, the Church of England still prosecuted those that impugned that sense of them ; and the noble Lord Falkland, in his forecited speech, tells us, that the contrary doctrines had not been oftener preach- ed than recanted. Plainly, the English Universi- ties, the supreme ecclesiastical governors of the Church, the court, and the delegates to foreign synods, have all declared for these Calvinistic doc- trines, and asserted them to be the doctrines of the Church of England.
First, 1 say the English Universities have done *so. In the year I5v5, one Mr Barret of Caius Col- lege in Cambridge, ))reaclHng in the University Church called St Mary's, adventured on an invec- tive against the doctrines of predestination and perseverance. This sermon, though preached in Latin, and which, therefore, could not much affect
* Sermon on False Bretliren, p. (raihi) 11, 12. f Burnet, ubi supra, p. l.)l, 152. 11
258 DEFEXCE OF THE
the vulgar, yet instantly gave the alarm to the Uni- versity. The heads of the several houses, viz. Dr Some, Dr Duport, Dr Goad, Dr Tindall, Dr Whit- 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 lOth of May in the said year, he appeared in the University Church where he had offended, and made a fair re- cantation. The sermon is still extant in print, and I shall beg leave to give one note of it. * These
* words,' saith he, escaped me, viz. ' As for those
* that are not saved, I 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, proper, and first cause of reprobation. But
* now, being better instructed, I say, that the re-
* probation of the wicked is from everlasting, and
* that that saying of Augustine to Simplician is most
* true, viz. If sin were the cause of reprobation, ' then no man should be elected, because God doth
* foreknow all men to be defiled with it. And (that ' I may speak freely) I am of the same mind ; and
* do believe concerning the doctrine of election and ' reprobation, as the Church of England believeth
* and teacheth in the book of the articles of faith,
* in the article of predestination. And I acknow-
* ledge, that by tlie virtue of the prayer of Ciirist,
* every true believer is so stayed up, that his faith
* 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 j for I have the charity to wish that he may one day have use for it.
SecoiicUi/, The supreme ecclesiastical governors of
MIESCYTERIAN FAITH. 259
the church have declared yet more positively for these doctrines. Upon the 20th of November in the said year 1595, they met at Lambeth, and framed the famous nine Lambeth articles, which are as fol- lows : —
T/ze Nine Assertions or Articles o/' Lambeth, composed and agreed upon at Lambeth House on the '20th day of November, in the year of our Lord 1595, by John Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Bishop of London, Richard elect Bishop of Bangor; and sundry other reverend and learned Divines there present,
1. God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto life ; certain men he hath reprobated unto death.
2. The moving or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not tlie foresight of faith, or of per- severance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated ; but only in the will of the well pleased God.
3. There is a definite and certain number of the predestinate which can neither be augmented nor diminished.
4. Those who are not predestinated to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins.
5. A true, living and justifying faith, and the spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, it falleth not away, it vanishcth not away in the elect either finally or totally.
6. A man truly fiaithful, that is, such a one who is endued with a justifying faith, is certain, with the 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.
8. No man can come unto Christ, unless it shall be given unio him, and unless the father shall draw
r2
260
DEFENCE OF THE
liim: And all nuMi are not drawn by the lather,
that they may come to the son. 9. It is not in the ^vilI or power of every one to be
saved.
Thus far the Lambeth Articles. And this was as plain ixoing to work as one could wish.
Thirdlij, The court was not behind with the church. When afterwards Armlnianisni ])revailed in the United Provinces, and had caused terrible convulsions, Kiuir James VI. was aware of the tianger the British domiuions were in. He was a Prince very well seen in the Roman classics, and no doubt had read the
Jam proximns ardct Ucalegon. —
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 (ith of October lb*17, attended their High JMightinesscs assembled at the Hague, and delivered himself in a most, ela- borate speech, wherein he declares the doctrine in)- 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 within the church, and the faction in the state, were both owing to Arminius. I hope none will deny that Sir Dudley had his great master's alloAvance for saying all this.* And upon the whole, he solicits them to call a synod for determining the controverted points.
Four/Itlj/j The English delegates to foreign sy- nods have declared the same way. Upon the fore- 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. London, [irint- cj by William Jones, 16"IS.
PIlESBYTEltlAN FAITH. 261
very same with the doctrines contained in the West- mnister Confession, maintained hy the Scots Pres- byterians, and now impugned by Mr llhind and tlje men of his kidney.* .Somewhile after the return of 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 thouglit it necessary to defend themselves, and accordingly wrote A joint A tlestation,fwhcreoi take the last words.
* Whatsoever there was assented unto and subscrib-
* ed by us concerning the Five Articles, either in the
* joint synodical judgment, or in our particular col-
* legiate sufferage (styled in the acts of the synod,
* Theologorum Magnce Britannice Sententia, and at ' large extant there), 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 all ' gainsayers, whensoever we shall be thereunto call- ^ ed by lawful authority. Ita alteslamur,
' Georgius C'tcestriensis Episcopus.
* Johannes Sarisburiemis Episcopus.
* Gualterus Balcanquall Dccan. Rqff'.
* Samuel Ward Pub. Profess. Theol. in Acad.
Cant, et Coll. Sid, Prcefect.
* Thomas Goad Sacra; Theol. Doctor,^
I hope all this is more than sufficient to prove that the doctrines impugned by Mr lihind, 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. Think then what a wise part he has acted, in separatin" from the Presbyterians, upon the account of these articles, and joining the Church of England, which has expressly declared such, as affirm tliem to be in any part erroneous, to be excommunicated ipsojac- to.X So much for the Church of England.
* Vide Acta Synod. Dordrac. -j- London, printed by M. llcshcr. X Canon v. l60S.
262 DEFENCE OF THE
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. AVhat method shall I take to prove this ? Shall 1 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 Instructio7WS Historico Tlieo- logiccu, a work, which, to give Bishop Burnet's cha- 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 Ilhind 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. Quest. Whether are the foreseen good things of those who are elected, their will and faith 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- Pelagians affirmed the tirst and denied the latter.
* Preface to his Life of Dr Beddell,
PRESBYTERIAN FAITH. S6S
But the Catholics denied the first and affirmed the latter.
2d Quest. Whether is not the number of the elect, and of men predestinated by God to grace and glory from eternity, definite and determined : so that of them none sliall perish, and besides them none shall be saved ? The Semi-Pelagians denied it. The Ca- tholics affirmed it.
2d Quest. Whether hath God, from eternity, pre- destinated some to evil ? The Semi- Pelagians ut- terly deny that any man was predestinated either to sin or to destruction. The Catholics distinguished, and denied that any man was predestinated to sin, but affirmed that they were predestinated to punish- ment.
4:th Quest. Whether, of the reprobate, did God find the demerits more and worse than of those whom he elected, and therefore reprobated the former and predestinated them to destruction, and elected the latter and predestinated them to life eternal : Or whether he did not find them both equal in their demerits, and worthy of eternal death? The Semi- Pelagians affirmed the first. The Catholics affirmed the latter.
5th Quest. Whether, of this difference or discri- mination, whereby some are predestinated to life eternal, there be any other cause assigned in the Scripture, besides the most free will of God, * who ' hath mercy upon whom he will have mercy, and ' hardeneth whom he will ;' and if it be lawful for us to search for any other cause ? The Semi- Pelagians affirmed it. The Catholics denied it.
6th Quest. Whether does this doctrine of the Ca- tholics attribute either injustice or cruelty to God, or render exhortations, prayers, and the study of piety, useless to men .? The Semi- Pelagians affirm- ed it. The Catholics denied it.
7th Quest. Whether, supposing this doctrine of the Catholics true, is it expedient to preach it open- ly and in earnest to the people ? The Semi-Pela- gians denied it. But the Catholics affirmed that it
264 DEFENCE OF TUE
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, Petrus Diaconus, and the whole Eastern Churches with him ; by Fulgen- tius and the African Bishops ; and by the European Western Churches, judged /lerctical, destructively alien from the Catholic sense, and worthy of an ana- tlienia in case of obstinacy in them.
And now what melancholy reflections must Mr Rhind make, when he considers, that, as by the for- mer part of his Book, he made himself a schisma- tic J 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 ; and when he finds him- selfi by the judgment of the Catholic Church through the world, enrolled amongst the worst of heretics, pronounced worthy of an a7iathema^ and standing tie facto excommunicated by the Church of Eng- land !
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 Zembia, 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 tiiat, and though he publicly impugn all tlie other articles of Christianity, it is nothing.. I grant
PRESBYTEllIAN WORSHIP. 265
Mr llhind might serve for a priest under such a constitution. But how he can be capable to serve as such in Britain, is more than I understand. — But let those who put him into orders look to that. I proceed.
CHAPTER IV.
wherein mr khind*s third reason for separat- ing from the presbyterians, viz. that their Worship is chargeable with fundamental cor- ruptions 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 just. Imperfections we acknowledge, as I think all mankind ought to do, even in our best per- formances. But fundamental corruptions and de- fects we refuse, and want to find them proved against us. In the mean time, to separate from the Scots worship, because of its corruption ; and to go over 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 me.
Mr Rhind essays the proof of his charge in two particulars, viz. Prayers and Sacraments. I shall distinctly consider what he has advanced on each.
^66 DEFENCE OF THE
Sect. I.
Wherein Mr Rhind's ILxceptions agaimt the Presbyterians^ Prayers are Exavmied. From p, 149 to p. 177.
Against these, he excepts two things : — T. That the matter of them is corrupt and defective. II. That the manner of them is so far from being the best, tliat 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 Defec- tivey are Considered. From p. 149 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,' saitli he, p. 149, * 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 workl. Therefore the prayers which are formed agreeably to these doctrines can- not be corrupt. Suppose now I had been preach- ing the doctrine of absolute election : After sermon I break out into a prayer to this purpose :
* O God we thank thee that thou hast predestinat- ed us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to thyself, according to the good pleasure of thy
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 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 of 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 [possible remedy. There was nothing in us to move thee when we lay all together in the general heap of 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 diligence to make our calling and election sure.'
This prayer is exactly formed upon the scheme of the irrespective decrees. But is there any thing in it which any Christian may not join with ? Mr Rhind must needs say there is. In the mean 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 llhind.
Secondij/y He makes an induction of the particu- lars wherein the Presbyterians* prayers are corrupt or defective. Which take as follows in ten parti- culars,
1. * They pray,' saith he, p. 150, 'for the con-
* tinuance of Presbyterian government, and bless
* God for the extirpation of, and beseech him to
* preserve this nation from. Prelacy.* But I have already proved that Presbytery is of divine institu- tion, and that Prelacy is without all Scripture war- rant. Therefore such prayers are so far from being a corruption, that they are a duty, even as much a duty as it is to pray, that every plant v.'hich our Heavenly Father hath not planted maybe rooted up.
2. ' They thank God,' saith he f ibid. J * for con- tinuing the Presbyterian doctrine. But this I have proved to be the doctrine of the gospel, and be-
* Gift of Prayer, CJiap. xxviii. Eighth edition.
268 DEFENCE OF THE
lieved by all tlic Christian Churcli. It were, there- fore, the worst ingratitude not to thank God for the continuance of it.
a. ' They never omit,* saith lie, ("ibid, J ' in their
* public prayers, to ask a blessing upon the word
* that is to be, or has been preached/ It is true we do so, and let him make his worst of it. And when he gets a new revelation to prove the word which we preach to be impiouii and false, we beg he may let us hear of it.
4, ' They bless God,' saith he, (ibid,) * for, and
* entreat him to continue the purity of their wor- ' ship.' It is true we do so, and I hope God shall hear us. But it was too soon for him to assert it to be corrupt, before he had proved it to be so. This is the thing they call begging the question, or, which is worse, proving a tiling by itself. The Presby- terian worship is corrupt, because it is corrupt 1 A very handsome way of discoursing, and, no doubt, very convincing !
5. ' They pray,* saith he, p. 151, ' tliat God ^ may stop the progress of the English liturgy.* Ans. Amen, even so be it. But why could not Mr Rhind join in such a prayer ? Why, he could not do it, without offending God, it being the most excellent of all others. 1 shall not say what it may be in its nature, but sure I am, it has not proved such in its consequences : For, since ever there were litur- gies in the world, never t\ny of them, no, not all of them together, have occasioned so much strife a,nd di- vision, so much war p-nd bloodshed, as that has done. But he gives another reason why he could not join in such a prayer, which is, indeed, a very notable one.
* I could not do it,' saith he, * without treason against
* the Queen, it being that which her Majesty practises,
* and has authorised (tolerated, he should have said,) ' the exercise of, to those of the Episcopal persua-
* sion in Scotland.* Now, 1 ask, l^t. When was the law made which makes it treason to pray against the progress of the English liturgy. I do not think there is any thing treason, but what the law has de-
PRESBYTEHIAN WORSHIP. 2G9
clared to be such. Pray, good Mr Rhind, cite tlie law in your next, that we may be aware of our dan- ger. 2<//z/, May not one, with a very good con- science, both pray against, and practise contrary to what the Prince practises. I suppose the Apostle Paul did both in his time, and I suppose the Church of England did so in the time of the late King James. Mr Hobbes, indeed, was a very learned man, who made the King's conscience the standard for the consciences of all his subjects, just as the great clock rules all the lesser clocks in town ; yet tliat gentle- man's principles have not been always well spoken of: But it seems Mr Rhind intends to revive them. Sdly, Has not her Majesty and the Parlia- ment authorised the Presbyterian government and worship ? And yet do not the Episcopal clergy in their conventicles, every day, both pray and preach against the same, and that without any fear of trea- son ? 4//////, If tlie Scots Episcopal ministers are so chary of treason against the Queen, why do not they so much as pray for her ? Why do they skip over that part of the liturgy which is designed for her ? It is notoriously known that the generality of them do this. 6. ' They pray,* salth he, (ibid.) * for a blessing upon
* their kirk judicatories in the exercise of their dis-
* cipline, which, in many instances, I know to be scan-
* dalously partial, and highly unjust.* Well, let us hear one of these instances ? No, he may perhaps give you that in the next edition, but his business in this was to assert. Mr Rhind pretends to have gone over to the church of England. — What is the character of her ecclesiastical courts ? It would per- haps be thought ilUnature in me to give one, but let us hear the noble historian. Clarendon, who has saved my pains to purpose. * I never yet,* saith he,* * spoke
* with one clergyman, who hath made the experience « of both litigations, that hath not ingenuously con- < fessed, he had rather, in respect of his trouble,
* charge, and satisfaction to his understanding, have
* three suits depending in Westminster- Hall, than
• Vol. I. B. iv. p. 242.
270 DEFENCE OF THE
* one in the Arches, or any ecclesiastical court.' Now, though Mr Rhind could not pray for a blessing on the kirk judicatories, yet may he not, after this, with great freedom pray for one upon the church judi- catories ? I am sure they have much need of pray- ers.
7. 'They do not,' says he, p. 151, 152, ' pray for the
* forgiveness of their enemies j' and he is so high upon this, that he asserts, ' during the 22 years 1 was a- « mong them, 1 do not remember that ever I heard
* one of them, and I have heard some hundreds,'
* press it as a duty, or once offer it a petition to
* Almighty God.' — I wish Mr Rhind had given us some better testimony than his own ; but, seeing he has contented himself with it, I think it may be enough to lay mine in the balance against it ; — but then I shall qualify it, that it may be enquired into. I have very seldom occasion to hear others preach, I am now writing this upon the 11th day of Novem- ber, 1713. The last sermon I heard preached by another, was upon Thursday, the 22d of October last. It was preached by Mr Alexander Muir, Mi- nister of Rutherglen, in the High Church of Glas- gow, in that part of it commonly called the Inner- Kirk, before a numerous audience, upon Rev. iii. 15, 16. I declare I never conferred with him upon the subject of forgiveness of enemies, either before or since ; and that he knows nothing of my intend- ing to publish this passage. He is known to be a zealous Presbyterian, and always was so. And now, after all these circumstances, I declare, and I appeal to the audience for the verity of it, that I heard him, after sermon, pray, in terms, that God would forgive our enemies. This, I hope, is some better than Mr Rhind's negative, and 1 pitched on this instance, only because it was at the last sermon 1 heard ; for though, as I said, I have rarely occa- sion to hear sermon from others, yet, whenever I chance to be assistant at the communion any wiiere, I always hear all persons having malice solemnly de- barred the Lord's table, and solemn prayer put up
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHir S7l
to God for the forgiveness of enemies. But enough of this, we may possibly hear more of it afterwards. 8. ' They pray,' saith he, p. 152,' for the destruc- ' tion of their enemies.' — How, of their personal ene- mies ? If so, it is a very great crime, and we want to have the criminals named, and the vouchers ad- duced. Has he done this ? No, ' But,' saith he, ' I am ' ready to do it.' Was lie in so great haste, that he could not stay to give so much as one instance ? Gentlemen of the Episcopal persuasion, wlio have adopted and cherished this book of Mr Rhind's, I appeal to you, upon your honour, sense, and con- science, whether this was a rational way of writing, and whether it is not scandalous, in the last degree, to approve of it. * It is true,' saith Mr Rhind, * they
* pretend to do this, because those against whom they
* pray, are enemies to truth, and persecutors of its
* professors :' Very well; and if that pretence be true, are they not just in doing so ? No, saith he, ' no pre-
* tence can excuse the impiety of it.' Strange ! Are there not innumerable precedents for it in Scripture ? When God has promised to consume the man of sin with the spirit of his mouth, and to destroy him with the brightness of his coming. 2. Thes. ii. 8. Is it not lawful, nay, is it not a duty, to turn this promise into prayer ? To come yet a little nearer, did Mr Rhind never hear of an address made by the Scots prelates to the late King James, wherein they prayed that God would give him the hearts of his subjects, and the necks of his enemies.* Was not this to pray for the destruction of enemies in good earnest, and can any pretence excuse the impiety of it ?
But Mr Rhind had a secret powerful reason for insisting on this topic, as will appear by his enlarge- ment on it. He alleges that this pretence and prac- tice of the Presbyterians argues the most scandalous partiality, and vilest hypocrisy. Pray how? * Why,* saith he, ' at the same time that they pray for the ' destruction of some, upon pretence, that they per- i secutethe servants of God •, they immediately oft'er * See London Gazette, Numb. 2^98. Aim. 1688,
272 DEFEiVCE OP THE
' up tlieir most fervent addresses for the prosperity
* of others, who are no less persecutors, and neglect
* to offer up one petition for a third sort, who have
* signahzed themselves in behalf of such as suffer for ' righteousness sake.' I doubt not but several readers may want a key to this fine harangue, but I believe I can supply them. By the some, whose destruction the Presbyterians pray for, upon pretence that they persecute the servants of God, he means the French King. By the others, no less persecutors, whose prosperity the Pres- byterians pray for, he means the house of Austria, the Duke of Savoy, and such other Popish confe- derates in the late war. By the third sort, whom the Presbyterians neglect to pray for, notwithstand- ing they have signalised themselves in behalf of such who suffer for righteousness' sake, he means the King of Sweden, who piously gave diversion to the allies in behalf of the French king : and no doubt tlie Presbyterians were very guilty in not praying to God for success to him in so laudable a service. And now, good reader, you have Mr Rhind*s heart, and an account of that which, beyond peradventure, he could, least of all others, digest in the Presbyterian devotions. His book bears date in the preface, 6th December 171^2, that is, about half a year before the peace was concluded. It was then an unpar- donable crime in the Presbyterians to pray for the Queen and her allies, whereas tliey should have pray- ed for the French King and his assistants. 1 believe there is no man that knows any thing of the history of Lewis's reign, but knows too, that Nero, Domi- tian, and Dioclesian were merciful princes in com- parison of him ; and therefore such as would alle- viate his tyranny and persecution, by calling the imputation of it a pretence, ought no otherwise to be looked on than as avuwed eiiemies to the reform- ed interest. And though many in Britain and Ire- land are now bewitched with a spirit of infatuation in favours of that tyrant, yet I hope they may one day have their eyes opened to see both their wick-
2
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 273
etlness and their folly. I pray God it be not too late, and at the expence both of our religion and liberties. But now as to the business of the prayers. How often did her majesty declare from the throne, that the reducing the Frencli power was necessary for securing, not only the Protestant religion, but the liberties of Europe too ? And was it not lawful to pray for success to those who joined with her ma- jesty in so good a work ? And must not every good man in the three nations have been sensible of this ? Because the people of Mr Rhind's kidney are con- tent to barter religion, liberty, and all the most va- luable interests of mankind, for the dear enjoyments of slavery and superstition ; was it needful that the rest of the nation should run mad with them ? It is true the house of Austria, Savoy, &c. persecuted the Protestants in Hungary, Bohemia, Piedmont, and perhaps with less fury than tlie French king did his subjects. But it is as true that the Presbyterians prayed for the persecuted in these places, and against their persecutors, so far as concerned the matter of religion, in the same terms that tliey prayed for the persecuted in France, and against the French king. And it is true also they blessed God for any free- dom was procured to the Protestants, whether by the king of Sweden or any other. But still they prayed against the French king, and so did the Church of England. For did not her majesty order forms of prayer and thanksgiving, to be composed by the bishops at the o))ening and ending of each campaign, for success against him ? Nay, did not the clergy, by direction of the liturgy,* pray every day during the war that God would abate the pride of their enemies, assuage their mahce, and confound their devices? And did ever the Presbyterians pray against the French king or any body else in harsher terms ? And is it not the duty of every good Chris- tian to pray for the destruction of the power of one who, besides l)is bloody enmity to the reformed in-
* See Prayer in llic tinif of War and Tumults.
274 DEFENCE OF THE
terest, is notourly known to be an oppressor of the liberties of mankind ? Add to all this, that to my certain knowledge the Presbyterians usually pray^ that if it be possible, God would give him repen- tance, which I hope is a kinder office done to him, than to justify his unparalleled wickedness, as some' others do.
9. He objects, p. 154, * That they oifer up many
* nonsensical petitions to God, commit many blun- ' ders and tautologies, transgress the most funda-^
* mental rules of grammar, rhetoric and logic/ Well, how does he prove all this ? You are not to ask that ; he can do it, and that must stand for as good as if he had done it. But how can he do it ? Why, ' the expence of a shilling,* saith he, ' will
* procure from some short-hand writer a copy of ' one of their prayers at some of their weekly lec-
* tares in Edinburgh, where one would suppose their
* men of best sense did officiate.' But Vvhy would he hazard his beinp; branded as a malicious slanderer rather than go to the expence of a shilling ? How- ever niggardly he is of his purse, it seems he is abun-^ dantly prodigal of his fame. Besides, when he has published one such prayer, I hope no man in his wits would sustain that as a just exception against the whole communion. There are no doubt weak men among the Presbyterians. But does not the same objection lie against every other society, though a- gainst none so much, that I can hear oij through the broad world, as against the English inferior clergy ?
* The much greater part of those (as the Bishop of ' Sarum told us last year about this same time),* ' who come to be ordained are ignorant, to a degree
* not to bo apprehended by those who are not oblig-
* ed to know it. The easiest part of knowledge is ' that to which they are the greatest strangers ; I
* mean the plainest parts of the Scriptures,which they
* say, in excuse of their ignorance, that their tutors
* iii the Universities never mention the reading of
* Preface to the Fourth Edition of his Pastoral Care.
rUESBYTERIAN WOIISIIIP.
275
to them, so tliat they can give no account, or at least a very imperfect one, of the contents even of the gospels. Those who have read some few- books, yet never seem to have read the Scriptures. Many cannot give a tolerable account even of the Catechism itself, how short and plain soever. They cry and think it a sad disgrace to be denied orders, though the ignorance of some is such, that in a well regulated slate of things, they would ap- pear not knowing enough to be admitted to the Holy Sacrament. This does often tear my heart. The case is not much better in many, who, having got into orders, come for institution, and cannot make it appear that they have read the Scriptures, or any one good book, since they were ordained, so that the small measure of knowledge upon which they got into holy orders not being improved, is in a way to be quite lost.' Thus far Bishop Burnet. I hope this is some better testimony than a copy of ia prayer, not yet delivered, from some short-hand writer.
After all this, to make Mr Rhind easy, I shall in- genuously confess hov/ far his charge may be true a- gainst the Presbyterian Ministers. Neither these of them at Edinburgh, nor any of tiiem elsewhere, are fond of that which Tillotson calls Rumbling Rhe- toric, alias Bombast : Nor are they careful to make their sentences runjike blank verse, or fall in- to a musical cadence^ as if they were just come from reading an English tragedy. They do not affect the English accent without the English phrase : Nor do they aspire to have their language soaring in the clouds, and their thoughts meanwhile creeping on the flat. No, they think it sutiicient to deliver them* selves in ])laiu Scotch, without flights of fancy or points and turns of wit ; being sensible that such things are both unsuitable to the simplicity of the gospel ; and besides, that they w^ould be thrown away on the greatest part of their audience. For, they do not believe that every one that wears a fine hat or a fashionable head-dress is a deep scholar.
s 2
S78
DEFENCE OF THE
* father,' kc. 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 sai/ ' 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 sai/ 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 vejy 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 Prayer 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 the Lord's Prayer in the original are not the same in both gospels. In Matthew's we read ^<>i «,**'" ^^V-C". In Luke's ^'^» '5,«<'i' TO y.nd' yifA'ie^xK In Matthew's Sipe? «^rv T«e
o^c-iXi^f^XTci 'Yifiat, cii x.dt YtfAeii eitpkuiv ni; o^pUXiTcti; yi^UI. Ill Lukc S T<«j oi^u^Tioti itf/.m, K.ut yup ccvrol upkfAiv Ttuiri oipe-iXotii tiftiv. Jt is
true, our Saviour probably did not sjieak in Greek. But when the Evangelists have varied so in their wording of it, it is plain that they did not under- stand our Saviour as meaning to bind them up to words and syllables. The like variation of phrase.
PRESBYTEKTAN" WOUSIIIP. 279
•which I take notice of for the Engh'sh reader's sake, is observable in our translation. In Matthew's gospel we read, ' thy will be done in earth as it is in Hea- « ven.' In Luke's ' thy will be done, as in Heaven ^ so in earth.' In Matthew's ' give us this day our
* daily bread.' In Luke's ' give us day by day our
* daily bread,' and on the margin, * for the day-* In Matthew's * forgive us our debts, as we forgive
* our debtors.' In Luke's ' forgive us our sins, for
* we also forgive every one that is indebted to us/ And, which is strange enough, the English liturgy varies from both : For thus it has it, * forgive us ' our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass ^ against us ;' and in it generally the doxology ' for ' thine is the kingdom,' &c. is wanting. Now, after all this variety, is it to be thought that we are tied up to the form of words, or that the omission of them can be a fundamental defect ?
In the third place, I ask Mr Rhind and his part}% if they are sure, even supposing it were a form, that the precept for using it was intended for public worship ? I do not now ask if it be lawful there, — that is granted. But that it was not originally in- tended for it, I conceive to be somewhat more than probable. \sty Because in all the public ministra- tions related in the New Testament we never find, it used. 2f//y, Because our Saviour took occasion, from discoursing on secret prayer, to prescribe and give the command for it. And Sdly^ The disciples did not then look upon themselves as ministers, nor ex- pected ever to be employed as officers in the church ; seeing, not only now, but even a long time after this, yea after Christ's resurrection, they still ima- gined that the Jewish polity was to continue, in which those of the family of Levi alone were by di- vine right church officers. Now, if it was not origi- nally intended for public worship, how can the omis- sion of it in public worship be a fundamental de- fect ? especially, when we are sure, that this, which I have given, was the sense which the primitive! church had of this matter. For thus Augustine ex-
280 DEFENCE OF THE
pressly declares *, * that Christ, in the delivery oi'
* these petitions, did not teach his disciples how
* they should speak, or what words they should use
* in prayer ; but to whom they were to pray, and
* what things they were to pray for, when they were ' in the exercise of secret or mental prayer ?'
In the fourth place, I ask how can the Episcopal party account for that sense which they have given of the precept? And how can they justify that hor- rid doctrine which they have founded it on ? In the Jirst place, They make the sense of the precept,
* When ye pray,' say, to be, * when ye have done
* with your own prayers, annex this.' This is such an insipid gloss, and so unheard-of among the an- cients, that I admire they are not ashamed of it. We are sure that the ancients either used it alone, or prefixed it to their prayers when they used it. Thus Tertullian,t after a large commendation of the Lord's Prayer, adds : — * We may add thereun- ' to; for since the Lord, the provider for all hu-
* man necessities, has, in another place, after he ' had delivered this prayer, said, ' Ask, and ye " shall receive ;' and every one has particular cir-
* cumstances to beg for ; therefore, having pre-
* mised the lawful and ordinary prayer, there is
* place for accidental requests.' Thus he. But whe- ther they prefixed it, or annexed it, they had no opi- nion of the fundamental necessity of doing so ; an infallible argum.ent of which is, that we find them
• Augustin. de Magistro, cap. 1. Aug. Non te ergo movet Dominus sumnius Magister, cum orare doceret discipulos, verba quaedam docuit, in quo nihil aliud videtur i'ecisse, quam docuisse quomodo in orando loqui oporteret : Ad. Nihil me omnino istud movet ; non enim verba, sed res ipsas eos verbis docuit, quibus et se ipsi commone tacerent, a quo, quid esset orandum, cum in penetrahbus, ut dictum est, mentis orarent. Aug. recte inteU ligis.
t Posse nos super adjicere. Quoniam tamen Dominus pros- pector Jiumanarum necessitarum seorsim post traditam orandi disciplinam, petite, inquil, et accipietis, et sunt quae petantur, pro circunistantia cuji.isque, proemissa Icgitima et ordinaria ora- tionc quasi lundanicnto, accidentiuui jus est desidcriorum. Jus est superstruendi. — De Orationc, p. 659.
PRESBYTEIUAN WORSHIP. 281
fre(|ueiuly praying wiliiout tlie Lord's Prayer, either at tlic beginning or ending of their prayers. Thus, as Sir Peter King has already noted, * in the heavenly prayer of Polycarpus at the stake, the Loril's Prayer is neither at beginning nor ending. Thus Clemens Alexandrinus concludes his last Book of Paxlagogy, with a prayer, which neither ends nor begins with the Lord's Prayer ; and Origen, t prescrihing 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, 2dli/i 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 unaccei)table. This is plain from Mr llhind'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- ple, 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 others, X both of the Pro-
* Enquiry into the Constitution, &c. of the Primitive Church, Par. ii. p. 28.
t Dc Orationc, Sect. 22. p. 134, 135.
X Malclonat. in Matth. vi. 1). Non his ncccssario verbis, scJ hac aut simili scntcntia— nam non Apostolos orando his ipsis vcr-
282 DEFENCE OF THE
testant 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 most part as duty.
ARTICLE 11.
Wherein Mr R hind's E:vception against the Manner of the Fresbyterians' Prayers is considered' From p. 156 to P' 177.
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 high imper- fection, he, I. Insists upon the huge disadvantages of it. II. Essays by arguments to prove the excel- lency, if not the necessity, of the liturgic way.
I. 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 dis- ' charged the use of all helps, and is desired to de-
* pend only upon the motion of the spirit, p. 157.
* The result of which is, that when one is not bless-* ' ed with the gift of prayer, lie is tempted to neglect
* it altogether J or if he essay it once, and finds that
bis usos fuisse Icgimus, aliis leglmus. Neque voluit Clin'stus, ut fjuotiescunque oraiiius, ista omnia, quss hac oratione continentur, peteremus, sed ut omnia, aut aliqiia, aut nihil certe his contra- riuni peterem. Casaubon. Exercit. 2S5. Christus vero non de predicatione Dei laudum agit, sed ut recte monet Augustinus, de mode concipiendi preces privatas. Jansen. in Luc. 11. Itaque ut disceremus in oratione, non tam de verbis, quam de rebus esse anxii, ac de spiritu orationis, diversis verbis orationem tradidit. Vide Cjarkson on Liturgies.
PRESBYTERIAX WORSHIP. 283
* he cannot perform it to any tolerable purpose, he is ' discouraged from any further attempt ; and so
* must continue in ignorance and irreligion ; the
* obtaining of which among the generality of peo- ' pie/ saith he, ' is in a great measure owing to
* the want of forms. Or if a person grossly ignor-
* ant yet adventure to pray, his performance must
* be crowded with flat impertinencies, substantial
* nonsense and horrid blasphemies, ail which is un- ' avoidable in the extemporary way.' To this pur- pose he, p. 156, 1.57. Is it possible Mr Rhind could be 22 years among the Presbyterians, and not know that what he has laid down for the foundation of all this, is even a transparent falsehood. Was he not sensible that every one, that could open his eyes and read English, was in a capacity to convince him of the grossest calumny and slander? Do the Pres- byterians discharge the use of all helps in prayer, either to ministers or private Christians ? Was not the Directory for the public w-orship of God com- piled on purpose to give them both help and furni- ture ?* Is not every Minister therein exhorted to be careful to fin-nish both his heart and tongue with farther and other materials, as shall be needful upon all occasions ? Hath not the General Assembly given directions,! and suggested materials for private pray- er? Nay, do they not expressly recommend forms of prayer to the rude and weaker ? t What meant he then to say, that they are discharged the use of all helps ; and desired to de})end only upon the motion of the JSpirit ? Did he presume, that his party were given up to believe a lie ? With what confidence could he impute the stupid ignorance, and height of impiety, to the want of forms ? Does he not know, that in England, where there is no want of them, a brutal ignorance })revails among the vulgar, and impieties reign ; yet, I hope, un-
* See Preface to the Directory.
f See tlieni annexed to tlie Confess, of Faitli. Edinburgh, printed by James W'utson, J7<J8, J ibid. Sect. 9.
284 DEFENCE OF THE
known on this side Tweed. Mr llliind lias taken u great deal ol' pains to represent tlic 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 extem-
* 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, dc-
* liver that which we cannot approve of, God does ' not look upon it as our prayer, if our desires do
* Gift of Prayer, Chap. II. p. 10, 11.
TRESBYTERIAN WOUSHIP. Z85
' not say Amen to it.* Thus lie. Antl notliing 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. 1.58. 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 Rhind, 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 j and Bishop Wilkins, who was a great
286 DEFENCE OF THE
philosopher, 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 u'hich a man hath been accustomed, he
* ought to be narrowly watchfid over his own heart,
* for fear of the lip-service and formality, which in
* such cases we are more especially exposed unto.* Thus he. So much for the pretended disadvantages that attend extemporary prayer, which, I think, are pretty real in the liturgic way.
II. Mr Rhind 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, lastly. From the practice of the reformed churches. And then he concludes all with answering the objection. That forms stint the Spirit.
First, He argues for the excellency of the liturgic way 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 presui)poses fore-thought, is incomparably better than the extem- porary 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 merlitation 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 ? Flave they ever taught otherwise than Bishop Wilkins himself has taught in this case,t viz. * That, generally, it is both lavv-
* ful and necessary to prepare ourselves, as for thiaf
* Ubi supra, p. 9. f Ubi supra, p. 11.
niESEYTERIAN WOIISIIIP. 287
* 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 excel- lent author has told us, ogling their sweet-hearts in the next pew ? 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. * W 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,' saitli he, ' will I not be so much the more sure of it, if ' I do this?' Certainly. For, litera scripla mancty and the pocket is oft-times a surer repository than the memory. ' And if I may safely write it,* adds he, * why not 7'ead it too ? I 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.
I ask Mr llhind, where does he find, in the first place, that prayers were read in the primitive Churcii ? Is there the least vestige of it for several hundreds of years after Christ ? Do not Tertullian, Clemens Alexandiinus, Cyprian, Arnobins, Lactan- tius, Dionysius Alexandriniis, all tell us, that the antient Christians in prayer lifted up their eyes to Heaven. * Does not Chrysostom observe from
* See Sir Potrr King, ubi supra, I'art II. Cliap. li . Sect. S, and Claikaou uu Lilurjries, p. H. &<..
288 DEFENCE OF THE
Christ's posture in prayer, expressed Jolin xvii. 1. ' That tliereby we are taught when we pray, to ' Hft 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 witli eyes hft 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 ? "idli/, Is there any more warrant for it from Scrip- ture ? 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- garCy 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 Jiei- ' 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 liti- sey-woolsey kind of stuff. Besides, though a prayer
* Eu^el... tie Vita Coiistanfmi, Uh, IV. Ciiap. 15.
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP.
289
formed before hand, either by myself 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- brnpt 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 Church hasprovided,(he meansthe 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. Por 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 severalparts together; but thema- terials were formed to their hand. The lessons out of the Old and New Testament and Apocrypha, — the Psalms to be read monthly, — thcEpistles andGospels, — the passages of Scripture at the beginning of morn- ing and evening prayer, — the Lord's prayer so of- ten repeated, the Veiiite Ed'ultemus, — the Benedictus, — the Benedicite, — the Jubilate Deo^ — the Cantate Domino, — the Magnijicat^ — the Nunct DemittiSy — the Dcus Miserea/ur, — the Lilamj, — the Ten Corri' mandments, — the Three Creeds, — the Te Deum^ were all of them formed long before the compilers of the
T
290 DEFENCE OF THE
liturgy were born. The collects are generally oiiC of the breviary ; tlie prayers in the standing offices out of the Missal and Ritual. Abstract these parts from the liturgy, and 1 suppose the compiler*s work will appear to be v^ry easy. 2^%, Why did Mr llhind 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 v,?hich was in itself best, but at what the times could best bear, with any colour of reformation ; and therefore, com- posed the liturgy so as was most likely to gain the Papists, 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. 2dli/, What 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 said, p. 175, ' that our prayers are not dictated by the Spirit either as to matter or form.' It is then
* Holinshed's History, Vol. III. p. 1005.
PIIESCYTEUIAX WOllSIIIP. 291
beyond my compreliension to understand wherein they were assisted ; for, to say that tliey 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 1 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 ; — 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 clieck the vanity and ' 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 ])roceed 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 liturgy, knows all this to be true. Is it not
T 2
292 DEFENCE or TirE
strange, then, that Mr Rhine! 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 writefs of the party make extem- porary prayer an invention to put the liturgy out of request after it was formed. JBut 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 blow 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 M( Rhind, that he meant all this of the Scots Liturgy, sent down by King Charles I., anno 16S7. 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 know'n Archbishop Laud was the fa- ther of it, with the consent of some others no whit
3
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 293
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 hre 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 Uteras !
* 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.
Secondlij, Mr Rhind argues for the excellency of the Liturgic way from universal practice. ' It has
* been,' saith he, p. 161, * undeniably tlie 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 Rhind 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 In various stile, for neither various stile
* Paradise Lost, Book V. 1, 144.
294
DEFENCE OF THE
Nor holy rapture wanted they to praise
Their Maker, in fit strains pronounced or sung
Unmeditated, such prompt eloquence
Flovv'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. 2r%, 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. ' Tlien 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 Syris^ 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. 3f//z/, Did Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or any other, down to Moses, use a liturgy, or worship by forms ? No. Tliere is not the least intimation thereof in the Scripture. Here, then, we find 2000 years ; that is, the third part of the vv^orld'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:ilily, 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 niuch less moment. It is hardly to be thought, that
FRESBYTEUIAN WORSHIP. 295
the Scripture, which noticed almost every pin in the tahcrnacle, and every fringe and plait in the priest's vestments, would have omitted the form of words to be used in the daily service, if any such had been prescribed.
As there is no mention of any liturgy among God*s peculiar for so long a time ; so, I believe, it is as plain that there was none used elsewhere. Homer, in his Iliad, is the most ancient, authentic, and ju- dicious witness extant, of the devotions of the Pa- gans, both Greeks and Barbarians, fie 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 the parti- cular prayers of the heroes, nor even the public prayers of the army, such as any form directed, but such as their present circumstances suggested : And Homer knew the rules of decorum better than to have made them pray eMempore, if it had been the then custom to pray by form.
Thirdly^ 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 this day in their public wor- ship, as much, perhaps more, than ever the Jews did. So that, thus far we are for ibrms 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 this, 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 otherwise, they avow to be impious tyranny : But, that forms are in themselves unlawful, they never
296 DEFENCE OF THE
assert. — Besides, it is ridiculous to argue from in* spired forms to imman compooures. ' 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, Ist, 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 not 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. 2dhj, 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. 3dl?/, 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 tlie person or the practice ? ' But,' urges he, ' Christ himself prescribed a form, which is a ' precedent, whereas, for the extemporary way,
* there is neither precept nor warrantable example
* in Scripture.' Is not this strange confidence ? Are there no examples of prayer in the New Tes- tament but the Lord's Prayer ? Is there the least hint that any one of them was made by a form ? Is there the least iiint 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 V\'nit not put up to God by him j nay, indeed he
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP.
297
could not put it up to God — he could not say, For- give us our sins, because he had no sins to be for- 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 prescril)ed forms, as Mr Rhind does, p. 173, and his brethren common- ly do, from the Apostles using frequently the same 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 difter 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.
Fourilily, He argues for the Liturgic way, from the usage of it in the primitive and ancient Church,
* Certain stated forms,' saith he, p. IGG", * 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 re- 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, X 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's Ans. to the I. Dialogue Examined, p. 36, 37.
f Scots Courant, Number 1087.
% Sec Letter to a Friend concerning Mr Calder's Kctiun, p. 15.
298 DEFENCE OF THE
vailing 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 tliey 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 llhind, 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. 167. 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 Tigurmay published by Lavater. The Reformers found it necessary, in the beginning of the Reformation, both upon the ac-
* Sec beloic, p. 9.
rUESlJYTEllIAN Vv^ORSHIP. 299
count of people's ignorance, being newly come out of tlie 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 boiuid 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 Ibrm 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.* S(j much for Mr ilhind'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 dawnino- 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, vrz. 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 catcchismum oportct, statani sa- cramentorum adiiiinistralionern, publicani item precum for- inuiain. Scd non hoc eo pertinct ut istius politici ordinis in Ecclesia occasione, vigor ille nativiis pra^dicationis Kvangelii uUo inodo conscncscat. la illud potius incunibcnduni est tibi, ut idouci ct soaori BucciiuUoicti cou(j[uirautur. — Calv. Ep. ad I'rotcct. Angliic.
300 DEFENCE OF THE
it is one of the peculiar titles of the Holy Ghost to be styled the Spirit of supplication, because of that special influence wliich lie hatli in the bestow- ing of this gift. And as a Spirit of grace and sup- plication he is promised, Zech. xii. 10. to all God'sf people. And Gal. iv. 6. it is given as the charac- ter of all true Christians, that ' God hath sent forth
* the Spirit of his Son into their hearts, crying Abba ' Father.' But Mr Rhind does not find this gift, viz. the Spirit of prayer,enumerated, iCor. xii. among the other extraordinary gifts which were bestowed upon the Church at Pentecost. IS'o wonder, truly. For it is none of the extraordinary gifts, but what every good Christian, without exception, is endued with. Nor did ever any man (before Mr Rhind) that wor- shipped the true God, since the creation of the world, deny, that ever there was any good prayer which was not suggested by the Spirit of God. But why do I speak of the worshippers o£the true God? Even the Pagan idolaters had a better sense of re- ligion than Mr Rhind. Thus Homer, in his ninth Iliad, brings in old Plioenix preaching to Achilles,
* Prayers are the daughters of Almighty Jove.'
Upon which Madame Dacier comments thus : * For « it is God inspires prayers, and teaches men to
* pray.' The Apostle Paul asserts expressly, Rom. viii. 26. * That we knew not what we should pray
* for as we ought :' But ' that the Spirit helpeth our
* infirmities, and maketh intercession for us with
* groans that cannot be uttered.' But if, according to Mr Pthind's doctrine, the Spirit dictates neither matter nor words, neither substance nor manner of prayer, how can he be said to help our infirmities ? Mr Rhind saw how cross this text lay to his doc- trine, but, to avoid the force of it, he puts such a connnent upon it as was never heard of before,— such a connnent as is heretical in the highest de- jr,ec, — nay, such a comment as subverts tlie very ioundation of the gospel. I'lainly, he affirms that men's fervency and sincerity in })rayer is the sole effect of their own endeavours; and that the cflice
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 301
of the Holy Ghost is not to excite to, or assist in prayer, but to intercede for the acceptance of it.
That I may not be thought to aggravate matters, take his own words, p. 170, 171.
* And if the Spirit helpeth our infirmities, it is
* supposed that we do sometliing ourselves, and that
* whatever is wanting to make our prayers accept-
* able, that, and that only, the Spirit supplies.
* Now, that the Spirit does not furnish the matter
* or words of our prayers, appears from the very
* text, where we are told, that the assistance which
* it affords, is its intercession, which is not made in
* words, but with groanings that cannot be uttered. ' Thus you see this text is so flir from serving their
* purpose, that it rather proves against them, see-
* ing it plainly supposetli that men use their endea- ' vours. Now, what endeavours can they use, but
* to prepare the matter, to reduce it to a form, and
* to carry along with them as much fervency and ' sincerity as they can, ctiid then the Holij Ghost
* does in an ineffable manner intercede for the ac-
* ceptance of the 'wliole* Thus he.
Here is doctrine for Christians wath a witness. Firsts an absolute denial of all internal operation of the spirit of God in us ; not only in opposition to the Scripture, which it appears to have no regard to, but in direct contradiction to the English litur- gy, which teaches * that all holy desires proceed from God. Secondly, An inverting the office of the persons in the sacred Trinity, by making the Holy Ghost our Mediator for acceptance instead of Christ. Hear Dr Whitby on the fore-cited text. * The
* spirit of God,' saith he, * is said to intercede for
* us, not as an advocate or intercessor betwixt God
* and us, that being the office of our great High Priest^
* but as an exciter or director of us in our addresses « to God, to render them for mailer according to
* the will of God, and for manner fervent and ef-
* fectual.' Thus he, in a peremptory contradiction to Mr lihind's doctrine. To Dr Whitby, let ui
* Second Collect, at Evening Prayer.
302 DEFENCE OF THE
join BIsllop Wilkins. t « The spirit of God,' saith lie, ' must be our guide and assistance in this duty.
* He must lielp our iniirmities and make interces-
* sion for us. Not that the Holy Gbiost is our Medi- ' ator of intercession, tliat is properly tlie office of
* the Son, who is therefore stiled our advocate. —
* There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man, tlie
* Man Christ Jesus. It is he only that in respect of
* his merits and sufferings does make intercession ' for us, Rom. viii. 34. Eut now, because the spi-
* ritof God does excite our hearts to pray, and in-
* fii^e in us holy desires, stirring us up to, and in-
* structing us in our duty, t'nerefore he is said to in- ^ tercede for us.' Thus he, and thus all the Chris- tian world ever taught.
And thus now I have laid out this particular with all fairness. Mr Rhind's doctrine is evidently he- retical and subversive of the gospel : and I lay it before the Episcopal clergy for their censure. If they shall in a pubhc manner disown it, it is not to be imputed to them, nor any more noise to be made about it. But if not, they must excuse us, if we look upon them as abettors of the avowed enemies of Christianity.
Whatever else Mr Rliind has advanced on this head is like the talk of a man troubled with a deli- rium. Such as, Jir.st, * that means are useless if our ' prayers be immediately inspired, and that they ' ought to be registrated among the infillible dic-
* tates of the spirit which the modern prophets pre-
* tended to.' p. 17 J, 172. For the Presbyterians nei- ther do, nor ever did pretend to an unerring dicta- ment of the spirit in their prayers, but to such gra- cious infusions, excitations and directions, in the use of means, both as to the matter and manner of our prayers, as we have just now heard Dr Whitby and Bishop Wilkins pleading for. And as to the modern prophets, he ought, out of respect to his own party, to have been silent about them, seeing all their proselytes were gained from the Episcopal
■f Ul)i snpra, p. 4, 5.
rnESBYTElUAN WOUSIIIl'. 303
side, according to tlie best information I can liave. Of the same nature is what he says, 2dlij, ' That the * Presbyterians can have no title to the influences of « the Spirit, because they have departed from the ' communion of the church.' p. 172. I hope indeed there is no Presbyterian within the communion of Mr Rhind's church. For to deny the assistance of the Spirit as to the matter and manner of our prayers, making them the fruit of our own endeavours allen- arly ; and to assign to the Spirit the office (which is Christ's peculiar) of pleading with God for his ac- ceptance of our prayers ; is, I affirm, such execrable doctrine, as is inconsistent with the possibility of salvation, if continued in. To as good purpose is what he adds, Sdly, * That the Presbyterians praise ' God by certain forms, without regard to the stint- ' ing of the Spirit, vv|ien it is undeniable that the ' Spirit can as freely dictate praises as prayers, and * metre as well as prose.' p. 173. Right, he can do so. And has he not dictated the matter of the psalms ? And does he not assist as to the manner, I mean, with fervency and sincerity in singing them ? And is not every minister in this congregation left at freedom to pitch upon such a portion of them, for the spiritual solace of his people, as the spirit of God, in the use of rational consideration, suggests to him to be most suitable to their case ? Here is all the freedom was ever pleaded for by the Presby- terians. Whereas by the liturgy, ministers are oblig- ed to such particular psalms, according to the day of the month appointed by the book, how unsuitable soever tliey may be to the present case of the con- gregation. 4//(!/7/, He would know of his adversaries what they understand by stinting the Spirit, p. 173. He had reason indeed to ask them, because it is very plain he himiself knew not. I can impute it to nothing but vapours, that he imagines they con- stitute the Spirit of prayer in a freedom of changing the phrases, and transposing the petitions. But I shall explain the matter to him by some few instan- ces which may make it easily understood. A mini-
302 DEFENCE OF THE
join Bisliop Wllkins. 1 ' The spirit of God,' salth he, ' must be our guide and assistiinee in this duty-
* He must help our infirmities and make interces-
* sion for us. Not that the Holy Ghost is our Medi- ' ator of intercession, that is properly tlie office of
* the Son, who is therefore stiled our advocate. —
* Tliere is one Mediator betwixt God and Man, the
* Man Christ Jesus. It is he only that in respect of
* his merits and sufferings does make intercession ' for us, Rom. viii. 34. But now, because the spi-
* ritof God does excite our hearts to pray, and in-
* fu^e in us holy desires, stirring us up to, and in-
* structing us in our duty, therefore he is said to in-
* tercede lor us.' Thus he, and thus all the Chris- tian world ever taught.
And thus now I have laid out this particular with all fairness. Mr Rhind's doctrine is evidently he- retical and subversive of the gospel : and I lay it before the Episcopal clergy for their censure. If they shall in a public manner disown it, it is not to be imputed to them, nor any more noise to be made about it. But if not, they must excuse us, if we look upon them as abettors of the avowed enemies of Christianity.
Whatever else Mr Rhind has advanced on this head is like the talk of a man troubled with a deli- rium. Such as, Jirsl, * that means are useless if our ' prayers be immediately inspired, and that they ' ought to be registrated among the infallible dic-
* tates of the spirit which the modern prophets pre-
* tended to.* p. 17J, 172. For the Presbyterians nei- ther do, nor ever did pretend to an unerring dicta- ment of the spirit in their prayers, but to such gra- cious infusions, excitations and directions, in the use of means, both as to the matter and manner of our prayers, as we have just now heard Dr Whitby and Bishop Wilkins pleading for. And as to the modern prophets, he ought, out of respect to his own party, to have been silent about them, seeing all their proselytes were gained from the Episcopal
-]- Uhi supra, p. 4, 5.
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 303
side, according to tlie best information I can have. Of the same nature is what he says, 'Zdlij, ' That the * Presbyterians can liave no title to the influences of ' the Spirit, because they have departed from the ' communion of tlie church.' p. 172. I hope indeed there is no Presbyterian witliin the communion of Mr Rhind's cluuxh. For to deny the assistance of the Spirit as to the matter and manner of our prayers, making them the fruit of our own endeavours allen- arly ; and to assign to the Spirit the office (which is Christ's pecuHar) of pleading with God for his ac- ceptance of our prayers ; is, I affirm, such execrable doctrine, as is inconsistent with the possibility of salvation, if continued in. To as good purpose is wliat he adds, Sdly, * That the Presbyterians praise ' God by certain forms, without regard to the stint- ' ing of the Spirit, wjien it is undeniable that the ' Spirit can as freely dictate praises as prayers, and * metre as well as prose.' p. 173. Right, he can do so. And has he not dictated the matter of the psalms? And does he not assist as to the manner, I mean, with fervency and sincerity in singing them ? And is not every minister in this congregation left at freedom to pitch upon such a portion of them, for the spiritual solace of his people, as the spirit of God, in the use of rational consideration, suggests to him to be most suitable to their case ? Here is all the freedom Avas ever pleaded for by the Presby- terians. Whereas by the liturgy, ministers are oblig- ed to such particular psalms, according to the day of the month appointed by the book, how unsuitable soever they may be to the present case of the con- gregation. 4/A/y, He would know of his adversaries what they understand by stinting the Spirit, p. 173. He had reason indeed to ask them, because it is very plain he himiself knew not. I can impute it to nothing but vapours, that he imagines they con- stitute the Spirit of prayer in a freedom of changing the phrases, and transposing the petitions. IJut I shall explain the matter to him by some few instan- ces which may make it easily luidcrstood. A mini-
304 tSETE^CK OF THE
ster, [ shall suppose, is to meet with his congregation for worshipping God. Before he comes forth to them, he has taken pains to get his soul impressed with a deep sense of the particular sins and wants of the people committed to his charge. When he is come to church, according to the Presbyterian way, he is at freedom in prayer to break out into a par- ticular confession of their sins, with their particular aggravations ; and to make a particular representa- tion of their case before God, and to use such plead- ings with him for them, as are warranted or prece- dented in Scripture in the like case. This is surely the most reasonable service, most acceptable to God, and most likely to affect and edify both the minister and people. But on the other hand, by the litur- gic way, a minister must not so much as venture on any thing of this, but is obliged to content himself with that dry and general confession which is in the book, and that under all the pains of nonconformi- ty ; which, how heavy they are, many thousands have felt, in the ruin of all their worldly concerns. Is not this a stinting of the spirit with a witness ?
Cant is a term of reproach, which the Episcopa- lians (Mr Rhind too, among the rest, p. 190, lOv), never fail to twit the Presbyterians with. This they improve so mightily upon, that if some young fellow of them, when setting out into the world, have picked up that word any where at a conversa- tion over a bottle, the empty thing concludes him- self stocked, and strait commences both wit and atheist upon it ; and thenceforth pronounces all se- rious piety, especially the Presbyterian prayers, to be cant; because, forsooth, there was one Mr Cant once a Presbyterian minister at Aberdeen. I confess it is not through any defect of duncery, any more than of debauchery, that they talk at this rate. Cant is truly a term borrowed from the begging trade. When the idle feigned fellows are got into, and chime over to every passenger, a rote of words, not which the sense of want suggests; but which they have contrived and conned for their purpose. This is
TRESBYTERlAX WORSHIP. 305
indeed cant, and there is too much cause to impute this to the liturgic worship, wliere they still tone over the self-same thing the self-same way, whatever disposition they find their souls in. But on no ac- count can it he charged on the Presbyterian way, even in sense, much less in justice : For it is their case and their want which is their prompter ; and they think it a ridiculous thing to be obliged to beg by rule. * Yet further, that I may make Mr Rhind understand what the Presbyterians mean by stinting the spirit, I shall suppose the minister has read the morning prayers in the liturgy with his congrega- tion ; and now he intends to preach to them. Is it not reasonable that, ere he begin, he should put up a particular petition for assistance, to himself in speaking, and to the people in hearing ? There is no such petition in the prayers which he has read ; and if he venture upon a prayer of his own ; strait all the highflyers are on his back, and Dr South tells him, t that it is senseless and absurd practice, and that the canons and constitutions of the church are not responsible for it ; and he shall be sure not to escape without being branded for a puritan. The same will his fate be, if he adventure to pray over his sermon after he has preached it. * We
* heartily desire' (said the eleven bishops and other dignitied cler<>:y at the Savoy conference) t ' that
* great care may be taken to suppress those private
* conceptions of prayer before and after sermon.' § Is not this to stint the spirit ? Are general peti- tions enough, as Mr Rhind would persuade us, p. 174, when we are called to be particular? If so,
* Men'' moveat quippe, et Canlet si Naufragus assem Prutulerim? Canlas, cum Jr ad a te in trabe pictum Ex liumero partes. Veruni, 7iec node paratum Plorabit, qui me volet incurvasse quterela.
F£KS. Sat. I. I. 88. •f" Sermon, Vol. IT. on F.ccles. v. 2. \ bee the Conference, j). o?*
§ ijee Second Dialogue on the Liturgy, p. 6, 7.
306 DEFENCE OF THE
then I propose this prayer as sufficient for tlie whole : * Ahnighty and merciful God, we beg tliat ' thou may give us whatever thou knowest to be iie-
* cessary arid convenient for us, through Jesus Christ
* our Lord, Amen.' I will undertake, this prayer is as comprehensive, not only as any, but even as all the prayers of human composure in the liturgy : Yet, who would endure to be restricted to such a. general ? Yet, farther, when people are restricted to the liturgic way, not only necessary petitions are omitted, but they are oft-times forced upon petitions which are either absurd in themselves, or against which their conscience recoils, so they cannot put them up in faith. To give an instance or two, when the Prince of Orange landed in England, 1688, it was very well known the body of the Eng- lish clergy favoured his attempt, yet, for several months after, they not only were obliged in law, but actually did pray for King James, begging, in the words of the liturgy, that God would confound the devices of his enemies. Once more, when Prince George of Denmark, her Majesty^s husband, was dead, the clergy continued as formerly to pray for issue to her Majesty, till that clause of the liturgy was discharged by an order of the Council. This is no secret, for we had it in the public news prints. "Were these petitions either reasonable or decent ? I hope by this time Mr Rhind understands what the Presbyterians mean, when they say, the spirit is stinted by forms. SiJilij, He objects, p. 174, that ^ if the preparing the substance of a prayer does
* stint the spirit, then are they who are obliged to ' follow the Westmiinster Directory, no less guilty
* than they who use the liturgy of the Church of
* England/ It is answered : No man is obliged to follow the Westminster Directory so closely, but that he may leave out some of the petitions men- tioned in it, or insert others as in prudence he shall think meet. Thus itself directs, * We judge this to be
* a convenient order, in the ordinary public prayers, ' yet so, as the minister may defer (as in prudence
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 307
* he shall think meet), some part of these petitions,
* till after his sermon, or offer up to God some ' of the thanksgivings hereafter appointed in his
* prayer before his sermon.' And as to the very words in the Directory, the minister is not at all re- stricted to them, but only to call upon the Lord to this effect. But Mr Rhind has resolved to be throughout chimerical. Lastly^ He objects, p. 176,
* that all public prayers are unavoidable forms to the
* congregation, and, therefore, stint the spirit as
* much as any liturgy in the world.' Senseless stuff! The people meet in the congregation, not to offer up their own separate prayers, but to join with the minister, who is their mouth to God in prayer, as he is God's mouth to them in preaching. There is, then, nothing required of them, in that case, but fervency and sincerity in joining with the petitions that are put up for them ; nor does the spirit operate other- wise, in that case, than to help them to such sinceri- ty and fervency, not at all to suggest to them prayers of their own, distinct from the public prayers.
Thus, now, I have gone through Mr Ilhind's argu- ments, which, thougTi contemptible in the last de- gree, yet are not only the best, but, indeed, the whole of what the party have to offer. They are either ig- norant of, or wilfully mistake the Presbyterian prin- ciples concerning prayer, and then, instead of dis- puting against them, they dispute against their own frantic notions. They still dispute, as we heard Mr Rhind doing, against the infallible inspiration of the spirit in prayer. But such as cannot conceive how one may be assisted by the S])irit either in pray- er, or, indeed, in any holy exercise, without being under his infallible conduct, so as to be kept alto- gether from error of imperfection, such, I say, who cannot conceive this, are beyond arguing with, and should be left to themselves. That every good man is actuated by the spirit of God, is the common belief of the whole Christian world. But if any man should deny this, and allege that it would follow thence, that every good man were perfect and infallible,
u2
308
DEFENCE OF THE
what else should people do but pity and pray for the foolish objeclor? How often does the Church of England herself pray for inspiration ? Thus, in the Collect before the communion, « Cleanse the
* thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of
* Thy holy Spirit.' Thus, in the Collect on the fifth Sunday alter Easter, * Grant to us, thy humble ser-
* vants, that by Thy holy inspiration we may think
* those things that be good.* Thus, in the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church militant,- —
* Beseeching Thee to inspire continually the univer- ' sal church with the spirit of truth.' Does any body think that those prayers import an infallible guidance and assistance ? As little do the Presby- terians mean, that they are under an infallible con- duct, when they say their prayers are inspired. But our Scotch Episcopal Clergy neither know the Scrip- tures, nor, indeed, the English Liturgy, which they are so fond of. Let them tell us in what sense they understand what is said in the preamble to the Liturgy, viz. ' That by an uniform agreement
* it was concluded on by the aid of the Hohj Ghost/ and then we shall easily explain to them how our prayers are inspired.
I shall conclude my defence of conceived prayer (which I have hitherto called extemporary, only in compliance with Mr Rhind's phrase), with^the words of Bishop Wilkins, who at once shews the meanness of Mr lihind's objections, and reproves the pro- faneness of his spirit.*
* But now, in the second place, for any one so to
* sit down and satisfy himself with this book-prayer,
* or some prescript form, as to go no farther, this
* were still to remain in his infancy, and not to
* grow up in his new nature : This would be, as if a
* man who had once need of crutches, should always
* afterwards make use of tliem, and so necessitate
* himself to a continual impotence. It is the duty
* of every Christian to grow and encrease in all the
* Ubi Supra, p. 9, 10.
TRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 309
' parts of Christianity, as well gifts as graces ; to ' exercise and improve every iioly gift, and not to
* stifle any of those abiHties wherewith God hath
* endued them : Now, how can a man be said to ' live suitable unto these rules, who does not put ' forth himself in some attempts and endeavours of
* this kind ? And then, besides, how can such a
* man suit his desires unto several emergencies ?
* What one says of counsel to be had from books, ' may be fitly applied to this prayer by book ; that ' it is commonly, of itself, something flat and dead,
* floating, for the most part, too much in generalities,
* and not particular enough for each several occa- ' sion. There is not that life and vigour in it to f engage the affections, as when it proceeds imme-
* diately from the soul itself, and is the natural ex-
* pression of those particulars whereof we are most
* sensible. And if it be a fault not to strive and
* labour after this gift, much more is it to jeer
* and despise it by the name of extempore prayer, ' and praying by the spirit ; which expressions (as
* they are frequently used by some men by way of
* reproach), are, for the most part, a sign of a pro-
* fane heart, and such as are altogether strangers
* from the power and comfort of this duty.* Thus Bishop Wilkins. And had others, more nearly con- cerned, treated Mr Rhind with the same freedom, he had never published such a book ; so much to the scandal of religion, and the shame of the party he writes for.
StCT. II.
Wherein Mr Rhind's Objections against the Presbyterian Doctrine concerning the Sacraments, and his Exceptions against their Manner of Dispensing them^arc considered ; from p, ill to p. 185.
BAPTISM.
To begin with baptism. Concerning this, Mr Rhind asserts roundly, and without fsai Firsts That
310 DEFENCE OF THE
baptism with water is indispensibly necessary, see- ing without it none can reasonably expect to be baptized with the spirit, or tliat they shall enter into the kingdom of God — nay, that, if God*s extraordi- nary mercy does not interpose, they shall be damned without it. Secondly, That the water is the vehicle of the spirit, and that the inward grace does always accompany the outward mean, when it encounters with no renitency in the recipient. Having laid down these principles, he objects, \st. That the Presbyterians teach that baptism is of no efficacy. 2dlij, That they suffer children to die without it. 2>dl2jy That their Confession of Faith, whereof some doctrines are dubious and some impious and false, is the creed into which they baptize. 4//z/j/, That the genuine Presbyterians urge the obli- gation of the Solemn League and Covenant, and press it as a necessary condition of the child's ad- mission to baptism.
As for his first assertion, that baptism with water is indispensibly necessary, it is directly Popish. The Presbyterians willingly grant that the contempt or wilful neglect of baptism is damnable — I mean in an adult person, or to the parent who neglects to procure it for his child. But that the mere want of it is damnable to the child, or to an adult person, when he cannot have it in an orderly way, that is, according to Christ's institution, this, I affirm, is a damnable error — an error which gives one the most unworthy notions of God, an error which hath been the fruitful mother of many others, and of the most scandalous practices. It is to this error the Umhus infantum owes its being — to this is owing the practice of lay baptism, by women as well as men, in the Church of England; yea by Jews, Turks, and Pagans, as well as by Christians, as is allowed in the Church of Rome. It is to this error these hasty baptisms are owing, where there is no profession by, no spon- sion for the party baptized ; than which there can hardly be a greater scandal on the Christian religion ; for it exposes that holy mystery to the same re-
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 311
proaches wherewith the heathen lustrations were so justly loaded.* But I need not insist on this. The excellent Forbes a Corse, before cited, has suf- ficiently exposed that execrable doctrine, at large, in six chapters.! The Church of Rome has found it too hard for her to answer him on that head. But, indeed, there is nothing too hard for our mo- dern Episcopalians, who do all their business by as- sertion, proof being too great a drugery.
Mr Rhind's second assertion is like unto the first. When the, Council of Trent decreed, 1: that the Sa- craments confer grace, N(m 'ponentlhus obicem, it gave scandal to all the world. For it turns these sacred ordinances into mere charms. Yet Mr Rhind has new vamped it, requiring nothing else but a non- renitency in the recipient ; whereas the Scripture expressly requires the positive qualifications of faith and repentance. Yea, the Scots Episcopal Liturgy supposes these qualifications even in infants. Thus, in the Catechism :
« Q. What is i^e quired of persons to he baptized?
* Ans. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin : and faith, whereby they stedflistly believe the promises of God, made to them in the sacrament.
' Q. Why then are infants baptized, zchen, by rea- son of their tender age, they cannot perform them ?
« Ans, Yes : They do jJejform 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."
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 of the answer to the last question. And they had good reason to do
• Omne ncfas, omnemque mali purgamine caumm
Credebant nostri tollere posse Series. Grcccia principiutn maris Jidt : ilia nucentes
Impia lustratos ponerejacla pittat. Ah nirniumjacdcs, qui tristia criminn ccedis
Flumiiiea toUi posse pufniis aqua. — Ovid, Fast. Lib. II. f Instruct. Hist. Thcol. Lib. x. Cap. vi. — xi. i Can. vi. Dc Sacramentis in Gcncre.
S12
DEFENCE OF THE
SO : For a vicarious performance of faith and re* pentance is a pretty dark mysteiy. I am sure it would be nonsense in a Presbyterian ; and yet the alteration they have made, mends not the matter a whit. But that is not it we are at present concern- ed about : It is plain that the doctrine of non-reni- tency is a stranger to the Scriptures. But Mr Rliind was for brushing forward in his chat ; displease whom he will, he has the Church of Rome on his side. So much for his assertions. Next to his ob- jections.
Firsts He objects, That the Presbyterians teach that baptism is of no efficacy, p. 178. What an- swer is to be given to this ? None so proper as that of the Psalmist ; * What shall be given unto thee ?
* Or what shall be done unto thee, thou false
* tongue ? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals
* of juniper,* Psalm cxx. 3, 4. Hear the Presbyte- rians declare themselves in their Confession of Faith. * * The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that
* moment of time wherein it is administered: yet,
* notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance,
* the grace promised is not offi^red, but really exhi- ' bited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such
* (whether of age, or infants) as that grace belongeth
* unto, according to the counsel of God's own will,
* in his appointed time.' The Presbyterians have no where declared that any baptised infants are damned : but to assert, as the English liturgy does,t
* That children which are baptised, dying before they ^ commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved, is so far
* from being certain by God's Word,* that I affirm there is not one tittle from the beginning of Genesis to the end of the Revelation to support it. God has his own way of dealing with infants, which we are sure is most just and holy. But it is secret to us. And therefore to determine, that all that die in that state unbaptized are damned, and that all that are
* Chap, xxvlli. sect. 6.
+ Penult Uuhrick in the office for public baptism of infant*.
P/IESBYTERIAX WORSHIP. 3\3
baptized are undoubtedly saved, is very iiigli pie- sumption. It is a very usual thing among the Po- pish missionaries to baptize the infants of the native Indians clancularly, without the knowledge or con- sent of their parents, when they can find any secret occasion. Will any Protestant determine, that such of them thus baptized as die in their infant state, are therefore undoubtedly saved ? Must the absurd and unwarrantable action of a vagrant fellow con- clude God as to the disposal of his creatures ? This is such nonsensical doctrine as is fit only for the Church of Rome, which God has given up to delu- sions.
Secondly^ He objects, ' That the Presbyterians
* cruelly suffer wretched children to die without ' baptism, than which nothing can be more opposite
* to the doctrine of Christ, who expressly says, John
* iii. 5. That except a man be born of water and of
* the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
* God.' Might not one have expected, that he would have adduced so many instances as might have made his charge presumably true, and justiried it so far, as that it might affect the body of the Presby- terians ? Nay, but he has not even offered at so much as one instance. It is very true, Presby<^eriau ministers will not baptize children in a hurry, nor content themselves with pronouncing the solemn words without a previous profession or sponsion. And in this both scripture and reason justify them. They are still ready to baptize children, when it is desired, in a regular and orderly way : but, when it cannot be done but in such a manner as represents baptism as a charm, and exposes the Christian mys- teries to the contempt and reproach of profane per- sons ; they do not think it lawful for them to dis- pense it, and herein they are justified by Bishop Hall, * who expressly says, * that as baptism is not
* to be negligently deferred, so it is not to be su-
* perstitiously hastened.' But, which is of much
• Dcciid> V. Ep. if.
314 DEFENCE OF THE
more import, they are very sure tliat, In such a case, the want ot' baptism is not prejudicial to the salva- tion of the child ; for it were most horrid to think, that a merciful God should damn infants for what was not their own fault in any respect.
As for that text which Mr Ilhind insists on, ' Ex- ' cept a man be born,' &c. it is most ridiculously applied in this case. For that, as well as all scrip- ture declarations of the like nature, are calculated, not for infants, but for adult persons, and such as are come to the exercise of their reason. To such it is not only necessary (as it, is also to infants), that they be internally sanctified, but also that they make an outward profession of receiving baptism. For Christ will own none for his disciples that are asham- ed of him before men. Plainly, the import of that text may be easily gathered from the occasion of it- Nicodemus was a discreet person, and had a honour- able opinion of our Saviour, that he was a teacher come from God. But then he had come to Jesus by night, Avhich argued that he was timorous, and loath to profess publicly the inward sentiments of his soul. Wheretbre Christ knowing his weak side, and understanding the reason of his night visit, in- stantly, and at first dash, tells him the iiselessness of internal persuasion without an open profession; that it was necessary he should be born again (which is a phrase taken from the Jewish doctrine about proselytism), not only of the spirit by sanctification and the renewing of the inner man, but of water, too, by an open and undaunted profession before the world, of which baptism would be the badge and token, without v/hich latter he could not own him for his disciple, any more than without the for- mer. This is the plain sense of that text ; but what relation has this to infant baptism, which is not tbunded upon the text, nor indeed reasonably can be, but upon other scripture grounds which I need not now mention. And that the said text does not })rove the damnation of infants dying without bap- tisii), I shall pioduee the judgment of two bishops.
rUESBYTEllIAN WOllSIllP. 315
Tlie 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 ' tlie received judgment of the church in the pri-
* mitive tinges, who, if they had thought the bap-
* tismal regeneration was indispensibly necessary to ' salvation, woukl 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 have died without ba})tism.* 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 alvv^ays 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 liom these three general considerations.
Isty It was a very prevailing custom among them to delay their baptism till they were in ca'lre- mis. In some indeed this proceeded from a tinc- ture of the Novatian heresy : But others, for in- stance, Constantino 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
516
DEFENCE OF THE
tbey were made such in baptism, and that thej should certainly become such in baptism ; would all the world have been able to persuade them to delay it ? It is very hard to think so.
2dli/, The same appears from the history of the Catechumens. During that state they were pr")bntioneis, not only as to their knowledge, but likewise their piety and manners ; and were obliged, betbre they could be admitted to baptism, to givp 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.
3dh/f Thougii infant baptism was still allowed as lawful in 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 spirituallyregenerated without it, or before it, and that, in the very act of it, w^e are spiritually regenerated, they would never have omitted it- I do not adduce this to justify them in that omis- sion, but only thereby to shew that Mr Rhind*s doctrine was not the belief of the primitive church, as he without proof alleges.
In a word, faith and repentance are pre-required to baptism in adult persons at least. If they can have faith and repentance, without the spirit and spiritual regeneration, which is not obtained (as they say) but in and by baptism, 1 do not see why they may not go to heaven, without the spirit or spiritual regeneration. For, 1 am sure, repentance towards God, and fiiith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is the sum of the gospel. But enough of this for this time.
Thirdly, Mr Rhind objects, * That the Confession
* of Faith, whereof some doctrines are dubious,
* some impious and false, is the creed into which
* the PreLshyterians baptize.' 1 answer, \st^ That however dubious, false and impious these doctrines
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. S17
are, yet I have already proved them to be the doc- trines of the Catholic Church of Christ. 2dli/^ 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 NewTestament, and on- ly declaratively assert their Confession of Faith to be agreeable thereto. Sdlij, 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.
Lastlij, 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 llhind is challenged to disprove this if he can. So much for baptism.
I proceed next to consider his objections, relat- iw^ to the other sacrament, viz.
THE lord's SUrPER.
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 Presbyterians. In the Presbyte- rian communion, saitli he, p. 1»2, ' my lot might fall
* in a place where the Holy Eucharist would not be
* administered once in a dozen of years.' For an-
318 DEFENCE OF THE
swer, Isf, Has lie given Instance of any siicli place ? No, not so much as one. 2dlj/, Su})pose he had gi- ven one, two, tliree, iKiy even a score of instances, were the constitution to be charged with that? Tliere are, no doubt, careless ministers among the Presbyterians, as well as in other communions, but none but a mean malieious soul will load the wliole body with the defects of a few. 3dlj/, Was the Episco- ]>al Clerg)', during their reign before the Revolution, Jess guilty than the Presbyterians are ? I am content it be put to a trial'through the nation. And, to be- gin the work ; within the Presbytery of Dumbarton, where I 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 these dozen years last bypast, than it was during the whole twenty-eight years under the Episcopal reign before the Revolution, ^thh/. Is the Church of England, to which Mr Rhind is gone over, inno- cent in this particular ? Hear Dr Wetenhall, late Bishop of Kilmore, in his book, entitled, * Due fre- ' quency of the Lord's Supper,' dedicated to her Majesty, and printed at Edinburgh, 170G. ' Amongst ' the laws of our church (saith he in his Dedica- ' tion), as there is none perhaps more excellent and ' truly Christian, than those touching the Lord's
* Supper ; so it is hard to assign a7ii/ more neglected ' than the rubricks whicli enjoin due frequency of
* it ; and the neglect is not only in country 'parhhes,
* but even in some greater chircltes.' Thus the Bishop. Why then would Mr Rhind leap out of the frying-pan into the lire ? Why would he charge the Presbyterians with that whereof his brethren, both in Scotland and England, have been so notori- ously gnilty ? But an impudent way of writing is become the characteristic of the modern Episcopal authors.
IL He objects upon the indecency v/herewith the Lord's Supper is celebrated among tlie Presbyte- rians. Wherein lies this indecencv ? ' Whv,' saith
IKESBYTERIAN WORSIIIF. 319
he, p. 182, * the convocation has more of tlie con-
* fusion of a fair, than of the order and decency of
* a rehgious 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, 15/, 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 lionour of our blessed Saviour. But this objection of Mr llhind's proceeds from silliness, or, which is the same thing, from ens^y; because, during the Episco- pal CJovernment, in many places, the minister and his family, with the sexton and his, and perhaps two or three more, made up the whole communicants. 2f////, It is true, likewise, that there are many others prescntoft-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 ratlier an encouragement upon tliem to carry themselves with the more solemn gravity ? Or how can the presence of such as do not commimicate be a scandal to those that do? For thougli they do not communicate at that time, it cannot infer a neo-lect 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 commimion, is it either fault or scandal tor his people to follow
'LO
BEPE'SCE OF THE
him where they are furnished with sermon ? Is not this better than that they should loiter idly at homa all the Lord's day, which would be both a sin in them, and give scandal to others ? But this objec- tion of his was indeed too mean to have been noticed.
I would only ask Mr Rhind, if there are not in- comparably greater indecencies in the way of the Cliurch or jLiigland, to which he has separated ? Is it possible there can be a greater scandal, than to 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- formation ? Yet this is every day seen in the church of England, and the priests cannot, dare not help it.
1 am not to allege this without proof : that were the Episcopal way of writing, which I do not envy. I shall give good and sufficient documents of it. Mr Bisset, a presbyter of the Church of England, has lately told us * * of a minister who was worried out
* of his living, and life too, for denying the commu-
* nion to a rake, 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 unto
* 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, (ibid.) of a solution that was given to one (who doubted of coming to the communion), in these w ords, ' what damage is it to pledge the parson in a
* cup of wine, supposing only the wine be good.* To ivlr Bisset, let us add the author of the Case of the iiegaie and Pontificate, who is known to be most vioiemly iiigh church. He roundly asserts, p. 17y,
* Modem Fanatic, p. 4-S.
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 321
' tliat 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 unquahfied.' These 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 ill 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 tlie 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 tliey 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 llhind can name any Presbyterian ministers who do otherwise, I 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 tile 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 sutticient to vindicate the Presbyterians : But who shall vindicate the Church of England con-
322
DEFEXC2 OF 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 divines, 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 scliis- maticSi 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 1704, 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.
* 1 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 think but Mr Barclay may be easy on that head : For, I sup- pose, these 7iotorious 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 Rhind, then, very well advised in ffoins; over to her ?
Secondlij, 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 he 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 Peoole of SrA^-^on^. p. ig-^.
tUESBYTERIAN VVOKSHII\ 323
tan prove, or find any other to prove for him, either, 1st, That that posture was commanded by Christ. Or, 2nd/jj, That it was used by the Apostles when they cominunicated in Christ's presence. Or, 3^/y, That there is any hint of its usage in the New Testament. Or, 4////<7, That it was practised in the primitive church for the first five centuries at least after Christ. If none of these things can be prov- ed, as" 1 am sure none of them can, and which ievery 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 o[ 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 ))eople to the table posture in the Sa- crament, wiiich the Episcopal divines themselves own was the posture used by the Disci})le3 in Christ's presence ; when the Church of England coniincs people to the posture of kneeling, loi which
X 2
324
DEFENCE OF THE
there is no warrant, and appoints * every minister to be suspended who wittingly gives the commu- nion to any that do not kneel. Some may perhaps think, that our Scotch Episcopalians are milder in that matter, and indeed the above mentioned Vin- dicator of the Fundam.ental Charter would have us 'beheve 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 Vv'ith what integrity let the reader judge, when he considers, 1^4 That the rubric in the Scotch Episcopal liturgy is as strict for kneeling as the English liturgy. And, 2f//?/, 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 objectiony there is one thing I cannot but take notice of. The Episcopal people have lately caused re-print the liturgy which was sent down for Scotland by King Charles I. and which began the troubles, anno 1637, and lam 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 v/orse 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. 1st, 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 XXVII. l603,- f N. B..
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP.
3^
flesh and blood. The Scotch liturgy neither hath this declaration, nor any thing equivalent to it. 2dlij<, The English liturgy has a rubric, enjoining the minister at the 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 tiic Roman ritual has. Sdli/, 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, tliat 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, particularl}^, 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 English. Particularly Mr Smart, one of their teachers at Edinburgh, in his short discouz'se 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,
* hovvbeit 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
326 DEFENCE OF THE
out of the Gospels or out of ]. Cor. xl. They bave still, 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? * No,' savs Mr Rhind ; * the form in the Sacrament of the
* Lord's Supper, are the same words by which our ' Lord did at iirst 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 weU. 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 after Christ, in the writings of the Fathers ? Not any. The first account we have of it, is in the books of the Sacraments,* which pass under the name of Ambrose, and are inserted among his works. But 1 hope Mr Rhind knows, that these books were not wrote till som6 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 after 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 Prayer.f And, 1 suppose every body knows that these words, * take, eat, this is my body,* are not in that prayer j and I think it is plain they
* Lil). iv. Cap. V.
f Gregor. Lib. 7- Ep. 63. Oratlonem autem Domlnicam id- circo mox post precera dicimus, quia mos Apostolorum fuit, u% ad ipsam solunamodo orationem oblationis hostiarn consccracent.
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 527
were 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 ther« is nothing equivalent ' to supply the defect.' Did he ever consider what he said ? Did he ever regard whether it was true or filse ? Is not every minister directed,* upon that occasion, to pray, ' That God may sanctify the
* 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 cruciHed 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 xvords. 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 th6 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,
* Sec the Directory, f De Sacram. Eucharist, Cap, xii. xiii.
S28 DKFENCi: 01' THE
that it IS highly justifiable. But, then, I must ask Mr Rhind, why, as he has given us the grounds of his separating from the Presbyterian worship, he has not also answered the other halt' 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. 9, with much assurance, bids his audience ' read it all over,
* and among all the prayers that are in it, see if there
* be any prayer 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 conc^emned by the Homilies of the Church of England, yea, and by the High Church divines themselves j witness the last cited author, (supposed to be Dr Lesley), who, in his conversation with the Roman Catholic nobleman, tells him, p. 1 35, * We abstain from the pictures or
* images of the saints in our churches, because they
* have been abused to superstition, and to avoid
* ofience.' Now, if they are unlawful in churches, liow is it possible they can be 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,
* JSee the Dialogues between the Curate and the Country- mnu, &c.
PilESUYTEUlAX WORSHIP. 329
aiul lamented tlie 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 stufi'ed with such pictures. Arc they more innocent in the Bible than upon a linen ciotii 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 Sain. 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 offices upon these days to their honour, 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 j for there is no such power given her in the old one ; or if tliere 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.
WHEIIEIN MR RI1IND*S FOmiTII REASON FOR IIIS SEPA- RATINC: FROM THE PRESBY TERfANS, VIZ. THAT THEIR SPIRIT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE TO THAT OF THE GOSPEL, IS EXAMIHED. FROM P. 185 TO THE END.
The meaning of this reason is, that Presbyterians ure incarnate devils : And the intendment of it is,
330 DEFENCE OF THE
That all persons who re<?ard conscience or dutjr should hang out a bloody flag against them, and rise up with one accord, and spoil their goods and de- 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 eartii dare reverse theiii ; 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 v;henever 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 their field as well as wheat ; 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 Episco})alians, that they should be the jHrst 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' sj)irits : ' By their fruits ye
* shall know them.' I hope it needs not be deemed a reflection upon them, or an immoderate flattering of ourselves, to affirm, that the Presbyterians, gene- rally speaking, are as devout towards God, as fre- quent at their prayers ; and, to outward appearance (for God only knows the heart), as fervent in them as tlie prelatists. That they swear as seldom by the name of God, as seldoni tear open the wounds of our blessed Saviour, and as seldom imprecate damna- tion upoiTi themselves or others as the Episcopalians.
* Sermon, ' False Brethren," p. 38.
TRESCYTERIAN SPIIIIT. 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 in 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 fail
* to cut your throat by G — d, it would 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 1 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 unconcernedness about their
* Ubi supra, p. 8.
SSO DEFENCE OF THE
That all persons who rep^ard conscience or duty should hang out a bloody flag against them, and rise up with one accord, and spoil their goods and de- 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 eartli dare reverse
* tliem ; and that the people should treat them like
* growing mischiefs or infectious plagues.'* This is indeed somev/hat 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 their field as well as wheat ; 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 tlie Episcopalians, that they should be the iirst 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 a reflection upon them, or an immoderate flattering of ourselves, to affirm, that the Presbyterians, gene- rally speaking, are as devout towards God, as fre- quent at their prayers ; and, to outward appearance (for God only knows the heart), as fervent in them as the prelatist.s. 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- tion upon themselves or others as the Episcopalians.
* Sermon, * False Brethren,' p. 38.
rilESCYTERIAN SPIJIIT. 331
That they are as sober and temperate, go as seiJom 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 j as just masters and as faithful servants, as those tliat live in 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 fail
* to cut your throat by G — d, it would 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 llhind 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 unconcernedness 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 all such persons, then certainly it is an uncommon Spirit, or there are uncommon measures thereof, by which good and pious men are actuated. Secondli/y When he charges them, (ibid. J 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. Tliirdlij, 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. FuurthJjj^ 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 believe, * that it is a fearful thing to ' fall into his hands.' And though, in that case, ' Their souls (that 1 may use Mr lihind'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 same 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. 14, 15; 'Lord, why castcst thou off 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, M\\ Edition, p. 176.
PRESIiYTERIAN SPIIUT. 3S3
those of their people that are troubled in mind, de- livers himself thus : ' Some have committed enor- ' mous sins, which kindle a storm in their con-
* sciences ; and that ought to be cherislied, 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 {)eople allected with horrible apprehensions upon the commission of grievous sins, much less for ha- ving these apprehensions cherished till tliey are brought to repentance. What times are we re- served to ! Fifthljj, When he charges them with a serious air, p. 202, with a peculiar vehemency in preaching, with a preciscness of conversation, p. 204, with * discourses of the love of God and Christ,
* and sweet communion with the Father and the
* Son,* p. 205 : T!ie Presbyterians are so far from being angry 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 peoj)le, as to have cherished such a book.
lor besides these instances, is it possible any thing can be more profane, than to jest as he does, p, 194, he. upon people's exercise of soul about their eternal concerns ? Does not the Apostle command Timothy, I Eph. iv. 7. to exercise himself unto godliness ? Nay, does he not command all Chris- lians 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 in the Scripture than to represent the intercourse be-
5.34 DEFENCE OF THE
twixt God and the soul by the love of the bride- groom and the bride, of the husband and the wife ? And if these study to recommend themselves to each other by an agreeableness of temj)er, 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. Meaning 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 llhind 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
rilESBYTEIlIAN SPIRIT. 335
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 thing be more wicked than to represent (as he does, p. I'JO, 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 ^atan. But why should the Presbyterian Spirit be reproached with this ? Though tlie news prints from London * tell us that, last year, from the 1 6th 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- turgy 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- ing Interest in Christ, as leading men into that course, 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 I will not undertake to defend some peculiarities he has in his writings ; let Mr llhind, who is more obliged, do it at his best leisure. But that there is any thing 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 lihind
* See the Evening Post, Numb. 6S3.
336 13EFENCE OF THE
to prove it : for hitherto he has acted as an avowed calumniator, in not daring to cite scj nnicli 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 famiHar stile, adapted to the capacity of every common reader, and to the i'eehng of every good Cluistian : and God has so signally blessed it with success, that no one book can be named, written by any Scotsman of either com- munion, tliat has been so instrumental in bringing off peo})le 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 flither 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 tlie bye, that the world may see what men they are that separate from the Presbyterians, and are received by the E])iscopal party.
I am now to consider his argument as he has laid it. First, As to its weight, and then as to its truth.
In the Jlrst place, as to its weight. Supposing it were tru5, that the spirit of the Presbyterians is dia- metrically opposite to that of the gospel, would that alo?ie justify a separation ? Mr Rhind affirms it would ; and positively says in his ])enult 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 ' might 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-
PKESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 337
bers, which may be good and bad at different times, and vary as men do. Tiie church of Israel was always, as God had framed it, a true church. But if hohness of hfe had been made a note of it, it might in some junctures have been called no church at all. When our Saviour visited the world, he could scarce find any probity in it ; and the formal religion of the Pharisees had made void real and solid piety. The blood of all the prophets was lying upon them, and through their own traditions they had made void the commandments of God. And yet, notwithstanding all this, Cinist did not separate from them. Conse- quently the like objection cannot be a justifiable ground of separation in any other. Thus Dr Teni- son, now primate of all England, and who is at once the honour as well as head of his order, reasoned * against the Romanists,urging (with the same modesty as Mr Rhind does), holiness of life as a note of their church. And I suppose the reasoning will still hold good. It was then a very unchristian act in Mr Rhind to separate from the Presbyterians, when his shining virtue and bright example could not have failed to have reclaimed them, or at least to render them in- excusable. But it is not the first sad loss they have sustained and overcome too ; as, I hope, they shall do this.
However, supposing the w^eight, let us consider the truth of his argument. This 1 shall do by exa- mining the particulars he insists on. Having spent two or three pages in describing the spirit of the gospel, and what he means by the spirit of a party : He alleges, I. That the Presbyterian spirit is enthu- siastical. 11. That it is a mere animal or mechani- cal spirit. III. That it is a partial spirit, damning and denying grace to all but their own party. IV. That it is a narrow and mean spirit. V. That it is a malicious, unforgiving spirit. VI. That it is an un- conversible spirit. V'li. That it is a disloyal, rebel- lious spirit. VIII. That it is a spirit of division.
* On Bcllarmine's X. Note of the Church.
y
SS8 DEFENCE OF THE
-'^X. That it is an iinneii^hbourlv, cruel and barbar- ous spirit.
Here is a very formidable muster ; yet, after all, not very dangerous. For, Mr Rhind lias been so well naUired as not to cite so much as one line out of any Presbyterian author for proving any tiling of all tliis ; though that was, I am sure, the most, per- liaps the only habile way of doing his business effec- tually. Nay, thougli 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^ for 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 laboiu- their periods into a cadence, it is rudeness and ill manners in us to ask for proof, the insisting on which v/ould spoil the harmony of their rhetoric. However, we must crave leave to enquire a little into the particulars of this charge.
THE PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT NOT EMTIIUSIASTICAL.
I. He charges the Presbyterians with an enthu- siastical spirit. But on what grounds ? 1st, 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 Behmen 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 he will peruse it seriously ; 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 soul feels, I will frankly forgive him.
Plainl)^ the import of that system is this. That the great work every man has to do in this world, is to secure eternal happiness to himself. That there
rUESBYTEKIAN SPIRIT. 339
are Indeed some persons blessed with the advantage of a rehgious education, and the grace of God falling in therewith ; they are insensibly trained up to piety and \irtue,and find themselvesinaiixedhabltthcreor, with- out being able to give a distinct account how it be- gan, or by what sensible steps it has arrived at such a heiglit. 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 indlffe- 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, in his own good time, by his spirit, working by those ways lie has appointed, to w^eaken them into a thoughtful temper, and to alarm them of their danger. lie en- gages them seriously to compare their heart and life 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 threatenlngs of God, and the dreadful things his law has awarded against such criminals as they are : And this cannot but af- fect 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 thouglit of getting hell for his portion ? God is pleased to exercise them with such thoughts, till lie sees they are duly humbled, and in caniest con- vinced that it was a bitter and evil thing to depart from the living God. But then, God does not pro- ject for the uneasiness of his creatiu'es ; nor require sorrow for sorrow's sake, but that they may be the more watchful against sin in time coming, and the more affected with his goodness in providing a me- thod of delivery lor 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 salvation through Jesus Christ. Yet even this is not suffi- cient to determine the soul to God. For, be the
Y 2
340 DEFENCE OF THE
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, when 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 I'rom 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
PRESBYTEKIAN SPIRIT. 341
any thing of enthusiasm in all this ? Any irregular heats ? Why, then, would Mr Rhind adventure to expose the internal part of religion in so ludicrous a manner 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, wliich 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 ihings they talk of their manifcstaiions and desertioiis. 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.
2dlij, 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 Illum'malions and Raptures^ and to the most ex- traordinary inspirations ; and then he falls a dispu- ting 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 wild and extravagant imaginations, for which there is no ground, are a most infallible symptom ?
242 DEFENCE OF THE
But why did Mr Rliind cliarge the Presbyterians with enthusiasm, when his own party had been so scandalously guilty of it ? In thejirsl place, when en- thusiasm was in fashion, in the time of the late civil •wars, who were the great masters of it ? The Presby- terians in Scotland preached and wrote against it ; but the Episcopalians in England cherished it; and some 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 hisTestimony,from which it is evident that Jacob Beluiien might have gone to school to him to learn enthusiasm. 2f//^, 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 "himself an enthusiast, and recommend Jacob Bell- men, and such others, as divinely inspired ?* Sdlj/^ "Who knows not that Dr George Garden, one of the first characters among the Episcopal clergy, is the great promoter of the Borignian principles ? 4////7/, Who were they that were mostly carried away by the modern prophets, and seized with their agita- tions? 1 suppose the ]']pisco])al ciergy cannot purge their own tamiiies. 5////7/, Does not the author of MrDodwell's life confess, that, towards the latter part of it, ' he seems to grow not a little enthu- * siasticai ;' And is it possible any one can read his 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 that water baptism was given to the separate souls of them who had no means of obtaining it when livinar. Sect. 42 : When he teaches that the renun- ciation of the devil vvaspertormable in the separate Mate by those who could not know their duty before.
* Fagrs 6, 11, <5:c.
PUESUYTIIUIAN SPIRIT. 343
Sect. 43 : When he teaclies, that the Gentiles re- ceived the spirit of oiir JSaviour's baptism in their separate state, Sect. 44 : Wiien 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 of i^nthusiasm a^rainst the Presbyterians. I shall con- elude this with observing, by tlie bye, that Mr Rhind writes inaccurately when he yokes Jacob Behmen and Molino together. Molino's greatest errors, lor 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 Gotl, 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 Econom'ie Di- tin 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, v/hich, 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
* See Supplement to Dr Burnet's Travels.
314 DEFENCE OF THE
' from tliis fever, so that his blood does again glide
* after its due manner, he concludes that all is well ' with him.' Thus he, and a great deal more to the same purpose. It is true, the Presbyterians own themselves to be compound beings, and that they consist of flesh as well as spirit, and believe that God applies himself to them according to the make of human nature, and discovers infinite wisdom and goodness in doing so ; ' for he knows our frame, and
* remembers we are dust.' But, because the animal affections operate sensibly, either upon the com- mission of some grievous sin, or upon our having made peace with God, does it therefore 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 body must work mutual- ly upon and affect each other while we are in the embodied state ? Nay, will they not do so even after the resurrection, which is the most perfect state ? Does he not know that a separate state is a preternatural one, which sin alone has made us liable unto. The truth is, I think Mr Rhind, 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 precept 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, annexed to that very pious book called * A Tale of ' a Tub.' If Mr Rhind can recover the papers necessary for the filling up the Lacuna, p. 303, his business is done ; for the bookseller has assured us, that * in them the whole scheme of spiritual mechan-
* ism was deduced and explained, with an appear- ' 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 vt'ith j and
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 345
it cannot but raise Mr Rhind's character to comTu- nicate such laudable productions of his brethren for the benefit of the public. But, to go on,
If Mr Rhind was so great an enemy to every thing of animal exercise in rehgion, why 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- jship, 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, ro,tchet, &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 afi'ect 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? AVhy are the prayers and the whole devotions parcelled into such shreds, but 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. 191, *are they to ' whom they allow this saving grace, that, if we
* shall except the Apostles and those of that extra-
* ordinary age, and St Augustine, 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-
346 DEFENCE OF THE
' glish brethren tlicrewith.* And, p. 204, ' they con-
* line,' saith be, * the grace of conversion, and con-
* sequently election, to tbeir own party.' This is in- deed a heinous charge. But how lias 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 Khind, and his party, with a partial, damning spirit, and shall prove it ere I go further. 1^^, I 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 w4iole Protestant Churches that want Episcopal government. Nay, he has damned the whole Catholic Church of Christ, by declaring her doctrines fundamentally false and pernicious. 2r%, 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 minister ; — no minister no sa- crament ; — -no sacrament no salvation ; ErgOy no bishop no salvation. Or, take it in his own words,*
* the alone want of commimion with the bishop
* makes persons aliens from God and Christ, stran-
* gers to the covenant of promise and the common-
f One Priesthood; Chap. xiii. Sectj 14.
PRESDYTERIAN' SPIfvIT. S47
* weallh of Lrael. — They must certainly be deprived
* of all those real enjoyments and lioly rehshes
* winch devout souls experience, even in this life,
* in the communion witii thefr 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 tlicni hereafier. ISay now, good reader, if it is not modest in the Episcopal ])arty to charge the Presbyterians with a damning sj)irit. V/hethcr atheism, laziness, or uxoriousness (as Mr llhind al- leges against the Presbyterians), can engage men of sense to entertain such fantastic principles, I shall not say ; but, sure 1 am, they come not from the .Spirit of God, nor are consistent with the peace of ihe church or nation.
NOT A KARllOW oil MEAN SrilllT.
IV. He charges the Presbyterians with a narrow and mean spirit. Upon what evidence ? 1^^, * 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- knowlediiethat Christ died for all 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 ialse that they confine it to a few ; on the contrary, they believe the redeemed to be past numbering, and hope, upon theassuranceof 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 betbre the Lamb, clothed with white robes,
* and i)alms intheir hands, and hynmsin their mouths.' 2dl(ji ' Christ meant,' saith he, * that liis grace should
* extend universally, which the Presbyterians re- ' strain to their own parly.' I answer, the first part of this charge is false doctrine, the latter impudent calumny. The first part of it 1 say is false doctrine, for which (waving other arguments at this time,) 1
348 DEFENCE OF THE
appeal to the Church of England, which, in her cate* chism, thougli she teaches her catechumens to say- ' I beheve in God the Son, who hath redeemed me
* and all mankind,' yet she expressly restricts the object of sanctifying grace; and teaches tlie cate- chumen to say, 'I believe in God the Holy Ghost,
* who sanctilietli me and all the elect people of God.' The latter part of the charge, I add, is impudent calumny. The Presbyterians are so flu- from re= straining grace to their own party, 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 and 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 the lower form in the very same class with pagans. Thus, in their new liturgy * which they formed after King William's accession to the throne, they })rayed in terms, * restore to us again the public
* worship of thy name, the reverend administration ' of thy sacraments : raise up the former govern- ' ment both in church and state, that we may be no ' longer without king, without priest, without God
* in the world.* 3<//y, ' 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, entitled Reflections upon a Form of Prayer lately set forth for the Jacobites of the Church of England, printed for liichard Baldwin^ 1690.
FRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 549
though, no doubt, they love those of their own way- best; and I suppose all the world does the like.
In the mean while, though it is both vain and sin- ful to boast on this head, yet for stopping the mouth of cahunny, 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 reign, 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 \\\e 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- fied. Well, how does he quality or prove this charge ? Why, * their rebellious martyrs,' saith he, * never
* expressed their forgiveness of the injuries, 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
350 DEFENCE OF THE
told their persecutors of their injustice and the wick- ed course tliey were in. And ibr this practice they had the example of tlie blessed martyr Stephen, who treated the Sanhedrim with sharper langiiao^e thaii any that is to be found in Naphtali. * Ye stia-neck-
* ed, and uncircumcised in lieart and ears, ye do
* 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 v;e 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 ; wiil not this discover what a spirit of truth and modesty, that is, the Episcopal party, are possessed with ? l.et us try it then.
The Marquis of Argyle, who suflered May 27th lG6l. ' 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
* — 1 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 ' done to me, may never meet them in their ac-
* counts. 'And I pray the Lord preserve his ma-
* jesty, and to pour out his best blessings on his per-
niESBYTERIAN SriRIT. 351
* son and government.* Naph. Edit. 1G93, p. 2'B5, &c.
Mr James Guthrie, minister of the gospel at Stir- ling, who suffered, June 1, 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 hless 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, (I 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. — Tiie 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. — I forgive all men the guilt of my death, and I desire you to do so also : ' Pray for tliem 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, 1 ^Q3. The good Lord give unto them (liis 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, he.
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 1 forgive them.' Ibid. p. 316. And in his joint testimony which he, with nine others who were })nt to death the same day with him, subscrib- ed in prison immediately before they were brought to the scaft')ld, he and they, in terms, acknowledge
352 DEFENCE OF THE
tlie king'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.' Ibid, 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 repent of it,
* that God may forgive them, as I forgive all men,
* and particularly Morton, who did apprehend me.' And he is sofar 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. 320, he,
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.' Ibid. p. 330, &c.
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 lla- ' 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.' Ibid. p. 351. &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 I beg God
rilESBYTEKIAN SPIRIT. 352
* may be pleased for his son Christ's sake, to blot
* out my sins and iniquities.* Ibid. p. 431. James Learmont, who suffered September 27,
167S. * 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. 44-5. And, in his large speech, p. 4.50, he thus delivers himself: * I here ' most freely, before I 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 : ' 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
* belbrgiven of God. ' Pray for them that persecute ** you, and bless them that curse you.'* Ibid. p. 469. 475.
John Neilson of Corsack, who suffered December 14> 1666. ' I pray that the Lord for Christ's sake
z
354 DEFENCE OF THE
*' may freely forgive me, as I have forgiven them'that ' have wronged me.* Ibid. p. 327.
Thes3 are the rebellious martyrs recorded in Naphtali, 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 1688, 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 })ersuade people that their insisting on the for- giveness of enemies, is any other than most odi- ous affectation J just as when the inquisition turns
niBSBYTElJIAN SPIRIT. S55
over a poor wretch to the secular arm, entreating, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, to be tender to him j the meaning of which is, tliat 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 lihind'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.
KOT AN UNCONVERSIBLE SPIRIT.
VI. He charges the Presbyterians, p. 209, with an unconversible spirit, in that they value themselves upon the suUenness of their tempers. A very great fault truly. For certainly Ciuistianity 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 anil engaging than when adorned with a good behaviour. But hov/ does Mr Ilhind prove liis charge ? 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 ilesire (as Mr ilhind suggests) of doing good, car-
z2
S56 DEFENCE OF THE
ried him into the company of the men of loose, as well as regular lives^ and 1 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 them in, than reclaim them from their loose- ness. But then, that they keep at a distance from them in their revels, study a preciseness of con- versation, 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 then what comforts them is, that the Apostle Paul was just such another puritan ; and not only warrants them in, but obhges them to such preciseness and ab- straction, commanding them, 1 Cor. v. 11. 'With ' such persons not so much as to eat.' And, 2 Thessalonians iii. 14. ' To note such persons, and • have no company with them.' Our blessed Saviour was 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 it too oftei> falls out, that they themselves are infected, and the vicious not reformed.
However, whatever unconversibleness the Presby- terians may be guilty of, I suppose Mr Rhind might have kept at home, and reserved his lecture foe High-Church i Not that they are very nice in their practice ; for, I believe, the best that can be said of them, as to that, is, that they are (if I may use our country phrase) hut like ii^eighbour and other. But,, if the Church of England divines themselves may bs believed — MrBisset,for instance — the height of their principle makes them so much enemies to the rest of mankind, that neither Presbyterians nor evens Low-Church can walk the streets in safety, but are^
PUESBYTERIAM SPIRIT.
357
every moment in danger of being jostled into the kennel by High-Church.
Tanlum religio pqtuit suadere Malorum 1
But it is not this or that man's particular testi- mony we need depend on. It is plain their prin- ciples obHge them 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 obliged in conscience to destroy them. If they are schismatics, heretics, and their spirit diametrically opposite to that of the gospel, he. 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 SPIRIT.
VII. He charges them with a disloyal, rebellious .spirit, p. 210. I hope, every man ought not to be believed a rebel who has been at any time called one. I have observed before, p. 29, that Mr Dod- .well was proclaimed a rebel by King James, yet who, for all that, believes he was such ? Perhaps the Presbyterians will be found as innocent.
Mr Ilhind founds his charge both upon their principles and practices.
First, 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 TpuhVic 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 Ilhind was to build on. And, for his purpose, he names, (for he cites nothing) Buchanan's Treatise de jure Regnif Rutherford's Le.v Rei\ Naphtali, and the Hind let Loose. * Which books,' saith he, p. 211, ' the Presbyterians have not to this day brand-
S5S 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, Kutherford, &c. Let the convocation once con- demn these, and begin with the Bishop of Sarum, Dr Higden, and MrHoadley; and then possibly the General x'^ssembly may write after their copy. It is certain the Presbyterians maintain no other principles of government, than what the Church of England has practised — no other principles than these upon which she, with the assistance of her good neighbours, preserved the Protestant religion in 1688. I am not ibr prying into the power of princes, remembering to have read somewhere, Pe- riculi plenum est de Us disputore qui possunt ampu- tare, de iis scrihere qui 2^ossunt 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. Pier 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 ihat, notwitli standing all this, they should have so long refused to pray for her, and that 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.
PRESBYTEIUJk.N SPIRIT. 359
* 'Secondly, He ciiarges us with disloyal practices. ' They were no sooner hatched,' saith he, p. 212,
* than they rebelled.' Sweet Popery ! What a charming thing art thou ; wlicn 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 ?
7 5/, PI» begins where the reformation began, viz. at Queen Mary's reign, ' whose reputation,' saith h=e, * they blackened, whose authority and govern-
* ment they resisted and reviled, whose person they ' imprisoned, and whom they obliged to fiy, in
* hopes.t^o save that liie 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 was 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 verj egg out of which they were hatched i
Q,tio teneam vultus muiantem protea nodo ?
But let us suppose the Presbyterians had then the government, — what did they ? * Why, first,' saith he, * they blackened her reputation.* For ansv/er, I ask, ha^ 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-
* See the Fundamental Charier of Presbytery, ^vith many o. ther authors,
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 expressly 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 these things ? Was Spottiswood Presbyterian ?
Nor is Spottiswood alone in the relation of them. For, not to mention other Scotch or English histo- rians, Ruggerius Tritonius, Abbot of Pignerol, who was a zealous papist, a hearty friend, t» Queen Mary, lived in the time, was secretary to Vincentius Laureus, Cardinal de Monte Regali, who 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 with the Roman Catholics there : 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 r
But, 2dlj/, saith Mr Rhind, < they resisted and * reviled her authority and government,' that is to
* Interrogati quanam de causa armati illiic accessissent, non alia, respondisse feruntur, nisi, ut atrocem injuriam a Bodueliio factum, ac crudelem et indij|nam regis necem, vimqueipsiniet, re- ginas illatam vindicarent. At regina noxam Boduelli purgare : Ni- hil non ipsa assentiente commissum. See Vila Vinceiiti Laurei S. R. E. Cardinalis Montis Eegaiis. Ruggerio Tritonio Pinaro- Ji Abbate Auctore. Impress Canonize, 4to, apud Heeredes Jolian- nis Kossji, Clj Jj IC fcjuperiorum Permissu, p. 19. 31.
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. SGI
say, they would not allow her to restore popery, nor would they commit the young Prince to the custody of Bothwell, who had murdered his father. Were not these very unpardonable faults ?
Yet farther, Sdly^ Queen Elizabeth took off* her head ; and no doubt she, and her council that ad- vised her to it, were staunch Presbyterians. So much for Queen Mary's reign.
Secondly, In King James Vl.*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 * occasioned vexations and disturbances to him j' 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, than 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, 1 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 hy the Earls of Gonry, and Robert Lo- gan of Restalrig, against King James J I. Therein (preface, p. 8.) his Lordship writes thus : —
362 DEFENCE OF THE
* As to the truth of my present subject, tlie
* malicious designers against the Royal Family in
* Scotland, did at first invent, and then foment, a ' most improbable falsehood, making it their busi- ' riess to suggest, that Gowry and his brother did
* never conspire against the King ; but that the ' King did murder them botii. This was invented
* and clandestinely propagated by Bruce, I-loUock,
* 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
* Malicious designers against 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 wx)uld 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^r.s^ place, as for Mr Rollock ; that he did neither invent nor clandestinely propagate such a story as his Lordship alleges, it is certain, by this token, that Mr Rollock was dead, and rotten too, before the conspiracy. Every one knows that Gowry's conspiracy fell out August 5th, 1600. But Mr Rollock died in the month of February 1598. Thus Clerk relates in his life: Thus Melchior Adams relates in his lives of foreisrn divines : Thus the manuscript Caldervvood, 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 Rollock.
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
PRESBYTEllIAN SPIRIT. 563
public ordinance was made, appointing that the be- ginning of the year 1600, and so on thenceforward, should be reckoned from the first of January as now. It is then no objection against what I have advanc- ed, though one find Mr Rollock writing books, or spoken of in history as living, in January or Febru- ary 1599. The different ways of computation quite remove that difficulty. And though historians differ about the day of the month on which he died, Spottis- Wood making it the last day of February, whereas all the rest whom I have seen, make it the 8th 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 propagate false stories concerning it.
^dly. His Lordship is in like mistake concerning Mr Dury. For he died, as Spottiswood also 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 Rollock and Dury, the public owes not to me, but to that worthy per- son, and my very good friend Mr Matthew Crawford, minister at Inchinan, 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, 1 found to be just-
His Lordship is not only out as to his reckoning, but is mistaken also in the characters of the men : for, they were so far from being designers against the royal family ; that as Spottiswood relates in the places above cited, they spent their last breath, Rollock, 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 I find it is usual with great men, when writing against the
364 DEFENCE OP THE
Presbyterians, to fall into the like. The famous Mo.isieur Varillas very gravely tells it as a singulari- ty * concerning jBuchanan, that, * After having de- ' clared 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 he, * is a crime which they, who are most partial in
* favour of 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- rillas or his Lordship, — aquila non capiat Muscas. To go on.
3dlij, 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 such a story, or that he made any the least noise about that matter. His lordship therefore would oblige his country, if he would vouchsafe to give his authors.
4thlij, 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, relates, ' 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 Lord- 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 ; and yet much less, to prove such a sug- gestion. But to declare, that he could not say that he was persuaded of the truth of the conspi» racy, which is all that the historians of that time
* Preface to the 5th Tom. of the Ilistoire dc L'lleiesie.
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. S65
charge him with, was, at the worst, but a w^eakness ; it not being in a man's power to beUeve a story, but according to the impression which the grounds of it, and credibihty of its circumstances, make upon his mind. And no one knows better than his lordship, that there are several circumstances in tlie story of the conspiracy, which are not so perfectly clear, but that they require time to believe them : Though indeed, 1 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 EarPs brother to be, is suffi- cient to determine the matter. For what may not mad men do? However it was, it does not appear that Mr Bruce was guilty of what his Lordship charges him with ; there being a very great odds betwixt contradicting a report, and being reverently silent about it.
5ihlj/i As for other Presbyterian ministers whom bis 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 and 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.
I. His Lordship, p. 30, 31, has advanced a piece of history in these words :— * Upon the information
S66 DEFENCE OP 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, surnamed 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 j but if he is not, certainly the Archbishop is.
U. 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 quaUfied to give judgment upon, and
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 367
a true narration of this process j 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, c^vrymg small probability.
* This man had deponed, that he knew Robert Lo-
* gan, of llestalrig, who was 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 Restalrigto 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 Vvith whom the Earl kept intelligence. It
* seemed a very fiction^ and to be a mere hweniion ' of the man's own brain j for neither did he shew ' the letter, nor could any wise man think that Gow-
* ry, \\\\o 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
S68 DEFENCE OF THE
such a person capable of? His brother's whole conduct ill the management of the conspiracy speaks him fran- tic. For, lit, That he should have shut up Henderson in the chamber,in order to perpetrate the murder, and yet not have told him before-hand that this was the de- sign. 2dli)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 his brother whether he should murder him or not. Zdly^ That he should have taken the King's promise not to open the window or cry out till he should re- turn. 4//^/?/, That when he had returned and sworn
* by Go(i 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 brotiier nun compoSy would attempt the greatest vil- lany ?
But then, both the Earl and his brother had al- ways, till that very day, passed under the character of wise, sober and virtuous gentlemen — two youths of great hope, says Spottiswood, ' at whose hands
* no man could have expected such an attempt.' Was it any wonder then, if Mr Bruce, and the other 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 Faciendum,
I 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 all that was done on either side during those troubles. The only question is, who were the first authors of them, and A\ho gave the greatest cause of them ?
PIlESJBYTlilllAN SPIlllT. 569
Was it the Scots Presbyterians ? My Lord Holies has assoilzied them. * It was proposed/ saith he,*
* that our brethren of Scotland might be called in,
* who were known to be a wise people, lovers of ' order, firm to the monarchy : Who had twice
* before gone through the misfortune of taking up ' arms, and wisely had laid them down again j still
* contenting themselves with that which was neces-
* sary for their security, avoiding extremities. Their
* wisdom and moderation, as was presumed, might
* then have deUvered us from that| precipice of mi-
* 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 interest, which is a fault never to be forgiven, in this world, or in the next, if some mens doom hold. And, on that score, any testimony he could give now, since he was Bishop of Sarum, could be of no weight. But this testimony he gave, when he was plain Gilbert Burnet, and was as thorough-paced in the principles of passive 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- ' ing the opinions of Papists ; defending the Arnii-
* nian tenets, advancing a liturgy without law j pro-
* voking the nobility, by engrossing the King's fa- ' vour ; crying down the morahty of the Sabbath,
* and profaning it by their practices ; making
* themselves insupportable to the ministry by Simo-
* naical })actions, and encroacliing upon their juris-
* dictions, by relinquishing their dioceses, and med-.
* IMemoirs, p. 1 1.
f Mcr.'.oirs of the Home of Hamilton, p 2f>, .W, d-c.
A a
310 DEFENCE OF THE
* dling in all secular affairs, and by advising the
* King to introduce innovations into the Church,
* 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 two of them for the pur})ose. The first is the Lord Falkland, in his speech before cited before the House of Commons, than which a more exact piece of eloquence, with such rigid truth, even ancient Kome herself cannot boast of. ' Mr Speaker/ saith he, ' 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 ' acknowledge, that a great, if not a principal cause^
* of 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 to the Presbyterians ; an author, who hardly ever allows himself to speak one good word of any Scotsman ; and who, even when he has the brightest charactersof 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 fiery 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 whicb
* pleased, and for just that which profited; and be- ' ing the same persons, in several rooms, grew both
* Hist. Rebell. B. i. p. 5't, 55.
rRESBYTEIlIAN SPIRIT.
211
' courts of law to determine right, and courts of re- ' venue, to bring in money to the Treasury. The
* Council Table, by proclamation, enjoining to the
* people what was not enjoined by the law, and pro-
* hibiting wliat 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 of ' quahty, 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 J 633,) it was a timeof great ease and tranquillity. The King had made liimself 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 severity and rigour towards men of all conditions, or in the sharpness of his language and expressions ; and that he entertain- ed too 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. 61, 71.
372 DEFENCE OF TUK
* nal points, when they ahhorred 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 Ehind 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 lor nothing else but a decoy, I firmly believe. It is plain that they, with Cromwell their ring-leader, were as very villains as ever trode God's earth, since the days of Judas. But that the Scots entered into it upon the most sincere and laudable designs, the said 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 as light. And therefore the
PRESCTTUrilAN SPIRIT. S73
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, * that 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 ail 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 difficulties, 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 w'ould 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-
* lemn oath, both concerning themselves and others,
374 DEFENCE OF THE
* do declare, and can assure their brethren of Eng- ' land, that they cannot find tliat either this l<in<z;- ' dom, 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 kingdoms.* These are the most public and substantial eviden- ces that possibly can be brought to document any matter of fact, and will, 1 hope, be allowed to be of somewhat more weight, than the furious decla- mations of Mr llhind, 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. ' ^
Foiirlhlify In King Charles I I.'s time. After the English had murdered tiie 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 MrL — \ey, speaking of the sectaries,* * They ' banged,* saith he, ' the Presbyterians heartily at
* Dunbar, whose word that day was Tlie Covenant^
* the best victory ever the king lost.' Yet so ob- stinate were they in their loyalty, that when the king had fied 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
* Cassandra, Numb. I. p. 60.
rRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 375
iliome ; and all this, notwithstanding they might have had their own terms from Cromwell when he was in Scotland, in case they would 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 owned and
* prosecuted the cause of God, and disclaimed his
* and his father's opposition to the work of God and
* the covenant.' Well: And was this a cause why Mr Rhind should separate from the Presbyterians ? AV^ith 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 upon the invitation of the Lords Spiritual as well as Tem- 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 mto all those false steps of government which ruined him; 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 ofthe West Kirk Act, to tell this too as a counterpart to it. Salmasius wrote I'alsein the case of King Charles I. when he wrote that the Presbyterians bound, and the Independents killed the sacrifice. Even PJilton, his adversary, though a bitter enemy ofthe Presbyterians, has ob- served, that, in saying so, he has contradicted him- self, having elsewhere wholly loaded the independ*
* Dcfensio pro populo Anglicano, cap, lO.
S76
DEFINCE or THE
ents with it. But it is plain, beyond denial, tliat in the case of King James, the Episcopalians both bound and killed the sacrifice. For, to be deposed, and after live, is something worse than death, i am fully persuaded, that what they did was abso- lutely necessary for preserving the Protestant reli- gion. But it is a very immodest 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 reimi.
It IS true that a small handful of people, enrag- ed with the most horrid oppression, made an insur- rection, first in the year 1666 at Penthmd, and after- wards, in the year 1679, at Bothwell. But first to exasperate men with cruel usage, and then to up- braid them for resenting 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 who remember it to their cost. So much for King Charles II.'s time, and as much as is necessary for King James VII. 's time. In the present, and preceding reigns, Mr Rhind himself cannot charge them vi'ith 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 character of the English Corah :
* Some future 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- copalians ? I gave a hint before of their new liturgy. Now h-ear tlieir intercession in it. ' We pray thee ' to be grncious to our prince, who, for the sins, both
rnESBTTBniAK spirit. 3*77
* 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 tliis 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- clude 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 ]\Ir 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 n/,
• Tillotion's Strin. Vol. III. p. 19.
S7S DEFENCE OF THE
* 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, lie means, that they are sometimes divided among themselves, which, indeed in the former times i)f 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- raong themselves henceforth, as they have done liitherto, to the great mortification of their adver- saries. The best of men will ditier in some things, both as to judgment and practice. But I hope we shall never diifer so far as to divide.
Non eadem sentire honos dc rebus iisdenf, Jncolnmi licidt semper Jlniicitia.
In the meantime, it is shamefully immodest in a man that pretends to have joined the Church of Enoland, to upbraid the Presbyterians with their div'isions. For, pray what has Low Clmrch and High Church been doing these score of years by-past, but damning eacli other and separating from other ? What have the upper and lower liouses of convocation been doing, but managing a civil war in the most furious manner ; the hiuer ac- cusing the former of treachery, and the former up- braiding the latter with ecclesiastical rebellion ? If Mr Ilhind knows nothing of this, I reconnnend to his perusal the books cited on the margin. *
— Tantccne aniinis ccalcstibus irce ? * Rights of an English Convocation. Reflections on that
PIIESBYTEUIAX sriiiiT. 379
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- ' tholic 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, ])ut 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. 1st, The con- *duct of the General Assembly in 1638. 2d//j, The attempts made upon the lives of Bishops. 3d/j/, The barbarous murder of that venerable old man, the Archbishop of St Andrews. 4-thljj, The rabbling of so many ministers at the revolution. And, la^tly^ 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 tlie King's Ecclesiastical Supremacy. An- swer to that appeal. The rights, liberties, and authorities of the Christian Church asserted. Ecclesiastical Synods, and Parliamen- tary Convocations in the Church of England, historically stated. Tiie principles of Mr Atterbury's book considered, lieniarks 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 misiepre- 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 nien)bers 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 Vrcmunicnic considered. Third letter to a clergyman in the
S80 DEFENCE OF THE
First, As for the conduct of the General Assem- bly, anno 163S, he compkiins, 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 Church themselves.' To which it is answered, 1st, 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. 2dlij, 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 profaning it by their practices ; if* they were guilty of Simonaical pactions, of relin- 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 justly 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 former, about the entry of the parliament writ in the Journals of the Convocation, &c. History of the Convocation, 17OO. History of the English 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 entit. 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 Schedule reviewed. The parlia- mentary original, and rights 4' the lower house of Convocation cleared. Sj/nodus Anglicana. The new danger of Presbytery. A short state of some present quei^tions 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 councils, Synods, Convocations, &c. Cum muUis aliis.
fllESliTTKUIAN SPIIllT. 381
Secondly, As to the attempts made by them up- on the Uves of Bishops. I suppose he means by this, Mitchell's wounding the 13ishop of Orkney in the arm with a pistol shot, anno 1668. Jt 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 earuesly desire that
* none may charge with it. And if any shall,
* I do with confidence aver, that they deal with ' them vnost 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 itsliould not be brought in judgment against him.
TldrcUy^ 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; Secondhjy Uj)on the weight of the argument, sup- posing Presbyterians had been the murderers. And, Thirdly^ u])on the truth of that allegeance.
As lor the first, viz. The Bishop's character. It is true he was an old man : There is no denying of it, and, therefore, the flic t was the more inexcusa- ble. Nor sliall we grudge him the style of venera- ble. In Tilidh 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 perfitly a man could be guilty of The question now is not, whether Prela- cy or Presbytery be the righter government j but
* Napthali, p. 410.
3S2- DEFENCE OF THE
whether treacliery under trust be a vice or a virtue, a crime or commendable jjractice. It Mr iSharp was under convictions that the Presbyterians were wrong, and thereupon had designed to revolt from them ; 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 I am sure it cannot be justified, so I doubt if it can be paralelled.
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, * 'rhe 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
* 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 him. 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 iiis life.' Thus far the secret histo- rian, as reported by Mr L — hy,
* Cassandra, Number II. p. 29.
PRESBYTEI5IAX SPIRIT. S83
^dly^ Supposing Presbyterians had been the mur- derers, of what weight woukl tliat allegeance be a- gainst the body of that communion, or against the Presbyterian principles ? How many ill things are done every day \\\ every nation by professed Chris- tians ; but were it just to load the whole Christian (-hurch with them, or to impute to the spirit of Christianity ? It is equally unjust to load Pres- bytery with the Bishop's murder : 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,
Sdly, Is it true that Presbyterians tvere 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 murilered) on that account, and all the live owned themselves Presbyterians. But now, let us liear 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 1 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 : lor my own
* part, I was never in this place of the country
f Ibid, ubi supra.
384 DEFIiNCIi OF THIi
' 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 < time/
Thomas Brown. * Some of you may judge our ' dying and hanging here, is upon the account of
* the bishop'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. For I
* never saw that man, whom they called the
* Bishop of St Andrew's, that I knew by another
* man.'
Thus 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.
But, can the High Church purge herself of using Bishops barbarously r AVho, then, were they that assaulted the Bishop of Worcester, broke his coach windows, pelted, abused, and put him in danger of his liie ^ Does not the forecited Mr Bisset tell us, page 8, that it was High Church. Who was it called Archbishop Grindall a perfidious prelate from the pulpit ? Is Dr Sache- verell a Presbyterian ? Who was it wrote ail the scurrilous lampoons against Bishop Burnet, viz.
* Salt for the leech.' * Sham sermon dissected.'
* Good old cause.' ' Proper defence.' ' Evil, be thou
* my good ?' Is Mr L ley Presbyterian ? Who
is it affirms, That the Spirit of Grace is conferred
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 385
in baptism, after a manner which neither Bishop Burnet, nor the autlior of tlie Dialogues between the Curate and the Countryman knows any thins^ 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.
Fourtlily, 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 hus- 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 I 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 sufficient M^*
* See Barclay's Persuasive, page 149, 15C«
B b
SS6 DEFENCE OF THE
* nifestation of the Will of God,' &c., which he de-^ dicated to the Earl of Perth, then Chancellor : Therein, page lS7j he draws the Presbyterians in all the odious characters that malice could devise, as * light and wild extravagants, the very dregs « and feculency of mankind, on the account both ' of 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. Now, when he had thus dressed them up in the skins of brutes, was it not natural that the next step should be to set the dogs at them to worry them ? Yes, that he does with a witness. He is at so much pains to smooth over all the severities of the Government against them, that he reckons hanging itself but a trifle. The worst, says he, p. VJz, * is to be flung over a ladder, or for one's ' neck to be tied to a beamj and then to have a
* sledge driven out under him.' Was there ever a clearer comment than this upon Solomon's words,
* The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel 1* "Was it any wonder that people were irritated against such furies ? As the clergy then excited the Government to those severities, so they have justified them ever since, and complained that our princes were too merciful. Thus Mr Rhind, in his sermon on loyalty, preached and printed 1711, speaking of King Charles I. — ' Others, again (saith
* he, p. 49, 50,) find fault with his too great cle- ' mency and indulgence ; and, truly, I must own
* that this was his fault : And, indeed, there is too
* murh of it in the blood of his family :' Of
such a gospel strain are the episcopal sermons !
But why are the Presbyterians alone charged with rabbhng ? Do the Episcopalians know nothing of that trade ? Did Mr Rhind never hear of Sache- verell's mobs, and ihe burning down the dissenters' meeting-houses? Did he never hear of the rabbling Mr luiiidalf at Errol, May 10, 1691 ? Did he
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 387
never hear of the rabble at Old Deer ? * Did he never hear of t!ie Episcopal treatment of Mr Chis- helm, in March 17U, sent to read the Presbytery's edict for planting the vacant church of Gair- loch ?t No Pagan history can fiu'nish such an in- stance of barbarity. But why do 1 insist on parti- culars ? Even under King William's reign, their rabblings were so frequent, that the Parliament found it needful to make a very strict act against them ; t and even notwithstanding that, they are still continued with the greatest insolence, where- ever they can hope to Iiiake any hand with them. Is it not modest, then, in the Episcopalians to ob- ject rabbling to the Presbyterians ? — In the Episco- palians, I say, who persecute while they are in, and rabble when they are out.
Lastly, As to the deposing so many of their clergy by church judicatories. Let us hear Dr Edwards, an eminent divine of the Church of England, in his sermon on the union, concerning the present esta- blished Church of Scotland. « They have,* saith he,
* wuth the patience of confessors and martyrs (and
* such a great number of them were) borne the suf-
* ferings which the High-Church men brought upon
* them, and now when they are able to retaliate,
* they study not revenge, but let the world see, they ' can forgive as well as suffer.' This testimony ig of some more weight than Mr Rhind's malicious in- sinuations. I suppose the Presbyterians will be able to defend themselves upon a condescendence on par- ticulars. In the mean time, the difference between the Episcopal and Presbyterian conduct in this is pretty remarkable. In the year 1662, three hun- dred Presbyterian ministers were turned out of their churches simply upon the account of nonconformi- ty, because they would not receive collation from the Bishop (upon a presentation from the patron), without any other fault proven or alleged against
* See the present State of Parties, page 181.
■j- See State of Parties, page 171.
X See Act 11, Session 7, Parliament King William.
388 DEFENCE OF THE
them. At the revolution there was not one man of the Episcopal clergy either deprived or deposed upon the account of his principle concerning church go- vernment. Say, good reader, which of these two ways of acting was the more Christian and account- able ? At the restoration, not one man, that I can hear of, was left in possession of any church in Scot- land, who either had not episcopal orders, or at least received collation from the Bishop. At the revolu- tion, above two hundred of the Episcopal clergy were still continued in their charges, many of which are alive, and in possession at this day, though in many places insolent to the last degree in their behaviour against the established church. So that, if those who were still kept in, those who voluntarily de- mitted, those who were deprived by the council upon the account of their disloyalty, those who were out- ed by act of Parliament, April 25th, 1690, restoring the Presbyterian ministers who were thrust from their charges since the first of .January 1.661 ; when all these, t say, are deduced, with those that com* plied, and, upon doing so, were assumed, I suppose the number of the deposed will appear very small. And if Mr Pthind can prove them to have been in- nocent, I doubt not but he will oblige them and his whole party. Let me only add, that a severe treat- ment of ministers is the thing in the world a church of England man should be most loath to upbraid others with, as knowing how easy it is to reply. Were not three hundred ministers deposed, deprived, excommunicated, imprisoned or banished in two years time after the conference at Hampton Court, 1603, simply for nonconformity to the liturgy, though otherwise they weie episcopally ordained? * Were not two thousand ministers ejected at once by the Bartholomew act I662?t Ail the Protestant Churches in Europe put together cannot, 1 suppose, furnish so many instances of" ministers deprived or deposed on any account whatsoever, as England can for simple nonconformity to prelacy and paltry ce- remonies. Though, then, the deposing or depriving * Vide Alt. Damasc. Prefat. f See Dr Calamy's Account,
PRESBYTERIAN SPIRIT. 389
of clergymen might have tempted Mr Rhine! to se- parate from the Presbyterians ; yet, had not his af- fection been much more partial, than his conscience was nice, he had never been, on that account, sway- ed to the episcopal side, which has been vastly more guilty. So much for the unneighbourly, cruel and barbarous spirit of the Presbyterians.
Thus I have gone through all the particulars of Mr Rhind's charge, wherein he essays to make the Presbyterian spirit diametrically opposite to that of the gospel. Every reader, I suppose, will easily dis- cern the difference betwixt his accusation and my defence. The accusation (though that is always an odious part) is neither qualified nor proven. The defence is made good, and the charge disproved from the very books the accuser appeals to, or by the tes- timony of the most eminent Episcopalians.
And now to come to an end, who can but pity Mr Rhind ? Who, besides the schism, heresy and super- stition he has run into, has brought himself under the crying guilt of the most wretched prqfaneness and impiety against God, and the most malicious calumny against his neighbours and benefactors. I heartily wish he may ' repent of this his wickedness, * and pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of his heart ' may be forgiven him.'
Upon the whole I conclude, that the Preshytcrian Government is of divine institution. Their Articles of Faith taught by the Scripture, and believed by the Catliolic Church. Their worship pure and per- fect in all essentials. And their sjnrit and practice at least as becoming the gospel as that of their neigh- bours.
TlIC F.Nn.
Pritireion Theological Seminarj-Spei
1 1012 01128 9842